# Home Cinema Sound Systems



## Phyrebrat (Aug 1, 2015)

Afternoon,

I went to pick up a surround sound system today - I figured I would go into PC world and see what they had and then come home and get it ordered online cheaper. 

However, I'm now confused. They had the 5.1 stuff with multiple speakers and the bass, but the majority of what was now being sold were long slim panels about five feet long, some of which were arched.

I want to be able to enjoy the features of my PS3 and PS4 games in surround, and also use a bluetooth connection so I can play music from my iPod, and when I use Apple TV send the signal through the cinema kit.

I'm not a technophobe but I'm a bit worried about outlaying £250+ for something that is faddish or soon to be obsolete. 

Does anyone here have experience of this new system? Is it better? The same? It seems simpler and I like the fact it has less cables etc but wanted to get a feel of what you guys think first.

pH


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 1, 2015)

Mistake #1 PC World



Phyrebrat said:


> majority of what was now being sold were long slim panels


Evil "*sound bars*"

2nd problem is that almost ALL the commonly available Home Theatre  or Surround systems or TV sound bars have 1995 era desktop PC speaker units essentially, far too small loudspeakers in stupidly useless plastic cabinets. The only reason ANY *Sound Bars* are an improvement is because almost no flat LCD TV  is much better than a phone and LED backlit ones worse than 1964 Hong Kong Pocket radio. Same is true of the tiny plastic speakers.

You don't need a 6th bass channel (the 0.1) really if the four corner channels and front centre speaker have decent bass response. My rear speakers are newish, but all five speakers are 1970s sized MDF or chip board with veneer or covering. The centre speaker is behind the five channel amp.  On DVD (almost no broadcasts are true 5.1) I have it set to 5 channel.

short answer: £250+ for junk that costs about £15.

I use a 3.5mm jack to stereo phono cable for Audio from phone to play MP3s. Bluetooth adds extra distortion.

Use cables for audio.


----------



## J Riff (Aug 1, 2015)

It's true. I have found a couple of modern, big sound systems and got them going. Feh. Audio tech has probably not improved much since WW2.
We used to look for Fanon-Masco and Dynaco tube amps and they still sound great today. Personally I have no interest in the sub-bass stuff, it's unnatural.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 1, 2015)

J Riff said:


> sub-bass stuff, it's unnatural.


the ".1" of 5.1 6.1 or 7.1 is a low frequency, limited bandwidth effects channel invented for cinema, especially ones with lots of directional speakers with nearly no bass response. Add a few 15" drivers and the +1 effect track ... if you have decent amp and speakers then mixing to centre channel is fine.

Binaural, if you have headphones, delivers surround sound in 2 channels. Only four channels are needed for full 3D sound with a speaker in every corner (8) and on every wall (4) and ceiling + floor (2) = 14 speakers total.
No natural recording uses 5.1 etc. It's artificial effects for cinema.

You can easily get transistor amps (not in PC World/Currys) better than most valve amps. HiFi magazines are full of unsubstantiated hyped fake  snake oil since 1980s.

The limiting factor is usually decent loudspeakers and suitable room acoustics.

HiFi and especially Stereo was invented by Blumlien in 1930s in EMI and others in RCA at same era.


----------



## chrispenycate (Aug 1, 2015)

You *don't* want to start me on this. Yes, the L-C-R speakers should be full range – the sound bars and matchbox-sized speakers are largely for WAF (wife acceptance factor), as explaining that despite only owning two ears you now need six loudspeakers, taking up space that could be more profitably used for sideboards. And yes, I prefer the surround speakers to be as close to identical to the front as possible, so I can mix sound effects or even dialogue that move from behind to in front without changing character. 

And yes, power amps are generally good nowadays, and not expensive, but surround decoders and six-channel controllers are ridiculously expensive unless they are part of a 'deal' - with generally useless loudspeakers. If you've got a surround sound card, it's easy enough to add power amps or amplified cabinets - but generally the picture quality isn't quite what you might get from a dedicated player, but if you're going for games, I can't see this being a problem.

I could add acoustic details, why a centre speaker sounds so much better than a phantom centre (equal signals to left and right), why I mix LFE (low frequency enhancement, the .1)channel, and it is a real advantage, rather than using the subwoofer to correct the inferior low frequency performance of the main loudspeakers, but I could bore anyone to chewing his leg off to escape… better to stop here.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 1, 2015)

chrispenycate said:


> but I could bore anyone to chewing his leg off to escape… better to stop here


Did you go to BBC Wood Norton too?
+1 on all above.
I'd like a standalone decoder with RCA & optical digital in, 6 channel analogue in, multiple stereo in and multiple HDMI passthrough. Then drive my decent dumb amps and speakers with it.


----------



## Dave (Aug 1, 2015)

I remember going to a talk about Hi-fidelity in the late 1970's while I was still at school. Everyone there was discussing valve amplifiers and record turntables and the design of speakers. Most wore the same kind of anoraks and lank hair that science fiction fans were meant to wear.

Within a year, everyone was carrying a Walkman and _Tomorrow's World _had shown us the CD (which you could apparently jump on and cover with mud and it still worked!) Once personal stereos were introduced, I never heard anyone talk about analogue reproduction and high-end turntable arms again. I often wondered where they had all gone to...


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 1, 2015)

Dave said:


> I never heard anyone talk about analogue reproduction and high-end turntable arms again.


Some people never stopped.  (a bit boring, I gave away my Lenco turntable in 1990, I have a Dual 55 in the attic I never use.)

You can still buy them. The best ones, for transcription when the masters are lost, use linear tracking and lasers. The disc is specially cleaned first. The first systems needed the disc to be mirrored. The current systems find the normal material reflective enough.
The highest spec systems for old wax or moulded cylinders, early home recorded aluminium foil etc take 3D images  of the surface and process that with computer program to recover the sound.

There are still vinyl fans. A problem with current music, even re-releases is that it's over processed so CDs are not as good quality as they were.  Still better than MP3 or vinyl. DAB content sounds bad simply because 128K stereo is too low a bitrate. It would be near CD or FM (Fully quietened) quality if 256K. FM also is poorer than 1950s to 1980s due to evil settings on Optimod processors "the loudness wars".

I have a 1935 working radio gram in the living room. You can still buy the steel needles, each was good for one side. I demo it (with a brand new needle) with a 78 and on radio on BBC R4 and RTE R1 on LW, or if after dark the UK & French MW stations. Only very occasionally. By 1930s you could get sapphire stylus autochangers that played both sides in the USA.


----------



## chrispenycate (Aug 1, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Did you go to BBC Wood Norton too?


I have never been officially employed by Aunty BEEB. I may occasionally have visited the vale of Evesham, and the training centre, with Pete Harris - was he teaching when you were there?





> +1 on all above.
> I'd like a standalone decoder with RCA & optical digital in, 6 channel analogue in, multiple stereo in and multiple HDMI passthrough. Then drive my decent dumb amps and speakers with it.


Lexicon will sell you one - for a price. A receiver with exactly the same chips in and power amps as well, and probably plastic speakers thrown in will come considerably cheaper. No explanation, and I assume the analogue circuitry's better in the Lexicon. But listening to decent 5.1 is very impressive.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 1, 2015)

chrispenycate said:


> Pete Harris - was he teaching when you were there?


No idea, another lifetime ago.

I might get a pansonic with an FM tuner and then I have three pairs of laptop /phone/tablet speakers to give away to the unsuspecting.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 2, 2015)

Phyrebrat said:


> I'm not a technophobe but I'm a bit worried about outlaying £250+ for something that is faddish or soon to be obsolete.



It's so easy to get lost in the technicalities, so I completely sympathise with you!

The last two home cinema systems I bought (£200-300 range) had a bass kick for explosions in film, but were otherwise poor at music playback. If buying again at the same range, I'd probably look for a decent but older (and therefore cheaper) amp with quality budget speakers. I'm not sure what wireless options are available, but there are usually bargains to be had if you shop around.

Anyway, I would always begin here for my research:
http://www.whathifi.com/


----------



## Phyrebrat (Aug 2, 2015)

Thanks everyone,

I will salvage my amp and monitors from my recording studio then, and try to pick up a module or something that can accept Bluetooth to play music.

pH


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 2, 2015)

Just use a cable in the Earphone socket, better quality than Bluetooth. If the amp is a high impedance, try 2 x 1K Ohm resistors, or for less bass, 2 x 22 Ohm resistors for L & R.
Ebay has cheap bare PCB BT modules.  Not tried one. Not sure if they are to feed a BT headset or to mimic a BT headset. Cheap enough to buy and try. There are also different BT modes. A talk & listen earpiece mode is different to Stereo playback mode. Most BT accessories only do one or the other.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Aug 2, 2015)

Thanks Ray, I need the Bluetooth option though.

pH


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 2, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Ebay has cheap bare PCB BT modules


try one. If it works I might swap my 3.5mm jack cable. Loads of Chinese /HK etc sellers. These things all use same chip(s) and practically the only analogue bit is the output capacitors. The ones for car handsfree usually only mono and more expensive as they have microphone input and a 2nd Class D amp for speaker. The ones you want ought to be single IC. The aerial is about 1.5" / 3cm of PCB track.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 2, 2015)

Phyrebrat said:


> Thanks Ray, I need the Bluetooth option though.



I'd love to know what's available - I could really do being able to put a dongle into my amp to allow AirPlay for music from phones/tablets.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Aug 2, 2015)

Yes, when I'm choreographing, I like to have my iPod or iPhone in my pocket so I don't have to run back and forth to the amp.

pH


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 2, 2015)

You can also use a mini FM TX module (CE Approved using 2 x AAA cells). These come in 2x Apple proprietary types or at 1/5th price and same quality, 3.5mm stereo jack. Tune in on VHF Stereo. Often higher quality than WiFi or Bluetooth as no digital re-encoding is needed. ALL digital playback other than NATIVE Firewire, HDMI, optical/RCA TOSlink involves lossy digital re-encoding.

I use FM TX modules (€2! *) with the ext 5V off the Satellite Receivers to feed FM radio inc pocket model with earbuds. But the bare Bluetooh Stereo Receiver modules should be under £10. Just add disused 5V charger and stereo phono cable to your amp.

(*same electronics as some at £20. there are only 2 chip types, same quality, one uses slide switch and about 6 channels. The other uses I2C serial bus so has a cpu with a little LCD and up down buttons to set ANY VHF channel, about €8 locally)


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 12, 2015)

Phyrebrat said:


> Yes, when I'm choreographing, I like to have my iPod or iPhone in my pocket so I don't have to run back and forth to the amp.
> 
> pH



I've been looking at these for myself:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00O0U37HO/?tag=brite-21
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00JKD09B8/?tag=brite-21
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00O1RT9QY/?tag=brite-21

Looks like they should run fine with AirPlay on the iPod or iPhone.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 12, 2015)

All WiFi I'm afraid. So no QOS and interference with existing WiFi. Modern WiFi has only 1 to 3 channels available due to speed.
A €6 FM transmitter meant to connect your phone to Car Radio to HiFi FM tuner is far better quality and simpler. (I have 3 running 24 x7)
I will get a Stereo Bluetooth gadget and try it. Cheaper than the WiFi.
DLNA is horrid system


----------



## WaylanderToo (Oct 8, 2015)

I have to admit that I'm more than happy with my home cinema speakers (a set of KEF 3005s) as they seem to be good quality (construction) very wife friendly and above all decent sound (though I have been accused of having cloth ears!) within (what I perceive) to be the limitations of the Denon amp. I also have occasional use Wharfdale Diamond 9.1s seem to be more than adequate (to be fair that may be due to the limitations of the late '80s/early '90s Technics music centre I'm using).

That being said I'm now having to start look looking for a reasonable sound-bar for the second TV and I suspect that this is going to drive to nuts!! 




Ray McCarthy said:


> There are still vinyl fans. A problem with current music, even re-releases is that it's over processed so CDs are not as good quality as they were.  Still better than MP3 or vinyl. DAB content sounds bad simply because 128K stereo is too low a bitrate. It would be near CD or FM (Fully quietened) quality if 256K. FM also is poorer than 1950s to 1980s due to evil settings on Optimod processors "the loudness wars".




yes (going O/T) - my local 'record shop' (should that now be called cd shop or music store?) sells new vinyl , it's not cheap but it is also a world away from the stuff I used to buy 'back in the day'. Interestingly I loved cd's when they first came out as there was no snap/crackle/pop but now I kinda miss it (in small doses!!). I have inherited about 60 albums of soft and prog rock and added another 10 or so from e-bay (though unfortunately one of them was just too crackly ) and it's a guilty pleasure of mine 




J Riff said:


> It's true. I have found a couple of modern, big sound systems and got them going. Feh. Audio tech has probably not improved much since WW2.



really? I'd have thought that speakers changing from paper and cardboard to rubberised whatever, kevlar and other plastics and sythetic materials is a massive step forward (not being facetious I  genuinely don't know)?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 8, 2015)

WaylanderToo said:


> I'd have thought that speakers changing from paper and cardboard to rubberised whatever, kevlar and other plastics and sythetic materials is a massive step forward (not being facetious I genuinely don't know)?


No. Little advance since 1950s.
The size and material of cabinet is more important. 
The rubberised surround at edge of cone allow more maximum movement and help bass a little. They also can disintegrate. Some special papers are pretty good.


----------



## chrispenycate (Oct 8, 2015)

Since the thirties, actually. Computer simulation of cabinets, ribbon tweeters… most if what has changed is improved adhesives, and smaller size (meaning lower efficiency, but power amps have got cheaper, and far more powerful. And magnet assemblies are lighter. 

Oh, electronic crossovers and multi-amping have improved phase consistancy, but that's not the drivers that are different.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 9, 2015)

I have one 1928, one 1929, a few 1930s (1934 Field coil speakers), some later 1930s PM speakers, a 1939, a few 1946, many 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and later.  Prior to 1950s there were some HiFi. Diamond stylus, good recordings and  pressings and HiFi was available from 1930s. AM used wider bandwidth and more quality. FM started in late 1930s in USA and changed Band in 1945. Started in Germany 1949, UK 1955 and Ireland 1962. Now mostly over processed but still better than DAB, though poorer than 1950s! DAB is too compressed to save money (fit x2 stations instead of more Muxes). ANY Digital Radio, though unlike Digital TV) has inherent problems compared to AM/FM even if you use a high enough bit rate to remove artefacts.

1960s added cross over networks, tweeters and then triple driver (Late 1950s in Germany). Extending response created problems with areas of overlap, by 1980s good designs had solved this. By 1990s many typical stereo systems sold had a plastic box, a thumpy bass port, a ceramic disc as tweeter and a 4" driver. Since 1990s you hardly find decent speakers in the "high street" and decent speakers are now expensive mail order. Many are "snake oil", as is much HiFi lore increasingly since early 1980s.
MDF is actually better than solid wood unless you are making a musical instrument as MDF is acoustically neutral. Real timber vibrates and resonates. Chipboard can be good too.
Box volume and LF driver aperture  sets lower bass cut off. Hence why 1922 to 1932 horns were huge and horns now only used for treble. Treble/Tweeter needs multiple horns for dispersion in an ordinary size room, a big hall for P.A. can use a single horn per speaker.

Bass ported and reflex designs can have horrible resonances. So have ceramic tweeters. My own designed cabinets use moving coil tweeters, 6" mid range and ex-organ 10" bass drivers. It's a passive crossover, but properly designed for the drivers/cabinet combination. Not perfect but a 1/10th of cost of anything similar I could buy, which might or might not be any use.  I use a couple of commercial MDF + veneer speakers for rear.

I think ALL the sound bars are junk.Only an improvement because skinny TVs have totally useless built in speakers barely better than a laptop.


----------

