2ch vs 5.1 for movies

Been meaning to do this little experiment for a while but only got around to it this afternoon. One or two people have said in the past that they're very happy with the 2ch downmix from their DVD player playing through their normal stereo system and don't see the need to go 5.1.

So I thought compare my pretty modest 5.1 system (see link in sig) with setting the digi output of my DVD player to PCM and sending it through the DAC64 (buffer/delay switched off obviously) for a 2ch version. Bear in mind that the front channel speakers and amps are the same in both setups. Essentially I'm cutting out the centre and rears and having the D/A conversion done by something a lot more sohpisticated than the humble Marantz so I'm giving the 2ch setup the best "advantage" it can have.

I used the first 4 chapters of "Master & Commander", which includes an intense battle scene that makes full use of surround sound effects in 5.1, for doing the comparison.

The result is that there is, as I expected, no contest. 5.1 wins hands down - it's so much better it's almost laughable. The battle scene with cannonballs and bits of shrapnel flying everywhere is just a limp and pretty boring shadow of it's true self when played in stereo. It's like trying to compare someone's voice on the 'phone to having them talking right infront of you. When the first cannoballs ripped through the ship in stereo I thought "is that it???" - it's like half the soundtrack is missing, never mind that it's only coming through 2 speakers. The 5.1 version makes you jump out of your seat (and not just the first time you see it).

Upshot: If you're happy watching DVDs in stereo then you haven't heard even a cheap as chips 5.1 setup. Second upshot (for myself): I really don't need to upgrade my AV receiver. I might give the new Arcam and Rotel a listen but I doubt they'd make a worthwhile improvement for the money they cost - especially since the Marantz only cost me £200

Michael.

 

I only listen in 2 channel to movies.
My father has a sony 5.1 system, i prefer his for monster battle scenes, mine for normal viewing.
TBH tho, im not a big movie watcher so its not that important to me. I have considered 5.1, just cant justify the cost for the amount i watch.

 

Michael,

for once we agree 2 channel downmixes, regardless of the quality of gear ( I used Dcs at the time) simply don't get near a midprice 5.1 rig for most movies these days IMO. Sadly of course, multichannel processors, regardless of price and quality, don't get near a decent two chanel rig for most music so it seems we still don't have the all in one solution we'd like

 

Tarkovsky films are rarely improved by multichannel playback IME.

More seriously, I like going to the cinema, so that's what I do when I want a cinema experience. Don't want to clutter the flat up with extra speakers and subs, it's already full of tuners as it is ;-)

-- Ian

 

Going to the cinema and watching DVDs aren't mutually exclusive. I enjoy going to the cinema but I also enjoy getting the "cinema experience" if, sometime down the road, I want to watch a film on DVD.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with watching DVDs in 2ch but there are some people on some other forums - one person in particular - who suggest that DVDs in 2ch are "almost as good" as 5.1 which is absolute rubbish.

Michael.

 

Totally agree Michael, although I really cant be bothered to set up a 5.1 rig for movies. Maybe one day.

Robbo

 

I'd say you're spot on with that assessment Michael and, knowing how good my surround sound system was I can't bring myself to watch any films now, especially as it would have to be through the TV speakers as my new hifi speakers aren't either side of the TV!

I have had reasonable results without a centre i.e. in phantom mode but you simply can't do without rear speakers for a surround sound set up - and that's pretty logical really isn't it.

As for the cinema - I get dragged there under duress ocassionally but I can't stand the places to be honest - it's mainly because there are other people there I think.

Matt.

 

Cheap as chips 5.1 setup? Something like a Sony DAVS-500 then.

I'll take my 2-channel rig over that any day.

Having said that, I have the luxury of Dolby Headphone on the PC, which does a reasonable job IMHO.

If folks are happy with stereo for movies, then whats the problem?

 

No problem Paul - save that some misguided souls are suggesting elsewhere that there is little difference between 2 channel and 5.1. This IMO is highly misleading and could lead some newbies to the wrong conclusion and reduce their enjoment of classics such as Face Off and The Fast and The Furious

 

I'm not familiar with that Sony jobbie but I reckon that for watching movies even something like that will make a DVD more enjoyable than could possibly be achieved with even the best 2ch system.

merlin - TFATF a classic?? Still, I have it on DVD :shame: but only because I'm a petrolhead.

Michael.

 

Micheal
Listen to the Sony, you may just change your mind

 

Penance is right, the DAVS-500 is (IMO at least) dreadful. However, its fairly representative of a budget surround system. If we are talking full sized speakers, then yeah I'd reckon even modest ones probably are better than good 2-channel systems.

LOL Merlin

 

Is the issue the extra channels or the mix from 5.1 to stereo?

(And is the correct terminology for michaelab's current setup '5.0'? Does that compromise anything?)

At the moment I think an enormous screen is more important than extra channels of sound and I don't see any point in a centre channel unless you're seating a lot of people. I guess the surrounds could be very discreet.

Paul

 

a half decent av reciever can be had for about 120 quid from richers a center and some rears for 20 quid and up from the same source - so 140 quid for something half decent. that's less than some (most?) here spend on interconnects. double it and you can get something really quite good. the only excuse in my book is a bolshy s.o. or just excessive stick in the mudness.
cheers


julian

 

Ding Ding
We have a winner

Spot on Paul, IMO

 

Another vote for 5.1 for movies.

My old Yamaha E492 processor went pop last year and I was forced to watch DVD in stereo for a few months . When I finally bought a Denon AV receiver, the improvement was simply "jaw dropping" as ceratin **** users say . My surround speakers are nothing special but to see (hear) the car chase in Ronin with all the speakers running is very gratifying.

 

It's quite possible that part of the problem is the way in which a typical DVD player will do the 5.1 to 2.0 downmix - but without rear channels you're never going to get surround sound however hard you try.

Why would that be? I have a subwoofer, which is what the .1 is for.

As MattF has mentioned, a "phantom" centre can work quite well but I tried it out a few times and felt that having a centre channel sounded a lot better than not having one, even seated in the sweet spot. This could, again, be the fault of the system (in this case in the AV receiver) that's creating the phantom centre by sending the signals to the fronts. Without a centre dialogue just seemed a lot less focused and often harder to hear clearly. Apparently as much as 80% of a film's soundtrack comes out of the centre channel - so it is important.

Also, without a centre speaker, if you're seated even slightly off-centre it makes a huge difference. So much so that I'd consider upgrading my centre speaker before upgrading my AV amp.

Michael.

 

What about those of us who don't watch movies?

 

Another vote for 5.1 , even for the news. On advice from you lot I recently bought the Acoustic Energy AEGO P5 Mk II (although I'm trying to get my Dad to buy the Sony DAVS550 which seems a bargain). Mainly listening/watching opera & concerts but films & tv as well. It was suggested that one needs a centre channel and certainly in my experience with stereo broadcasts & concerts & all video tape imaging & separation when the centre is applied rather than just left/right channels. Adding a DPL2 processor into the mix works wonders.

 

I got to say , I prefer to listen to my movies through the stereo .(especially ones with good soundtracks)
It doesn,t happen though , as I said over Hfc , it,s the girlfriends domain and she prefers 5.1 .
I don,t feel strongly about it , so I watch in 5.1.
On the big bangs though , my hifi far surpasses the sony package (about £450 at the time I bought it) that I have .
And yes stereo can chuck some effects behind me (does this with some cds as well)but it doesn,t compare to 5.1 in that respect.