I have decided I don't need surround sound, ever

[Flint]

I am in the process of designing my new main speakers to build sometime in the future. These will be an updated sky-is-the-limit approach similar to what I did with my prior custom speakers using even better drivers using tech released to the market in recent months. That said, the cost just for a driver will be very high and when considering making matching surround channel speakers I am doubtful of the value. In fact, I experienced a proper re-evaluation of my desire to even have surround sound in my house at all.

When I did a detailed analysis of how I enjoy music and movies I realized several things:

• I really enjoy a good TV show, movie, or sporting event regardless of the presence of surround sound, no matter how good it is.
• Every TV show or movie which has truly and deeply blown me away in terms of the surround sound performance was a movie of which I did not enjoy the plot, story-telling, acting, or content.
• I am assuming that the only time I care about the surround sound is if the movie or TV show isn't interesting on its own and every movie or TV show which I love is loveable regardless of the surround sound.
  
• I have never heard any surround music recordings I find more engaging (e.i. getting completely lost in the music and forget who I am, where I am, and any of the details of my current situation or sound system) than a very well produced stereo-only recording.
• Every music recording which causes me get lost in the performance or recording has been stereo.
• I never choose to listen to the surround versions of any music only content even though I own dozens of top rated surround discs made of my favorite music and artists.
• The cost, complexity, and compromises I have to deal with to get a quality surround experience worthy of my stereo system requirements is fairly massive for something I don't really love beyond all belief and consider 100% necessary.
• There are changes I can make to my extremely custom dedicated listening room to get better stereo performance which cannot be done if I want decent surround sound performance.
• I have become extremely enamored with smaller simpler audio/video systems and if I abandon surround sound in my next system I can cut the source and processing requirements to just three components: 1) Preamp/Processor (still need to down convert and mix surround channels to stereo and some level of bass management for those surround soundtracks), 2) BlurRay player, and 3) Fire TV or other streaming box (potentially I'll need to plug in an Amazon Echo device).
• Without budgeting for surround speakers, I can increase my budget for the main stereo speakers considerably and take the extreme approach as far as I want.

So, as I think about the design of these new speakers, the points above are standing out to me. I can always add surround sound sometime in the future, but I would love to go all out on a stereo solution with a TV and be done with it where I can really enjoy music as much as I want. I got into this hobby for the music, not for soundtracks while I watch movies.

 

[Flint]

This is where you guys laugh at me and lecture me on how stupid this idea is.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

My system has been stereo-only for a few years. Surround adds essentially nothing which is of value for me, either movies or music. Stereo speakers can image far better than a surround system in its presentation of frontal depth cues, and a center speaker spoils imaging too.

For the downmix for multi-channel sources, I'd recommend you design and build a simple analog mixing circuit from scratch. The downmixing in my system is done within my OPPO blu-ray player for multi-channel discs.

 

[Flint]

I was seriously considering getting a TV I could use as a video source switch and use it to down-mix surround from video sources to stereo. I do that in my family room system today, and it works great. Then I could use a standard stereo analog preamp instead of a preamp/processor. I could still run the analog outs from the BluRay player to the preamp for stereo CDs and add a turntable should I get nerdy.

 

[hawk52]

Have not had surround for the 3 years I've been in my current home. When I had the TV mounted and porch speakers wired, there really was no solution for my current speakers (Boston Micro). I would have had to get in ceiling. With 9 ft. ceilings, The sound would not have been worth the expense for speakers and install. Got to say I don't miss it. Music has always been stereo only. For the amount of TV I watch and what I watch, I'm good.

 

[Akula]

This is where you guys laugh at me and lecture me on how stupid this idea is.

Nah, I agree.

Our great room system is 3.1- L/C/R and a sub. I don't miss the surrounds. Down in the theater, it's a traditional 5.1, but with the exception of playing video games, that surround channel adds nothing to the experience. If anything, for things like sports, it's a detraction. The sound mix from the studio keeps the surrounds cranked, so sometimes the ambient noise they like to pump through the rear channels masks the actual commentary or important game sounds from the front channels. Then there's the whole thing about commercials, where DD 5.1 encoded channels tend to let the commercial makers REALLY crank the surrounds leading to your ears getting blown out from the damned commercials. Compare that to the exceedingly rare times when surround actually puts you in a more immersive environment, and they are usually more of a pain in the butt than they are anything else.

Honestly, if I were building a new system (even in the theater room), I might do 3.1, but I'd probably just go 2.1 and be done with it.

 

[TKoP]

Don't you know, more is always better. Always.

 

[Lone Stranger]

I have an old 5.1 system in my basement that I haven't used in quite a while. Several years ago I disconnected the rear speakers for reasons I don't remember and since then I have never missed them. I was more interested in good quality main speakers and a sub than surround. As long as I had stereo, it was good enough for me. I'd rather spend a bit extra on better main speakers than on crappier 5.1 satellites.

 

[Deleted member 133]

I'm happy for you Flint.

I like listening to my 2.0 system in the living room.

I like listening to my 2.0 (with sub) system in the living room.

I like listening to my 5.1 family room HT*.

I like listening to the 2.0 (with sub) system in my main HT.

I like listening to the 7.1 system in my main HT.

Then there are 2.0 systems in the back yard, front porch, and garage (with sub) that I like listening to.

However I prefer multichannel (native) over multichannel (processor created) over stereo over mono.

Jeff

*Today I swapped the Realistic Minimus-7 speakers that were being used in the surround positions for those Energy Veritas Reference V-Mini speakers that I mentioned previously. I let the Pioneer receiver do it's magic in automatically recalibrating all the channels and then spent a wonderful hour sampling a variety of 5.1 SACD music. On tracks where the surrounds really come into play (like the extended version of Henry Manicini's Pink Panther Theme off Ultimate Mancini (2004)) the difference is very noticeable. I'm really glad I'm using them - rather than going for the flip.

 

[Flint]

I'm happy for you Flint.

I like listening to my 2.0 system in the living room.

I like listening to my 2.0 (with sub) system in the living room.

I like listening to my 5.1 family room HT*.

I like listening to the 2.0 (with sub) system in my main HT.

I like listening to the 7.1 system in my main HT.

Then there are 2.0 systems in the back yard, front porch, and garage (with sub) that I like listening to.

However I prefer multichannel (native) over multichannel (processor created) over stereo over mono.

Jeff

*Today I swapped the Realistic Minimus-7 speakers that were being used in the surround positions for those Energy Veritas Reference V-Mini speakers that I mentioned previously. I let the Pioneer receiver do it's magic in automatically recalibrating all the channels and then spent a wonderful hour sampling a variety of 5.1 SACD music. On tracks where the surrounds really come into play (like the extended version of Henry Manicini's Pink Panther Theme off Ultimate Mancini (2004)) the difference is very noticeable. I'm really glad I'm using them - rather than going for the flip.

Do you like it in a box?

Do you like it with a fox?

 

[PaulyT]

I hear ya. The only surround album I've ever felt added something to the original stereo (original being what I had at the time anyway) is Queen's Night at the Opera. I like surround in concert videos because I think it adds a sense of "being there" with the sounds of the audience around you, but I can't say it really adds to the primary musical experience.

But I'm happy with my surrounds (a 5.1 system) because I have decent-ish speakers and I don't plan to upgrade anytime ever. I admit that I just haven't spent that much time in my HT doing critical listening, and after hearing a certain HT recently I realize that my room is so utterly inadequate that there's no point in me doing any more with it.

Sorry, not trying to make this about me. Just saying, I get where you are with this and a no-holds-barred stereo system sounds like a great idea.

 

[Akula]

But I'm happy with my surrounds (a 5.1 system) because I have decent-ish speakers and I don't plan to upgrade anytime ever. I admit that I just haven't spent that much time in my HT doing critical listening, and after hearing a certain HT recently I realize that my room is so utterly inadequate that there's no point in me doing any more with it.

I'm right there with you in that. I thought about upgrades, but honestly, it would cost a fair amount (several thousand bucks) to get anything qualitatively better than I have, even if I stuck with a 2.1 system in there. If I were of a mind to drop that, I'd go on the electronics end with a large OLED screen and a new receiver that can handle 4K resolutions. But for now, I'm cool. I'm happy with how stuff sounds in there and everything works.

 

[heeman]

After a kick ass 2.1 demo and 5.1 demo weekend, I would stick with what I have. Especially after Oblivion and It!

However, if I was starting from scratch I would have a hard time deciding.

 

[CMonster]

I was skeptical at first but have no regrets about adding Atmos capability to my HT.

 

[Xgm3]

I am in the process of designing my new main speakers to build sometime in the future. These will be an updated sky-is-the-limit approach similar to what I did with my prior custom speakers using even better drivers using tech released to the market in recent months. That said, the cost just for a driver will be very high and when considering making matching surround channel speakers I am doubtful of the value. In fact, I experienced a proper re-evaluation of my desire to even have surround sound in my house at all.

When I did a detailed analysis of how I enjoy music and movies I realized several things:

• I really enjoy a good TV show, movie, or sporting event regardless of the presence of surround sound, no matter how good it is.
• Every TV show or movie which has truly and deeply blown me away in terms of the surround sound performance was a movie of which I did not enjoy the plot, story-telling, acting, or content.
• I am assuming that the only time I care about the surround sound is if the movie or TV show isn't interesting on its own and every movie or TV show which I love is loveable regardless of the surround sound.
  
• I have never heard any surround music recordings I find more engaging (e.i. getting completely lost in the music and forget who I am, where I am, and any of the details of my current situation or sound system) than a very well produced stereo-only recording.
• Every music recording which causes me get lost in the performance or recording has been stereo.
• I never choose to listen to the surround versions of any music only content even though I own dozens of top rated surround discs made of my favorite music and artists.
• The cost, complexity, and compromises I have to deal with to get a quality surround experience worthy of my stereo system requirements is fairly massive for something I don't really love beyond all belief and consider 100% necessary.
• There are changes I can make to my extremely custom dedicated listening room to get better stereo performance which cannot be done if I want decent surround sound performance.
• I have become extremely enamored with smaller simpler audio/video systems and if I abandon surround sound in my next system I can cut the source and processing requirements to just three components: 1) Preamp/Processor (still need to down convert and mix surround channels to stereo and some level of bass management for those surround soundtracks), 2) BlurRay player, and 3) Fire TV or other streaming box (potentially I'll need to plug in an Amazon Echo device).
• Without budgeting for surround speakers, I can increase my budget for the main stereo speakers considerably and take the extreme approach as far as I want.

So, as I think about the design of these new speakers, the points above are standing out to me. I can always add surround sound sometime in the future, but I would love to go all out on a stereo solution with a TV and be done with it where I can really enjoy music as much as I want. I got into this hobby for the music, not for soundtracks while I watch movies.

I think it's awesome what you're doing.

 

[Randy]

After a kick ass 2.1 demo and 5.1 demo weekend, I would stick with what I have. Especially after Oblivion and It!

However, if I was starting from scratch I would have a hard time deciding.

I think my next system, if there is one may be different. If I could swing a dedicated room that would be one thing, but like many I fear I am doomed to the compromises that putting a HT/ surround system in a living space force you into.

And, for that reason I have been considering going to in walls or on walls for HT/surround duty and maybe have a nice 2 channel system in another room.

 

[Dentman]

Glad to see your coming around to my way of thinking. I have rear chanels only because I had them. It's nice to use them on occasion. I have no center channel.

 

[Flint]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that every movie I truly love and watch over and over didn't leave any impression on my concerning their surround sound or soundtrack. The movies which stick in my head for their amazing soundtracks and use of surrounds are, well, toss-out flicks I'd probably never want to see again if not for the whiz-bang flashy audio. I lost interest in gimmicky sound decades ago.

 

[Dentman]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that every movie I truly love and watch over and over didn't leave any impression on my concerning their surround sound or soundtrack. The movies which stick in my head for their amazing soundtracks and use of surrounds are, well, toss-out flicks I'd probably never want to see again if not for the whiz-bang flashy audio. I lost interest in gimmicky sound decades ago.

I agree. For me, I might think differently if I liked comic book movies, seems that's all Hollywood can make these days. I'm not a big fan of action movies in general.
15 or 20 years ago when they made large epic films I would feel surround sound was much more important.
Glad to hear your planning on making a move with those impressive drivers.

 

[Flint]

I agree. For me, I might think differently if I liked comic book movies, seems that's all Hollywood can make these days. I'm not a big fan of action movies in general.
15 or 20 years ago when they made large epic films I would feel surround sound was much more important.
Glad to hear your planning on making a move with those impressive drivers.

Yeah, I just called the distributor and ordered them. Any day now.