Thread: Audio + Visual is Better than Just Audio

my preamp has a theater bypass so i run the theater system through it to use the main speakers within the multi-channel system. if you put in a concert blu ray (roger waters the wall is a great example) its quite an experience. you get the great sound of your main speakers with the addition of video and surround. best of both worlds...

Originally Posted by nicoff

Many folks who are into 2-channel high-end audio tend to discount the possibility that a well set up “Home Theater” can bring a better and more engaging experience than the two-channel set up. Yet, in my experience, if done properly, we can achieve that.

This has been known for about 70 years. Just the audio part alone and yes, video, especially say concert footage, certainly enhances that further.
Reminds me of seasoned Stereophiles hearing a real MCH audio system for the first time and nearly pooping themselves. Luddites will have none of it. And of course, many folks have never been to an actual concert hall, much less want a semblance of recreation aka "the real thing". As they say, different strokes for different folks. Plenty enough music out there that sounds fine in stereo, just not all of it.
Btw, I heard that Roger Waters (mentioned above) on Edwards system yesterday, most impressive.

cheers,
AJ

When we moved from Minnesota to Colorado I consolidated separate 2 channel and HT systems into one. Everything got better, I lost nothing in the 2 channel world and gained better HT audio in the bargain. The stereo and HT systems are functionally separate so even the AC power is off to all the HT equipment when listening to 2 channel. And I got a solid 5.1 system for surround. Win-win.

Originally Posted by nicoff

Many folks who are into 2-channel high-end audio tend to discount the possibility that a well set up “Home Theater” can bring a better and more engaging experience than the two-channel set up. Yet, in my experience, if done properly, we can achieve that.

First, a little history. Home Theaters as we know them today started becoming popular in the 1990s with the arrival of DVD technology. The screen sizes of the TVs available at that time were too small. That meant that if you wanted a “Home Theater”, you had to get a projector and a screen. Since most audio rooms were not designed to accommodate large screens and projectors with low lumen output, many folks converted basements or empty rooms into Home Theaters. Those folks ended up with a very nice two-channel system in one room and a “Home Theater” in another windowless, audio-compromised room. Not surprisingly, folks found that their two-channel system (with better speakers and better room) sounded better than their multichannel system with multiple lesser speakers in a sub-par room.

Such compromises are easily avoidable today. One can now buy large screen TVs that can be installed in just about any audio room. That allows the user the chance to use the same room and speakers for their two-channel system and for their Home Theater.

In my experience, no audio-only system can recreate the emotional impact of a well-produced music video of the same performance. Video adds an extra quality that no audio-only (even if high-definition audio) can provide. I would think that any Opera lover would much rather watch Don Giovanni with CD-Quality audio than just listen to the same performance in 512DSD without video.

Maybe it is as simple as two senses (audio and visual) are better than one (audio alone).

There really ought not be any reason for significant compromises unless one has a tendency to overly complicate matters. Then again, high-end audio has a tendency to overly complicate things.

Surround sound was a thing before the DVD. Pro Logic, still VHS and Top Gun is what began getting folks into the showroom. I remember when stereo VCR's came out, that's really what began merging home audio & video. Of course, we can't discount MTV, at the time.

I have had some decent processors over time, Primare, Arcam before my current marantz. As good as surround can be I still prefer 2-channel. It's been my observation that people tend to pay attention to one or the other, audio or the visual. I still find myself more engaged with the 2-channel set up.

I do not listen to music in surround but do enjoy a good movie sound track.

There is a guy who has a company who produces multichannel music on Blu-ray. He had a demo at the audio show and I regret making one of them. I may be wrong but these were audio only to my knowledge.

For those who do enjoy the music A/V Blackmor's Night DVD, Castles & Dreams should be in your collection. Seeing Richie play the ancient stringed instruments is something. If memory serves the performance is in an old German castle.

I've had HT setups in the past. We're not interested in that now.

Our 2-channel hi fi is in the 'living room' part of the large kitchen/living room "great room." We have no tv in that part of the home. We have a separate tv room (2021 Sony 70"), but we honestly aren't interested in the HT experience. The Sonos sound bar is "good enough" for us.

No one setup suits all!

Originally Posted by music66

The last thing I want to see in my listening room is a TV. Surround sound for movies is in another room.

I have two stereos. One is purely music while the other has a 75” Sony if needed.

I also have a one-purpose room, and over the years have experimented with merged HT and 2-channel. We're not huge movie buffs, watch only a handful of series pretty religiously. I try to limit how much time I spend watching series or movies, so my expectations are probably different/lower than some who enjoy that world more.

I've long had a projector (Sony 1080p) and electric screens (Elite Screen 100" from Amazon, nothing special but not crappy). Just not a fan of a big piece of electronics hanging on the wall where I can have some nice artwork when not watching; I don't think TVs are attractive. Just makes sense to me, and I've grown accustomed to, and now prefer, the not-backlit presentation. Feels more like a movie theater.

Soundwise I have no integration with my 2-channel. Again, tried that in the past, including surrounds, but in the end while it's definitely fun, it didn't make enough difference to me to justify the expense or configuration trouble. I use a Sonos soundbar now and often surprised how good it sounds, with a surprising level of 3-dimensionality, but of course not as much as surrounds. I enjoy the setup, it meets our needs, and unless I had a dedicated room probably won't change it.

Originally Posted by music66

The last thing I want to see in my listening room is a TV. Surround sound for movies is in another room.

I obviously agree, as for the past 12 years that's how our homes have been set up. In each case (2 homes) we had a place for the TV other than in the living room where the 2-channel hi fi is listened to.

Some homes obviously can't accommodate that. Or some people just don't care; that's ok too!

Originally Posted by nicoff

Interesting articles. The ultimate goal of high-fidelity sound reproduction was to replicate "the real thing". But as you pointed out, many folks have never even been to a concert hall (which intrinsically includes a visual experience) so they have come to believe that their stereo can replicate it.

Yes, it was at one point long ago, but ironically, as Stereophiles founder noted...
The latter part I'm not so sure. I doubt those folks would have the same reaction to a PSR type system as did JA and WP. Those folks aren't trying to replicate anything, they simply want something that sounds "good" to them. After over a decade of demoing at audio shows, I'm going to stop asking attendees what they would like to hear. Its almost automatically the most god awful SQ music, usually some kind of non-acoustic pop. 2 channels of awful more than suffices.

cheers,

AJ

In our main living room I have a 3.1 set up with a Samsung 55" on the wall, the center & mains are in-wall. When I want to hear a movie soundtrack that doesn't take the place of my full 5.1 system, especially with Action or Sci-Fi where you get good effects.

As several have mentioned, it really is to each their own. I ran the audio from my TV through my audio system from way back when... 1980's??? But I never liked the sound of surround sound, the effects, etc., were simply something I did not get in to.

Currently we have a music room upstairs in our house and a TV in the living room. I do have a Yamaha receiver and some Klipsch speakers specifically for the TV. I had surround hooked up and my wife did not like it. She specifically asked me if I could please get ride of the rear speakers. That was no big deal to me because I never liked the sound of surround anyway .

Audio quality is not that important to her. She can hear the difference but it is not very important . However she actually does really like the B&W speakers hooked up to her computer. Go figure ....

Originally Posted by nicoff

Many folks who are into 2-channel high-end audio tend to discount the possibility that a well set up “Home Theater” can bring a better and more engaging experience than the two-channel set up. Yet, in my experience, if done properly, we can achieve that.

First, a little history. Home Theaters as we know them today started becoming popular in the 1990s with the arrival of DVD technology. The screen sizes of the TVs available at that time were too small. That meant that if you wanted a “Home Theater”, you had to get a projector and a screen. Since most audio rooms were not designed to accommodate large screens and projectors with low lumen output, many folks converted basements or empty rooms into Home Theaters. Those folks ended up with a very nice two-channel system in one room and a “Home Theater” in another windowless, audio-compromised room. Not surprisingly, folks found that their two-channel system (with better speakers and better room) sounded better than their multichannel system with multiple lesser speakers in a sub-par room.

Such compromises are easily avoidable today. One can now buy large screen TVs that can be installed in just about any audio room. That allows the user the chance to use the same room and speakers for their two-channel system and for their Home Theater.

In my experience, no audio-only system can recreate the emotional impact of a well-produced music video of the same performance. Video adds an extra quality that no audio-only (even if high-definition audio) can provide. I would think that any Opera lover would much rather watch Don Giovanni with CD-Quality audio than just listen to the same performance in 512DSD without video.

Maybe it is as simple as two senses (audio and visual) are better than one (audio alone).

here is the problem; proper 2 channel music reproduction requires a different acoustic approach than a proper object based (Dolby Atmos) multi-channel system. 2 channel succeeds with a 'live' room and mostly diffusion. the speakers are ideally brought out into the room, and the ideal listening position might be in the near field. multi-channel needs lots of surface absorption to reduce comb filtering and slap echo with all the surround speakers and the seating is relative to screen size. typically front speakers are closer to the front walls.

you can favor one approach acoustically, but it will compromise the other. no getting around that. if you tune it for multi-channel then it's over-damped for 2 channel. if tuned for 2 channel, it's relatively confused for multi-channel. not saying that you won't enjoy both in the same room, but you are never going to optimize both.

as far as emotional connection; sorry to disagree. when i pull out my best vinyl or tape in my 2 channel room, it smokes any surround/video experience in my dedicated home theater multi channel room. just way more musical connection with the best analog. and even my Wadax 2 channel digital is formidable and gives the best multi-channel/video a run for it's money. and i have a serious dedicated multi-channel 9.3.6/Trinnov/Funk Audio/4k front projector separate home theater.

are there digital multi-channel video performances that don't translate well to 2 channel? sure. i'd agree with that. but hard to judge the 2 channel unless the system is optimized for it. and does the system have the level of digital playback performance to optimize the 2 channel non video version?

there are many levels of both 2 channel and multichannel with video, so my comments only pertain to serious levels of both approaches. YMMV. just my opinions based on years of very serious efforts at both.

Originally Posted by nicoff

I agree, you do not NEED the surrounds to make the 2-channel experience better.

Studiophiles, no, concert hall attendees, yes, physical fact:
The Optimum Loudspeaker Arrangements for Multichannel Sound System - NASA/ADS
(yes they did test down to 2ch frontal "stereo" and are aware of QSound gimmicks, etc).
It once again boils down to types of music and needs for "fidelity", known or unknown.

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by nicoff

However, my argument is that in a dedicated 2-Channel room, if the user adds a video source (properly placed I might add), and then watches and compare similar performances in the same room, the video enhances the experience and enjoyment of the music.

My wife and I disagree; we very much enjoy the lack of "video" (a.k.a. "a TV") in our living room where the 2-channel system resides. This is largely room aesthetics.

And conversely, when we do watch 'music videos' (be they of the concert video type or the documentary type), we are mostly in it for the video elements (seeing the performers in action). The sound via our Sonus soundbar is perfectly acceptable to us.

Frankly, if doing "critical listening," which we do sometimes, I myself would find video distracting and detracting from the immersive listening experience.

Originally Posted by nicoff

You are smart in having your wife involved.

Fortunately we share tastes in both home decor (which governs what goes where) and music. She fully supports my "hi fi hobby" although would prefer overall a more svelte setup than my two racks of Naim. But she knows I retain a passion for the brand and she loves what she hears so it's all ok for now.

I really don't like watch music. It distracts from the experience. Sometime I go I used to go the the Royal Concert Building in Amsterdam for classical music. Often I would listen with my eyes closed. I have a few music DvDs maybe 3. But never got past the first 5 minutes before I got bored.

I am thinking about buying a new TV but nothing larger than a 52 or maybe 55. My current TV is a 42 plasma TV.

Its all just a hobby.,

Originally Posted by Mordante

I really don't like watch music. It distracts from the experience. Sometime I go I used to go the the Royal Concert Building in Amsterdam for classical music. Often I would listen with my eyes closed. I have a few music DvDs maybe 3. But never got past the first 5 minutes before I got bored.

I am thinking about buying a new TV but nothing larger than a 52 or maybe 55. My current TV is a 42 plasma TV.

I really like watching the musicians live when it's a small ensemble; rock band, blues band, jazz band, etc. "Watching" a symphony orchestra is not interesting to me either. I'm happy to listen with my eyes closed. But seeing a great guitarist up close is very interesting to me, for example.