How Important is Sound? Really?

[ReduxInflux]

hi. i have amateur ears. well...virgin ears if you want to call them that to the true capability of blu-rays output of sound. i dont understand the technical specs or pcm or compressed vs. uncompressed or true hi def, etc. and really...i don't care. but maybe if i was well informed, i might start caring. but thats besides the point. so i have a question... and i'm looking for elementary answers. pretend i'm a 3rd grader when you're explaining it to me

sooo...my question is this: what in the world is the difference in sound quality between your your HD set-up - whereby i'm assuming you have a Blu-Ray player connected via HDMI and outputting audio to your supreme sound system ... vs. my dad's 37" toshiba CRT from the 90's thats connected to a regular DVD player thats outputting in surround sound through a JVC receiver that utilizes 3 front speakers, a subwoofer and 2 rear speakers via component cables....this sounds good to me. but i don't know any different? how does sound improve in quality? picture to me is obvious - resolution, response time, sharpness, color, etc. etc....but sound? its really a vague concept to me. there's poor sound for sure...but then there's good sound. and after good...i dont know how much better it gets and how much its worth? (im tempted to buy a $100 surround sound set at Wal-Mart ...if i can find one that will just do the job). i dont understand why top-of-the-line audio sets are selling for $700 and up. i mean...is there really a huge difference? and if so what? thanks for your help and your time. consider me danielson and you mr. miagi...

[Aaron]

Top of teh line audio systems cost well over 10,000$

[ReduxInflux]

Originally Posted by Aaron

Top of teh line audio systems cost well over 10,000$

why? that sounds ridiculous to me... whats the main difference between hd and 'normal' sound? and what the hell does $10,000 get you? a foley team to recreate the sound for you in person?

[jorg]

Originally Posted by ReduxInflux

why? that sounds ridiculous to me... whats the main difference between hd and 'normal' sound? and what the hell does $10,000 get you? a foley team to recreate the sound for you in person?

well 10 000 grand is a start i knwo some one on this form has 10 grand of mortin logan speakers for 10 grand u can get 2 speekers and a sub:
http://www.martinlogan.com/
and sounds if u have rite speakers will make u wanan enjoy the movie with u eyes closed

[Aaron]

I'll post more later, I'm typing this on the PS3.

[ReduxInflux]

ha ha. i hear you. takes forever huh? hunt and click. thanks dude.

[BStecke]

Nobody can really tell you, outside of some generalities, what is better about one sound vs. another. $700 is a decent receiver, without speakers or a sub or wiring or cables to hook up to your DVD player, game system, cable box, etc . . . just the receiver. And to some people, a $700 receiver is the same as a Wal Mart receiver is to me. And really, most really high end audio systems don't use an AVR, they use separate processing equipment with separate amplifiers. It's easy to find just an amplifier for around $2000.

In general . . . crappy speakers and amplifiers/processors, to me, have always sounded tinny, and tend to be harsh at loud volumes. Some of this would have to do with the wattage, but would have more to do with the cleanliness of the power that is put out by the receiver. Harmon Kardon is a good example of this. Their receivers are rated very low in wattage compared to other receivers in their price range, yet they sound incredibly good, due to the quality of their amplifiers. The reason for the high cost of a decent receiver is both the fact that it contains an amplifier and a processor in one unit, both being of good quality, and most new receivers have separate processors for audio and video, hence the name Audio Video Receiver (AVR). Yes, you can get a receiver for $200 bucks, but that's for a weak amplifier with power output that's probably as clean as a bum's underwear.

Good quality sound will have a fuller sound to it, and generally won't hurt your ears when you listen to it loud. If you go crank up the stereo in your car to its loudest volume, it'll probably hurt your ears (if it doesn't blow up your speakers first). This is caused by distortion, which a lot of times is due to lack of power, but can also be due to sub-par components. You'd be amazed how you can get your stock car system to sound with a different radio with a clean amplifier. The same goes for home audio as well. The different types of sound processing (Dolby Digital, DTS, etc.) offer different advantages. DD was the first (to my knowledge) multi-channel sound, meaning each channel receives its own signal. DTS is a higher bitrate audio which typically has a "fuller" sound to it than Dolby Digital. The newer HD sound forms, such as TrueHD, PCM, and DTS MA offer even higher bitrates (read: more information going to the receiver), and therefore can recreate sound more closely to that of the original master, which is obviously recorded from the source of the sound, ie an orchestra or something of that nature. These sound formats are uncompressed, compared to DTS and DD that are pretty highly compressed. More compression = lower quality sound. Uncompressed audio is basically a carbon copy of the master. There should be a noticeable difference, even to the most casual of listener, between uncompressed audio and regular DD and DTS. If there isn't . . . I don't know what to tell you. I guess in the long run it's better for you because you save money.

You really have to hear these things to understand the difference. You can't really get a feel for what sex is like by somebody telling you about it, and the same goes for audio. You just have to experience it.

[ReduxInflux]

Yes, you can get a receiver for $200 bucks, but that's for a weak amplifier with power output that's probably as clean as a bum's underwear.

with this comment, you made my night. thanks for the good laugh...and i guess the hearty explanation...that was prime time too

no but seriously...thanks. i appreciate it. building up a decent home theater is tough work...

[zombieking]

You can spend $1000 and you'd have a kick ass audio set-up. If you have the PQ might as well enhance the SQ too. I wouldn't go the Walmart route cuz some of those systems just throw sound into 5 speakers and call it surround sound. Everybody's different when it comes to sound. Picture has a more universal appeal. its tangible--its right there. 2 people can sit before a screen and enjoy the same crisp, colorful picture, but the same 2 people will find they'll have different experiences with sound. A thread on here about Bridge to Terabithia's dialog being too soft is a good example, but IMO I found the dialog to be quite crisp and clear. Who's right? We probably agree the PQ is stunning though. For me sound is equally important and completes the home theatre experience, for you, not so much. I guess if you can't hear a difference between two completely different sound set-ups, anything I say on hear won't change that.

[andytoh]

I have a related question. My 7.1 surround audio system cost me about $6000 Canadian:
Yamaha HTR-6090 receiver
2 Polk RTi10 tower speakers
Polk CSi5 center speaker
2 Polk RTi6 surround speakers
2 Polk FXi3 back surround speakers
Polk PSW125 12" subwoofer
Monster Powersource HTPS 7000 MKII power conditioner
Monster TXH HP cables.

I bought the best Polk speaker models that were available in my Futureshop. My question is: exactly what specs makes one model better than another? Let's compare the specs of my $1400 Polk RTi10 tower speakers to the $1000 Polk RTi8 tower speakers:

RTi10 ($1400):
Crossover Point No
Frequency Response 20Hz - 27KHz
Magnetically Shielded Yes
Mid Range Speaker Size 6 1/2"
Power Capability 300 Watts
Product Dimensions 19.7(W) x 110.8(H) x 44.5(D) cm
Product Weight 29.9 kg
Sensitivity 89 dB
Tweeter Size 1"
Woofer Size 7"

RTi8 ($1000):
Crossover Point 2.2kHz
Frequency Response 30Hz - 27kHz
Magnetically Shielded Yes
Mid Range Speaker Size Not Applicable
Power Capability 250 Watts
Product Dimensions 19.7(W) x 105.7(H) x 39.4(D) cm
Product Weight 24.9 kg
Sensitivity 90 dB
Tweeter Size 1"
Woofer Size 6.5"

So trying to answer ReduxInflux's question QUANTITATIVELY, the answer would be that better sound means:
higher power capability
greater speaker size (i.e. tweeter and woofer)
greater speaker mass
greater frequency response range

I'm just going by the specs. Is it that simple?

[MatrixS2000]

ReduxInflux - your question is very difficult to answer online as it is a huge topic. My suggestion to you is go to a high end audio shop and listen to your favorite cd there.

Andytoh - the specs you posted is missing information. For example freq. response is useless with out knowing the measuring points.

A full freq. response spec will look like this:

Frequency Response:
On-Axis - ±2 dB from 46 Hz - 22 kHz

The ±2db tell you that the difference in level over the range is 4 dB. Many will also specify off axis values.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by andytoh

I have a related question. My 7.1 surround audio system cost me about $6000 Canadian:
Yamaha HTR-6090 receiver
2 Polk RTi10 tower speakers
Polk CSi5 center speaker
2 Polk RTi6 surround speakers
2 Polk FXi3 back surround speakers
Polk PSW125 12" subwoofer
Monster Powersource HTPS 7000 MKII power conditioner
Monster TXH HP cables.

I bought the best Polk speaker models that were available in my Futureshop. My question is: exactly what specs makes one model better than another? Let's compare the specs of my $1400 Polk RTi10 tower speakers to the $1000 Polk RTi8 tower speakers:

RTi10 ($1400):
Crossover Point No
Frequency Response 20Hz - 27KHz
Magnetically Shielded Yes
Mid Range Speaker Size 6 1/2"
Power Capability 300 Watts
Product Dimensions 19.7(W) x 110.8(H) x 44.5(D) cm
Product Weight 29.9 kg
Sensitivity 89 dB
Tweeter Size 1"
Woofer Size 7"

RTi8 ($1000):
Crossover Point 2.2kHz
Frequency Response 30Hz - 27kHz
Magnetically Shielded Yes
Mid Range Speaker Size Not Applicable
Power Capability 250 Watts
Product Dimensions 19.7(W) x 105.7(H) x 39.4(D) cm
Product Weight 24.9 kg
Sensitivity 90 dB
Tweeter Size 1"
Woofer Size 6.5"

So trying to answer ReduxInflux's question QUANTITATIVELY, the answer would be that better sound means:
higher power capability
greater speaker size (i.e. tweeter and woofer)
greater speaker mass
greater frequency response range

I'm just going by the specs. Is it that simple?

The only response I can give to this is to never believe the specs of a mass market speaker producer. It has very little science, and a ton of market spin to it.

For instance, it is VERY difficult for a 6.5" woofer to make it to 30hz, I do not care what kind of tuning or loading is done. Physics are in play, and a small to medium size driver would have to make tremendous cone excursions to reproduce anything that low with any volume. Now there may be a some sort of response to 30hz, but industry standards list the -3 point(in comparison to other frequencies) as the proper low point measurement for a speaker. Some subwoofers with 10" drivers have a hard time getting this low with low distortion and high volume.

A 7" woofer is not going to make it down to 20hz PERIOD. This is marketing spin if I ever saw it. It would be tough for 2 7" drivers to make it down that low. I have two 15" drivers mounted into two very large sealed cabinets. This combination can playback 20hz at approximately 120db(tested anechoically), but below that, distortion becomes a problem because of excessive cone excursion. The speaker designer said he could have coaxed more output from these speakers, but the amp ran out of steam. The amps I use are more powerful than his, but I have room gain to further push the spl's and the frequency response as well. It takes driver size to get to 20hz, and that is what I am trying to illustrate.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by Aaron

Top of teh line audio systems cost well over 10,000$

Indeed; individual components in a top-of-the-line audio system can cost well over $10,000 each!

[richteer]

Originally Posted by ReduxInflux

(im tempted to buy a $100 surround sound set at Wal-Mart ...if i can find one that will just do the job). i dont understand why top-of-the-line audio sets are selling for $700 and up. i mean...is there really a huge difference? and if so what? thanks for your help and your time. consider me danielson and you mr. miagi...

Save your money! That $100 "surround sound" set will be a piece of garbage.

High end audio, like all things high end, can cost lots of $$$. $700 is nothing (though not to me!).

The better the audio system, the closer it will approximate the artist's intentions: better bass, treble, imaging, etc. Until you've heard a high end audio system, you really have no idea how good it can sound.

Take bass for example: to get proper low bass (and I don't mean that one-note thumping noise that many people call bass), you need to move a lot of air, which means big and/or multiple drivers, and decent amps (with big power supplies) to drive them. All this costs $$$ to do correctly.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The bottom line is you don't get what you don't pay for.