Any real benefits in going for a home cinema amp when watching older movies?

[romain]

Hi,

I am currently setting up a room that will double as my projection room and as my main listening room for music. The question is whether I should go for a hi-fi audio amp, a home cinema amp or a cheaper home cinema amp with pre-out outputs for the front speakers that I can then power with a power amp (the idea being that I'll get better results for music listening that way while still being able to add more speakers for movie watching).

What I don't know is whether I will really benefit from a home cinema amp considering the fact that I watch movies from the silent era all the way to the late 1970's but practically nothing beyond that.

I was unable to find the feature in "Stats" that shows the distribution of audio formats in my collection (I used to be able to do it, maybe that feature has disappeared, maybe it's hidden somewhere)

Empirically by checking some physical discs however I see a lot of "Monaural", "2.0 Mono", "DTS Mono", "Mono LPCM", "1.0 Mono PCM", some "DTS Stereo", and very occasionally "2.0 Surround", "5.1 Surround" (I could only find Robert Altman's Nashville in that format, but without being able to access bluray.com's statistics, not sure how common it was in the 1970's, seems like the exception rather than the norm) and one "Dolby TrueHD 7.1" ("Dead and Buried" UHD)

So far I have mainly been checking audiophile forums for advice since I've always watched my movies using a hi-fi amp so I don't know what I might be missing. I'm not really sure whether I would benefit from a central speaker and possibly satellites (but in that case, how does the home theatre amp distribute a mono or stereo source into more than two channels?)

So I'm interested in hearing from the home theatre side of the equation. Any thoughts?

[Canada]

Most Blu-ray's even older ones support some sort of lossless (DTS-MA/DolbyTrueHD or uncompressed (LPCM usually Mono or Stereo) track, lossless or uncompressed audio is what modern Blu-ray's and 4K discs offer.

A power amp will allow you to play your movies or music louder, while remaining clearer and free from distortion.

Distortion from under powering a speaker is what causes the tweeter to distort causing damage to the it.

Examples of older films having lossless and uncompressed tracks

Seven Samurai 4K and Blu-ray
Casablanca 4K Blu-ray
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 4K DTS-MA 5.1 Blu-ray DTS-MA 7.1

[romain]

I was talking about older movies, not older blu-rays. My question was about whether having the possibility of a central speaker or a 5.1 system (or higher) as opposed to a regular two-channel stereo system was worth the expense and added complexity when 99% of the movies I watch are in mono or stereo.

I read somewhere that home cinema amps can "upscale" mono or stereo signals to feed them into a multiple channel system. I am not sure whether the result is worth it.

[bhampton]

Are you planning to swap out components if you want to watch an old movie ?

??

I guess you are debating between a stereo or a multi channel system and you could go all in on a stereo system with no limits but I can't go back to life without surround sound. Some of my old movies like Star Wars had it. Some of my favorite music is now available on Dolby ATMOS and I really enjoy multi channel music.

[romain]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Are you planning to swap out components if you want to watch an old movie ?

??

Nope. I only watch old movies (with some rare exceptions). Right now I have nothing (the stereo system I have will be moved to a different room. I'm replacing the whole thing).

The question is:

Considering the fact that 99% of my movie collection seems to be in mono or stereo (I was hoping the stats option would give me a more specific figure but it looks like that feature is now gone), is there any benefit in going for a A/V "home theatre" amp, a central speaker and potentially satellites, rather than a hi-fi audio amp with two column speakers?

[CompleteCount]

Regardless of being in mono rather than having multi-channel mixes, running older films through an amp really adds to the experience. You might want to pick up a (comparatively) cheaper home cinema amp so as to not skimp on quality, so you'll be equipped for any kind audio experience which takes your fancy.

An amp and speakers really enriches mono soundtracks, with firmer lows and sweeter highs. Many just think that mono equals lower quality, but most were mixes designed to be as good as possible, and don't just reply on everything being largely lumped in with the midrange.

A rather obscure example of how potent a mono mix can be when put through an amp comes with the film The Colossus of New York. Sure, it's a low-budget "B"-movie from the 50s, but every time the Frankensteinian creation takes step, the bass really THUMPS!

Many amps/receivers allow selection of 2.0 mono to be either distributed evenly between front lef/front right or piped exclusively to the centre speaker, for more localised placement. The various settings on the average amp will usually tailor the output to match your speaker array, or how to you want it output.

[romain]

Originally Posted by CompleteCount

Regardless of being in mono rather than having multi-channel mixes, running older films through an amp really adds to the experience. You might want to pick up a (comparatively) cheaper home cinema amp so as to not skimp on quality, so you'll be equipped for any kind audio experience which takes your fancy.

An amp and speakers really enriches mono soundtracks, with firmer lows and sweeter highs. Many just think that mono equals lower quality, but most were mixes designed to be as good as possible, and don't just reply on everything being largely lumped in with the midrange.
An amp and speakers really enriches mono soundtracks, with firmer lows and sweeter highs. Many just think that mono equals lower quality, but most were mixes designed to be as good as possible, and don't just reply on everything being largely lumped in with the midrange.

A rather obscure example of how potent a mono mix can be when put through an amp comes with the film The Colossus of New York. Sure, it's a low-budget "B"-movie from the 50s, but every time the Frankensteinian creation takes step, the bass really THUMPS!

Thanks for the reply. My question was not really amp or no amp but rather home cinema amp v. audio amp.

The bass will be thumping just as much with an audio amp two speakers and a subwoofer.

Originally Posted by CompleteCount

amps/receivers allow selection of 2.0 mono to be either distributed evenly between front lef/front right or piped exclusively to the centre speaker, for more localised placement. The various settings on the average amp will usually tailor the output to match your speaker array, or how to you want it output.

I see. So in that case having satellites would be rather pointless. I still struggle to see the benefit of having mono delivered to a central speaker rather than two column speakers with a good sound stage.

[CompleteCount]

Originally Posted by romain

So in that case having satellites would be rather pointless. I still struggle to see the benefit of having mono delivered to a central speaker rather than two column speakers with a good sound stage.

It all depends on the quality of you centre speaker. I have always picked really good ones so as to have uniform sound on multichannel audio, but a fringe benefit is that they also function as a really good single speaker for mono sound, encompassing full bandwidth. And of course, any decent home cinema amp/receiver will allow you to channel the low frequencies to a subwoofer to handle the bass.

Having a 2.0 signal split passed to front left/front right annoys the hell out of them, as they prefer the sound locked firmly to the centre of the image, without it sounding one-sided depending on where they are sitting. It's all personal preference,

[cascade 15]

Originally Posted by romain

Hi,

I am currently setting up a room that will double as my projection room and as my main listening room for music. The question is whether I should go for a hi-fi audio amp, a home cinema amp or a cheaper home cinema amp with pre-out outputs for the front speakers that I can then power with a power amp (the idea being that I'll get better results for music listening that way while still being able to add more speakers for movie watching).

What I don't know is whether I will really benefit from a home cinema amp considering the fact that I watch movies from the silent era all the way to the late 1970's but practically nothing beyond that.


So far I have mainly been checking audiophile forums for advice since I've always watched my movies using a hi-fi amp so I don't know what I might be missing. I'm not really sure whether I would benefit from a central speaker and possibly satellites (but in that case, how does the home theatre amp distribute a mono or stereo source into more than two channels?)

So I'm interested in hearing from the home theatre side of the equation. Any thoughts?

If you want flexibility, just buy an AVR to power it all: whether 5.1 up to 13.1, depending upon your budget.

As to how it distributes the audio into more than two speakers, use either stereo or multi-channel stereo or even mono mode (if available on the AVR). Or even HD DTS (if available on the AVR) which might only go to the center speaker and nowhere else for true audio mono reproduction.

Home theater has do with adjusting it to your own preferences and what you want your ears to hear.

[smithb]

My movies span from the 1920's through to today, but most purchases over the past decade have been from the 1920's through 1950's to where I now own more older movies than newer. My music has evolved from standard mono/stereo to now including hi-res stereo and multi-channel. If funds permit, I would go with what you are referring to as a home cinema amp. You just never know where your journey might lead so it doesn't hurt to be prepared, unless you have no problems upgrading more regularly.

The one mistake I made when setting up my dedicated HT back in 2004 was to go with a top-of-the-line receiver. Technology changed to rapidly and before I knew it, I couldn't support the latest cabling or codecs. I limped along with that receiver for over a decade. My preference now is to purchase a quality mid-range model receiver that has all the bells and whistles but lacks the power and marry it with a suitable power amp. This approach makes it much easier and cheaper to handle technology upgrades in the future.

One thing I questioned at the time (back in 2004) but has since worked out really well was investing in surround sound speakers to match the capability of my front three (I have a 7.1 setup). At the time it could have been considered overkill for the amount of work the surrounds were getting. However, in the last few years I've gotten into hi-res multi-channel audio and the speakers I bought back in 2004 still work great today, especially when listening to multi-channel with the more capable surround speakers.

If you choose to not go full surround right away, I always suggest going at least 3.0 for whatever content you have that includes a dedicated center channel. I've personally never found a 2-channel setup that can properly create a phantom center channel to match a true dedicated center channel speaker. My center channel speaker is an exact match to my left and right speakers.

My movie preferences have now detoured into an area where I don't get all the benefits of my setup for many of them. However, my music listening has detoured the other way to where I am reaping benefits I never did in the past. I'd rather have a setup that maximizes my listening where it can, even if it is overkill for other content that I own.

[smithb]

Do you do much streaming?

While the majority of movies I now buy don't necessarily benefit from having a surround sound setup, the more recent TV shows I stream do. We watch a lot of more recent British TV shows and while the surround isn't as much a need, I find a dedicated center channel is. You just never know how content is going to be mixed. If you ever find yourself raising the volume to ensure hearing the dialog, then lowering during the big action sequences so you don't disturb everyone else in the house, you likely could benefit from a dedicated center channel speaker that you can configure to best suit your needs.

[romain]

Thanks. The A/V receiver coupled with a power amp is probably what would make the most sense.

I don't do any streaming and don't watch anything recent. The most recent movies I watch are from the late 70's and they're on blu or uhd when available.

Regarding "content you have that includes a dedicated center channel", how do you identify it? Does it say 3.0 or something like that?

[smithb]

Originally Posted by romain

Regarding "content you have that includes a dedicated center channel", how do you identify it? Does it say 3.0 or something like that?

Yes, anything above mono (1.0) or stereo (2.0). I don't recall seeing anything as 3.0, so likely anything 5.1 or above.

Late 70's is when you might start seeing movie releases using a form of surround sound, which is likely not going to benefit the majority of your collection.

Multi-channel music is a possibility if you decide to get into that. It is a bit of a niche market, but interesting since you have releases of late 60's through 70's music that was originally prepared for quadraphonic use but never released due to the failing of the quadraphonic technology to catch on. However, now HT receivers have the codecs built-in to take advantage of it. Then you have other artist tiles being remastered in multi-channel by going back to original analog tapes. You can find classical, jazz, blues, pop/rock being released in multi-channel, generally in the form of SACD, DVD-A, and Blu-ray-Audio. I have about 60 titles right now, my brother a few hundred. I have all mine loaded on a multi-media server for easy selection and playback in my media room.

[romain]

Quadrophonic music from the 60's/70's sounds intriguing...

It seems that in my case the main benefit of an A/V receiver v. a standard stereo hi-fi one (possibly with a sub) would be to be able to listen to mono tracks on a central speaker. The downside would be that for the same price I would probably get a lesser amp quality-wise compared to a strictly audio one.

My room is not huge (about 25m2) and while the screen is quite big (about 3m wide), I'm sitting about 3m away from it, with speakers on both sides. So I'm wondering if there is any added value to playing a mono/stereo track on multiple speakers or if a powerful integrated amp with good column speakers would not do as good a job in "filling the room" so to speak.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by romain

Quadrophonic music from the 60's/70's sounds intriguing...

It seems that in my case the main benefit of an A/V receiver v. a standard stereo hi-fi one (possibly with a sub) would be to be able to listen to mono tracks on a central speaker. The downside would be that for the same price I would probably get a lesser amp quality-wise compared to a strictly audio one.

My room is not huge (about 25m2) and while the screen is quite big (about 3m wide), I'm sitting about 3m away from it, with speakers on both sides. So I'm wondering if there is any added value to playing a mono/stereo track on multiple speakers or if a powerful integrated amp with good column speakers would not do as good a job in "filling the room" so to speak.

If cost is a factor than I'd agree you can get more bang for your buck going 2-channel than 3 to 5-channel. I could be wrong, but I think more often than not movies with a mono soundtrack play the mono out the left and right speakers. I believe some may push out the center channel for better directionality.

Another question that I don't know the answer to is how do stereo-only receivers handle all the codecs available within blu-ray discs? My last stereo receiver was pre 1990's. I only mention because if you have an A/V receiver but only two speakers it should know how to handle it. What does a stereo receiver do if there is no mono or stereo track? Since video is involved, I'd still think a A/V receiver is the right approach. No reason to go over 5 channels for a small room, but you can save by focusing on a 2-channel or 3-channel amp. I would go 3-channel just in case you want to add a center speaker at some future date. Unless you buy mono-block amps in which case you can add a single channel amp later for the center. And if you decide to go two surround speakers at a later date, they can be powered by the receiver.

I haven't priced things lately, so I don't know how much more an A/V 5.1-channel receiver goes from a stereo-only receiver, or 2-channel vs. 3-channel amp. I just know I don't mind adding equipment but I'm not big on replacing equipment before it breaks down.

I just noticed you are in Japan. If there is one place SACDs are still doing well is in Japan (due to it being a Sony proprietary format). I just had three SACD multi-channel Billy Joel titles shipped from Amazon Japan. If you do decide to give multi-channel music a try know that hi-res SACDs can be stereo only, they aren't all multi-channels.

Good luck.

[Boris_Karloff]

Originally Posted by romain

Thanks. The A/V receiver coupled with a power amp is probably what would make the most sense.

Just make sure the AV receiver has pre-outs, that’s how you connect the power amp.

[Hitman Horton]

Originally Posted by romain

Hi,

I am currently setting up a room that will double as my projection room and as my main listening room for music. The question is whether I should go for a hi-fi audio amp, a home cinema amp or a cheaper home cinema amp with pre-out outputs for the front speakers that I can then power with a power amp (the idea being that I'll get better results for music listening that way while still being able to add more speakers for movie watching).

What I don't know is whether I will really benefit from a home cinema amp considering the fact that I watch movies from the silent era all the way to the late 1970's but practically nothing beyond that.

I was unable to find the feature in "Stats" that shows the distribution of audio formats in my collection (I used to be able to do it, maybe that feature has disappeared, maybe it's hidden somewhere)

Empirically by checking some physical discs however I see a lot of "Monaural", "2.0 Mono", "DTS Mono", "Mono LPCM", "1.0 Mono PCM", some "DTS Stereo", and very occasionally "2.0 Surround", "5.1 Surround" (I could only find Robert Altman's Nashville in that format, but without being able to access bluray.com's statistics, not sure how common it was in the 1970's, seems like the exception rather than the norm) and one "Dolby TrueHD 7.1" ("Dead and Buried" UHD)

So far I have mainly been checking audiophile forums for advice since I've always watched my movies using a hi-fi amp so I don't know what I might be missing. I'm not really sure whether I would benefit from a central speaker and possibly satellites (but in that case, how does the home theatre amp distribute a mono or stereo source into more than two channels?)

So I'm interested in hearing from the home theatre side of the equation. Any thoughts?

Since you're asking about surround sound, I take it that this is something you're interested in. The short answer to your question is YES. Even if the movies you watch only have mono or stereo sound, there are ways to have the sound come from all of your speakers if you'd like it to.

In addition to Dolby and DTS, AVRs also have DSP settings. I think it stands for Digital Signal Processing but I'm not sure. These are sound fields that have been created by the manufacturer and some of them are really good. For example, mine has a setting that is called "mono movie." It takes that mono soundtrack and digitally spreads it around to the different speakers. I don't know how it sounds because I've never used it. I also have a setting that is called "all speaker stereo" or something like that. It just takes the sound and distributes it to all of the speakers. That's the setting I use when I'm watching TV. Using the DSP settings, you absolutely can get sound from a mono or stereo signal to use all of the speakers in a typical 5.1 system. I do it all the time.

Now let's talk about music. I am a huge music fan and I love to listen to music through multiple speakers. Unlike what was mentioned above, you don't need SACDs or DVD Audio discs. A regular CD will do. It would also work with streaming music too I expect but I'm not a streamer. Listen to some of your favourite songs can sound completely different when played via a 5.1 system. Two favourites are The Buggles - Video Killed The Radio Star and Sweet Emotion by Aerosmith. Both are old songs but they sound incredible in surround sound.

Whether you go with a receiver and an amp or just an AVR is up to you. I just use an AVR and have been happy with the shound I get. Good luck.