Home cinema upgrade route?
Discussion
Chaps, I moved house a year ago and because of wiring restrictions my Kef speakers were sold and Yamaha surround sound amp mothballed.
It was recommended that a Sonos Arc and sub would be a good alternative (as room shape is also a bit awkward), which I’ve had for a year.
I’ve decided that the Sonos is a bit limited when it comes to music and have reinstated the amp with a pair of Q 3050i speakers, which sound great with music but limited with movies.
So… sell the Sonos and add to the Q speakers, possibly a centre speaker and sub, or just use the Sonos for movies and keep the Yamaha / Q speakers for music?
Any experts that could offer an opinion?
Thanks
G
It was recommended that a Sonos Arc and sub would be a good alternative (as room shape is also a bit awkward), which I’ve had for a year.
I’ve decided that the Sonos is a bit limited when it comes to music and have reinstated the amp with a pair of Q 3050i speakers, which sound great with music but limited with movies.
So… sell the Sonos and add to the Q speakers, possibly a centre speaker and sub, or just use the Sonos for movies and keep the Yamaha / Q speakers for music?
Any experts that could offer an opinion?
Thanks
G
As no experts have yet chimed in (there are a few on this forum who do this for a living) here’s my keen amateur view.
It seems you’re still constrained by room size/wiring issues as you’re looking at a 3 or 3.1 set up. IMHO surround needs a minimum of 5.1. I’ve been running 7.1 for about 15 years and know 9.1 is possible.
On that basis the Sonos is probably the better option for the moment with movies as you’ve already got it and it’s probably not worth the expense/hassle to move to a 3.1 set up on the musical set up.
Keep the music set up and expand it when space allows.
It seems you’re still constrained by room size/wiring issues as you’re looking at a 3 or 3.1 set up. IMHO surround needs a minimum of 5.1. I’ve been running 7.1 for about 15 years and know 9.1 is possible.
On that basis the Sonos is probably the better option for the moment with movies as you’ve already got it and it’s probably not worth the expense/hassle to move to a 3.1 set up on the musical set up.
Keep the music set up and expand it when space allows.
As no experts have yet chimed in (there are a few on this forum who do this for a living) here’s my keen amateur view.
It seems you’re still constrained by room size/wiring issues as you’re looking at a 3 or 3.1 set up. IMHO surround needs a minimum of 5.1. I’ve been running 7.1 for about 15 years and know 9.1 is possible.
On that basis the Sonos is probably the better option for the moment with movies as you’ve already got it and it’s probably not worth the expense/hassle to move to a 3.1 set up on the musical set up.
Keep the music set up and expand it when space allows.
It seems you’re still constrained by room size/wiring issues as you’re looking at a 3 or 3.1 set up. IMHO surround needs a minimum of 5.1. I’ve been running 7.1 for about 15 years and know 9.1 is possible.
On that basis the Sonos is probably the better option for the moment with movies as you’ve already got it and it’s probably not worth the expense/hassle to move to a 3.1 set up on the musical set up.
Keep the music set up and expand it when space allows.
Miserablegit said:
As no experts have yet chimed in (there are a few on this forum who do this for a living) here’s my keen amateur view.
It seems you’re still constrained by room size/wiring issues as you’re looking at a 3 or 3.1 set up. IMHO surround needs a minimum of 5.1. I’ve been running 7.1 for about 15 years and know 9.1 is possible.
On that basis the Sonos is probably the better option for the moment with movies as you’ve already got it and it’s probably not worth the expense/hassle to move to a 3.1 set up on the musical set up.
Keep the music set up and expand it when space allows.
Thanks, as an update, I decided to add a centre q acoustic speaker, and will add a REL sub once the Sonos Arc sound bar and Sonos gen 3 sub have sold, I’m changing carpets soon so that will give me a chance to run cables for a pair of rear speakers without too much disruption.It seems you’re still constrained by room size/wiring issues as you’re looking at a 3 or 3.1 set up. IMHO surround needs a minimum of 5.1. I’ve been running 7.1 for about 15 years and know 9.1 is possible.
On that basis the Sonos is probably the better option for the moment with movies as you’ve already got it and it’s probably not worth the expense/hassle to move to a 3.1 set up on the musical set up.
Keep the music set up and expand it when space allows.
Quite happy with sound quality at the moment, but obviously missing the full surround sound experience.
I spent a bit of time upgrading my fronts and centre of a 3.1 system, but out of curiosity added some £10 rear speakers (the size of a mobile phone), which turned out to have the most impact by far, on the perceived quality of the system. I would get 5.1 placeholders for everything as budget allows, and work your way up.
If you don't have room for 5.1 I'd just have stereo personally.
If you don't have room for 5.1 I'd just have stereo personally.
lizardbrain said:
I spent a bit of time upgrading my fronts and centre of a 3.1 system, but out of curiosity added some £10 rear speakers (the size of a mobile phone), which turned out to have the most impact by far, on the perceived quality of the system. I would get 5.1 placeholders for everything as budget allows, and work your way up.
If you don't have room for 5.1 I'd just have stereo personally.
I had stereo for a week before I added the centre speaker, speech clarity has definitely improved since it has been addedIf you don't have room for 5.1 I'd just have stereo personally.
I wouldn’t do without a centre because it makes it possible to increase the volume of speech and be more relaxed about seat placement.
However in certain setups (eg music focused) perhaps there is an argument it is better to spend the money on 2x stereo speakers vs 3, as you don’t want a low quality center outputting 80% of your film?.
However in certain setups (eg music focused) perhaps there is an argument it is better to spend the money on 2x stereo speakers vs 3, as you don’t want a low quality center outputting 80% of your film?.
Miserablegit said:
As no experts have yet chimed in (there are a few on this forum who do this for a living) here’s my keen amateur view.
Because its not a home cinema ... its a TV with 'some speakers'. I'm not being pedantic but there is a huge difference to what Currys/John Lewis /Richer Sounds label home cinema and the rest of the world. JEA1K said:
Because its not a home cinema ... its a TV with 'some speakers'. I'm not being pedantic but there is a huge difference to what Currys/John Lewis /Richer Sounds label home cinema and the rest of the world.
There's a huge range in what people want and expect.The sound in some 'real cinemas' is IMHO, piss poor, like they've let the children play with the mixing desk.
Some people seem to like to re-create that gen-u-whine experience at home with their 'impressive' home cinema.
A lot of the source material that people watch at home seems to have over-processed audio whatever equipment you have?
Most of the films I enjoy don't need a mind-blowing soundtrack, I prefer a good story well written and acted.
If you want realistic munitions damage to your hearing, that's a lot to ask from a home sound system.
If you want to hear the dialogue, that's mostly a matter of your system not damaging the audio signal, not whether it's 7.1 or mono or whatever.
Every complication is an opportunity to remove quality and add distortion.
It's an echo of the early days of transistor HiFi amps when the phrase 'listener fatigue' was coined to describe the effect of some sound systems which were great on paper and popular with anoraks, but somehow quite naff.
OutInTheShed said:
There's a huge range in what people want and expect.
The sound in some 'real cinemas' is IMHO, piss poor, like they've let the children play with the mixing desk.
Some people seem to like to re-create that gen-u-whine experience at home with their 'impressive' home cinema.
A lot of the source material that people watch at home seems to have over-processed audio whatever equipment you have?
Most of the films I enjoy don't need a mind-blowing soundtrack, I prefer a good story well written and acted.
If you want realistic munitions damage to your hearing, that's a lot to ask from a home sound system.
If you want to hear the dialogue, that's mostly a matter of your system not damaging the audio signal, not whether it's 7.1 or mono or whatever.
Every complication is an opportunity to remove quality and add distortion.
It's an echo of the early days of transistor HiFi amps when the phrase 'listener fatigue' was coined to describe the effect of some sound systems which were great on paper and popular with anoraks, but somehow quite naff.
There is but I am referring to the use of the words 'home cinema' when its a TV and some speakers. The marketeers have used this to sell more equipment. The sound in some 'real cinemas' is IMHO, piss poor, like they've let the children play with the mixing desk.
Some people seem to like to re-create that gen-u-whine experience at home with their 'impressive' home cinema.
A lot of the source material that people watch at home seems to have over-processed audio whatever equipment you have?
Most of the films I enjoy don't need a mind-blowing soundtrack, I prefer a good story well written and acted.
If you want realistic munitions damage to your hearing, that's a lot to ask from a home sound system.
If you want to hear the dialogue, that's mostly a matter of your system not damaging the audio signal, not whether it's 7.1 or mono or whatever.
Every complication is an opportunity to remove quality and add distortion.
It's an echo of the early days of transistor HiFi amps when the phrase 'listener fatigue' was coined to describe the effect of some sound systems which were great on paper and popular with anoraks, but somehow quite naff.
A home cinema is supposed to replicate the film, just how the director and producer intended ... both in terms of audio and video ... the standard to which designers work to in basic terms is reference level. Whilst its not always achievable (every room is a compromise), a cinema room is a room which at least has attempted to get close using the industry wide design principles.
Its just the term 'home cinema' which grinds my gears
JEA1K said:
There is but I am referring to the use of the words 'home cinema' when its a TV and some speakers. The marketeers have used this to sell more equipment.
A home cinema is supposed to replicate the film, just how the director and producer intended ... both in terms of audio and video ... the standard to which designers work to in basic terms is reference level. Whilst its not always achievable (every room is a compromise), a cinema room is a room which at least has attempted to get close using the industry wide design principles.
Its just the term 'home cinema' which grinds my gears
Best not let these things wind you up.A home cinema is supposed to replicate the film, just how the director and producer intended ... both in terms of audio and video ... the standard to which designers work to in basic terms is reference level. Whilst its not always achievable (every room is a compromise), a cinema room is a room which at least has attempted to get close using the industry wide design principles.
Its just the term 'home cinema' which grinds my gears
I've never been at a live gig, whether it's Pink Floyd, AC/DC or some bloke down the pub and thought it's exactly like expensive HiFi.
Home Cinema just means watching films at home to me. Go as far as you want or need in terms of big screens and complex audio.
Personally so long as the equipment is good enough that I enjoy the film, I'm not too bothered.
Most of the films I don't enjoy on a 43inch screen with a half reasonable stereo probably wouldn't be my choice to go to a cinema for.
If you enthuse about advanced sound for cinema, it's maybe not great to knock systems which people use to move a small step in that direction, any more than it's good for audiophiles to mock people who only spend a couple of hundred to have a better sound than a cheap radio.
Also, sometimes a good basic system is better than a poor complicated one.
Miserablegit said:
JEA1K said:
Because its not a home cinema ... its a TV with 'some speakers'. I'm not being pedantic but there is a huge difference to what Currys/John Lewis /Richer Sounds label home cinema and the rest of the world.
I’m sure the OP thanks you for your valuable input.Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff