Best budget route to 5.1 surround
#16
(2014-01-25, 09:19)drew_willy Wrote:
(2014-01-25, 04:01)bluray Wrote: Here is another blanket statement- "no soundbar will ever comparable to the real 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound speakers". Soundbar will never have rear and side speakers to produce complete surround sound, especially in larger theater room.


Uh...

http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-speaker...60754.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-speaker...33918.html

I don't think it is looking good for your blanket statements.
If you want to go through all the hassle to add the surround speakers to a soundbar, would as well get the really 5.1 speakers. I do give them credit for trying to make soundbar produce better surround sound by adding two additional rear speakers though. If it is just the front soundbar speakers that go below/above TV, my blanket statement still hold true...

It remind me of my former Bose center channel with rear speakers....

Image
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#17
(2014-01-25, 09:19)drew_willy Wrote: http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-speaker...60754.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/surround-speaker...33918.html
If you are interesting in the soundbar with rear speakers, would as well go for this "Yamaha YHT-397 5.1-Channel Home Theater System". For very similar price range, you will get better A\V receiver and bigger speakers. You will have the option to spread out front surround speakers to get better dynamic sounds. You will get a real A\V receiver that provides enough HDMI connections for all your components, and it can decode DTS-MA and TrueHD codecs too...

(2014-01-25, 09:12)jacintech.fire Wrote: @bluray,
Of course...and computers will never need more than 512KB of ram...
...the SR 71 would never fly...
...and nobody will buy a computer without a physical keyboard...
...and....and...and...you get my point...
Stay focus my friend. This should be a pro/con on surround sound system. OP can make up his mind on it. If you want to debate on computer, you can create another thread. I'll be happy to entertain you on it....
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#18
@bluray,
Anytime...anyplace. I am ready to throw down. Pick a subject (ANY SUBJECT, xmbc related, even tangentially) and let's get ready to rumble...
My last one was over 5,000+ page view and 275+ comments in 24hrs...
Reply
#19
(2014-01-24, 21:02)charliek Wrote: A recent incident involving a small child means that I'm having to replace the telly... *sigh*

I hope the kid is alright!?!
Reply
#20
(2014-01-25, 09:30)jacintech.fire Wrote: Case in point: RAID{nn} was developed decades ago, when disk drives were notoriously unreliable, while drives still fail today, by and large their reliability has improved to the point that it is possible to do things today that would seem crazy/impossible years ago (which is why google, facebook, amazon, racksapce) use commodity hardware (including HDD) in their data center...

To most people RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs

To Google, Facebook, and maybe Amazon, RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Datacentres

Your point and counter-point are so out of whack, you make it look like you don't know what you're talking about.
Reply
#21
@twelvebore,
Please forgive my ignorance; after all, I am but a simple fisherman

"...To most people RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs
To Google, Facebook, and maybe Amazon, RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Datacentres
Your point and counter-point are so out of whack, you make it look like you don't know what you're talking about..."

So your argument is a matter of scale; and if so, it seems to be you are arguing that an approach which is scale-agnostic cannot be compared with one which is so.
Keep in mind that google, amazon, facebook and the other's approach can be safely scaled down to 4TB and still retains all its benefits. Conversely, scaling RAID (in whatever configuration) to Petabyte or Exabyte scale is NOT lineal...

My fellow tribesmen can still fish with a spear...just because they can does not mean I should not use my boat and venture out to sea..

Did I miss anything...?
Reply
#22
(2014-01-25, 21:59)jacintech.fire Wrote: @twelvebore,
Please forgive my ignorance; after all, I am but a simple fisherman

"...To most people RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs
To Google, Facebook, and maybe Amazon, RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Datacentres
Your point and counter-point are so out of whack, you make it look like you don't know what you're talking about..."

So your argument is a matter of scale; and if so, it seems to be you are arguing that an approach which is scale-agnostic cannot be compared with one which is so.
Keep in mind that google, amazon, facebook and the other's approach can be safely scaled down to 4TB and still retains all its benefits. Conversely, scaling RAID (in whatever configuration) to Petabyte or Exabyte scale is NOT lineal...

My fellow tribesmen can still fish with a spear...just because they can does not mean I should not use my boat and venture out to sea..

Did I miss anything...?

They implement redundancy at the server level and above, not the disc level. This scales because the cost of a server to them is marginal because it also scales other things (compute, memory), whereas to most people concerned about a mere 4TB the cost of a server is far from trivial.
Reply
#23
Hey OP, sorry for the slightly off topic. I do believe that you can get a lot of bang out of your buck with this- Yamaha YHT-397 5.1-Channel Home Theater System"....
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#24
I'm just going to insert my $.02 and attempt to steer this back in the right direction. 7 years ago I bought something like this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0077V88V8...lectronics and have been very happy with it. Simple, affordable, gets the job done, well known brand, and back when I was in a house it would rattle the windows. I'm sure my current neighbors don't like me either. You don't necessarily have to spend a lot to get good sound. Just off personal experience, most every day people wouldn't notice the difference between a $300 system or $1000 system. Even today people still think I paid more than I did. Only reason I would get rid of mine now is that it's grey and everything else I have is black. Just my $.02
Reply
#25
(2014-01-25, 22:08)twelvebore Wrote:
(2014-01-25, 21:59)jacintech.fire Wrote: @twelvebore,
Please forgive my ignorance; after all, I am but a simple fisherman

"...To most people RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Discs
To Google, Facebook, and maybe Amazon, RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Datacentres
Your point and counter-point are so out of whack, you make it look like you don't know what you're talking about..."

So your argument is a matter of scale; and if so, it seems to be you are arguing that an approach which is scale-agnostic cannot be compared with one which is so.
Keep in mind that google, amazon, facebook and the other's approach can be safely scaled down to 4TB and still retains all its benefits. Conversely, scaling RAID (in whatever configuration) to Petabyte or Exabyte scale is NOT lineal...

My fellow tribesmen can still fish with a spear...just because they can does not mean I should not use my boat and venture out to sea..

Did I miss anything...?

They implement redundancy at the server level and above, not the disc level. This scales because the cost of a server to them is marginal because it also scales other things (compute, memory), whereas to most people concerned about a mere 4TB the cost of a server is far from trivial.
Seriously, that's the best you can do?
"...They implement redundancy at the server level and above, not the disc level..."
I am trying very hard not to be condescending here...

"...whereas to most people concerned about a mere 4TB the cost of a server is far from trivial..."
a 4TB custom (as opposed to an off-the-shelf NAS appliance) storage solution implemented as either a RAID{nn} setup or Object/Aggregate Storage can (and could) be implemented on exactly the same hardware.

also a linear scale (increasing storage capacity) doesn't necessarily mean an increase in (physical) server instances; simply adding additional storage can and does meet the storage scaling requirement...

You argument should be for the relevance of a 26+ year old technology when both new technologies and improvements in hardware (HDDs) manufacturing have made other approaches more effective...
Where RAID{nn} wins hands down is when it comes to available expertise. Getting a decent RAID{nn} array up and running is more or less trivial. Setting up an aggregate/object storage solution is still a fairly complicated task. Made even more so as it requires a completely different way of looking at (and thinking about) data and its relationship (or future lack thereof) to an underlying filesystem.
Reply
#26
(2014-01-25, 22:18)LazerBlue Wrote: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0077V88V8...lectronics and have been very happy with it.

Only reason I would get rid of mine now is that it's grey and everything else I have is black.
That is a very nice little system. It included a very nice A/V receiver too.

A friend of mine have this surround sound system, and I thought that his is black...
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#27
(2014-01-25, 22:29)bluray Wrote: That is a very nice little system. It included a very nice A/V receiver too.

A friend of mine have this surround sound system, and I thought that his is black...

They are black right now. Mine is just about 7 years old back when you could still get a crt tv and most A/V equipment was grey. I wish mine were black though. It sticks out so much now.
Reply
#28
(2014-01-25, 22:35)LazerBlue Wrote:
(2014-01-25, 22:29)bluray Wrote: That is a very nice little system. It included a very nice A/V receiver too.

A friend of mine have this surround sound system, and I thought that his is black...

They are black right now. Mine is just about 7 years old back when you could still get a crt tv and most A/V equipment was grey. I wish mine were black though. It sticks out so much now.
I see! My friend have this "Onkyo HT-S3500 5.1-Channel Home Theater Speaker/Receiver Package", and it sounds very good for its small size. I cannot believe that Onkyo included a very nice A/V receiver and still can keep it at an un-believable low price....
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#29
(2014-01-24, 21:02)charliek Wrote: Would I be much better off waiting for a 'proper' AV reciever?

If you watch your films in a lounge room, then yes ... you would be much better off waiting for a proper AV receiver.
More powerful speakers fill the room much better.
Nothing makes a film great like good sound.

Suggest you either choose a soundbar (2.1), or build a proper system. You don't need a sub if you have floor standing L+R, because the large cabinets will give good bass.

Decent "get you started" = Get a Denon AVR-1713 (last year's model and therefore should be heavily discounted, but good). Q Acoustics (UK based as you are) have some nice speakers which are entry level of "high quality" and "low price". Not super cheap, but this is the price range you should be aiming at.

Avoid: Bose (non-standard wiring and overpriced). Avoid: The 5.1 "all-in-one" packages - the speakers are cheap, and the tweeters will blow when you play loud music. Blown tweeters create muffled speech in films.

Before you buy anything: Listen to it first, and compare with other systems. Some soundbars are really rubbish. Price is not a guide. What-Hifi is not a guide. Your ears are. Shop around and listen.
Reply
#30
vizio 5.1 soundbar is the best budget system imo
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Best budget route to 5.1 surround0