Ways to connect sound systems to new television set

Factual Questions
21

Ah! All kinds of excellent stuff there, thanks!

It’s especially useful to know that there isn’t any “surround sound” broken out inside the television set. This makes the AV receiver seem more important.

The duplication I was fretting about was the HDMI switching. Maybe this is not such a big fraction of what is inside the receiver – and again, it’s no longer logically a valid decision making point, unless I was finding audio surround sound amps that just take the HDMI from the television set, and so far I wasn’t.

If the television set did support wireless speakers for surround sound that would change everything, but what you say makes it sound less likely. Since I can’t tell from the documentation, was told by the big box clerks that no wireless speakers are compatible with it, and am awaiting some kind of confirmation, I think I’m happy assuming for now that wireless speakers run from the television set are not an option, and just possibly getting a happy surprise when Samsung answers my question.

I’m exploring where I might fit a center speaker on or close to the centerline. I like the idea that it makes things foolproof. I actually don’t believe how good we think it sounds is a very good guide, because of all the tricks our senses play and because doing a very meaningful experiment (at least 5 or 10 speaker setups, double-blind, using multiple media examples, etc etc) is not realistic for anybody but Consumer Reports or groups like them. I think having a system from a major manufacturer working the way they intended, with speakers tested to have fairly flat frequency response, is likelier to prevail long term as a system we like. It’s kind of like how back-and-forth comparative taste testing will always have you prefer the soda that has more sugar, while careful blinded experiments tasting a different soda every day and carefully statistically treating results will lead you to a soda you’ll enjoy forever. If I could point magic wands around and try a zillion different products, I’d probably wind up with big Cerwin-Vega speakers, and then start wondering why I kept getting headaches…

??? What are “WAF issues”?

Glad you like Dr. Who! We actually tried changing “audio mode” from “standard” to “clear voice” last night, but Mrs. Napier thought it sounded too bright. I thought it improved the balance of voice versus background music, but am not sure I could really tell this accurately. With a surround sound system I can imagine it’s at least possible to try turning up and down the different speakers (or unplugging them or blocking their fronts) to study options for favoring dialog. Maybe we’d wind up spending extra later on a more efficient (louder) midrange center speaker, if such studies suggested trying it.

Budget? Shoot, I thought the $1000 I spent on the television set was going to be it, so I’m dismayed to find there’s another chunk. I dunno, I guess I expect it’s going to be over $200 and I’m likely to feel reluctance to go over $500. But since I’m not clear how happy I’ll be with the different results, those are soft. I guess I might spend another $1000 if it turned out to make the sound magically better, or better to say if it improved our ability to hear clearly as dramatically as a screen 30" high improved our ability to see clearly over our 10+ year old CRT television screen on which the image height was a measly 11".

22

There seem to be two schools of thought about the center speaker. One is that you don’t need it because, after all, we’ve been listening to stereo for years on the premise that two well-placed speakers are capable of full spatial imaging. My desktop computer speakers are particularly great in that regard – when something is supposed to be dead center, that’s exactly where I hear it – seemingly coming right out of the middle of the screen.

The other school says that the center channel is vitally important because it tends to carry most of the voice dialog, and should have its own dedicated speaker.

But what both can agree on is that the physical placement of a center speaker is often a pain in the butt. This is where the WAF issues come in – I presume WAF = Wife Approval Factor, and I note that Mrs. Napier’s opinions have made their appearance here several times already, including nix on the center speaker! :wink:

I don’t have a center speaker and totally don’t miss it. I considered getting one when I got the rear surround speakers when upgrading my configuration from stereo to surround, but didn’t because the nuisance of where to put it seemed more trouble than it was worth. Since then I’ve gone through three different TVs and two different placements and the center speaker would have been a nuisance in all of them. But I do have the two main front speakers no more than about 8 or 10 feet apart (total) on either side of the TV. I seem to recall specific guidelines on stereo speaker separation for optimum spatial imaging. If they’re too far apart relative to your distance from them, you just get sound from the two sides and start to lose the stereo effect. In such a case a center channel speaker would be important.

23

If I could poke in with a related question …

In the other **Napier **thread about improving TV sound for the hearing impaired folks said, or seemed to say, that by getting an audio system that included a center speaker and then turning down or off the left & right you could emphasize the dialog over the sound effects, music, crowd noise at sporting events, etc.

I’d pay real money for a system that could turn down all that crap and leave me with just the dialog at normal speaking volume and everything else down at the bare threshold of audibility.

In the experts’ experience with 5.1, center speakers, etc., is it A) practical and B) effective, to use a center speaker system this way? Or is there some other gizmo I want to buy instead to achieve my goal?

Obviously the success would be heavily dependent on the source material being encoded correctly with an all-but-dedicated dialog channel. Does anyone know if content is commonly recorded that way under any of the current fancy-pants sound encodings?

24

WAF is indeed Wife Approval Factor.

The issue with a centre speaker is interesting, and a lot of what you get in home theatre setups is influenced by the problem.

The problem is that human stereo-location is dominated by the simple difference in sound levels between the ears. Next comes phase and frequency response differences. Movies can only really use level differences because they have to cater to the entire audience distributed throughout the cinema. And it is this distribution of listener location that drives the manner multi-channel is used.

A movie will be mixed to only use level differences, and a mixdown performed in your TV or receiver to create a stereo or limited speaker setup from the full set of surround channels will also only be able to steer location with level differences (although some now claim to use HRTF - Head Related Transfer Functions - the different frequency response your head has depending upon direction) to improve things.

But the elephant in the room is that the level you hear from a speaker falls with the square of the distance from the speaker. This has the very unfortunate effect that only a relatively small movement off the centre axis means that the speaker you move closer to will rise in level compared to the one you move away from quite drastically. Enough that the entire stereo image collapses into the near speaker. So how do you cope with more people than just the person right in the middle? The answer is to use a centre speaker, and to split the sound much more strongly. Speech then tends to be mixed to be present only in centre, and then doesn’t have the odd effect of sounding as if it is coming from a point outside of the screen. This allows a much wider set of locations that get the desired effect. It is also why the centre speaker really needs to be in the centre.

You can get a very satisfactory stereo effect without a centre speaker for a limited number of people (say sitting across a couch) with careful selection of speakers, position and how they are angled. The trick is to angle the speakers in so much that the left speaker is essentially pointing at the listener on the right, and the right speaker at the listener on the left. What happens is that the natural drop off in level when off-axis from the speakers is being used to compensate for the drop in level with distance. To work well you need speakers with a carefully designed polar response. But it is worth trying. Not all speakers will oblige. Some people are adamant that the result is superior when done right.

25

The two 5.1 receiver/speaker systems I’ve had over the last 8 years have had a “dialogue boost” function that raises the volume of the centre channel. It only really works properly on properly encoded 5.1 audio, if it’s a TV stereo mix that the receiver is “intelligently” splitting into 5 channels then the results aren’t as good. You can also individually adjust the volumes of each speaker separately but that is intended more as a set and forget thing you do as part of the initial setup.

Sometimes you don’t want the centre channel boost. If I’m playing a PS4 game with dialogue I’ll generally have the centre boost on, if I’m playing something more atmospheric I’ll turn it off. If I’m listening to music I’ll turn it off also.

26

Thanks, Francis, for another informative post. That’s a good answer to the question “why would you need a center speaker when two speakers have always been able to do spatial imaging in stereo setups?”. But as you say, it depends on how many people are in the audience and how they’re spread out relative to the size and geometry of the room or theater. I get by just fine without a center channel. It’s interesting but true that the quality of the stereo imaging really does depend on the speakers themselves to some extent, as well as placement.

I concur with Richard Pearse – other than perhaps a one-button “dialog boost” function, the adjustment of channel levels is more of an initial setup function than an everyday volume adjustment function. It’s intended to compensate for speaker location or differences between front/rear speaker efficiency. Thus, on my receiver at least, it only works on channels that have physical speakers attached. Without a center speaker, I get the center channel downmixed equally to LF and RF and can’t control the “virtual” center channel volume independently.

@LSLGuy: FWIW, this is what Dolby’s setup guide says about the center speaker:
To ensure a home theater experience that isn’t dominated by dramatic sound effects at the expense of dialogue clarity, be sure to set the proper volume level for your center speaker. Turning up the overall volume to compensate for dialogue that’s too soft will often overpower you with everything except dialogue. Most movies and TV shows are mixed with the bulk of the dialogue in the center channel, and proper level setting will keep it loud and clear.

27

A couple of years ago, when I wanted to replace my DVD player, I got a Sony Blu-Ray Player/Home Theatre unit. I had a Sony Bravia TV, like wolfpup. The BD/HT unit only has one HDMI port and it has the ARC, as does HDMI input 1 on the TV. So they connect together using the ARC port. My other sources, satellite STB, Apple TV and WinPC, all connect to the other HDMI ports on the TV. The TV source selects which video plays, but all audio goes through to the BD/HT player which has 5.1 sound and includes the decoders for DTS, and some other coding methods, which I can’t remember right now.

The speakers are quite small for the BDV-E370, so the centre one fits under the screen when it’s sitting on its standard foot. The player has been superseded now, so the current model, the BDV-E1200 may not have the same size speakers and may be harder to fit in a small space.

Advantages are that when I got the new BD player, I didn’t have to get another box to fit in the limited space available. Also, I normally only have to use one remote to control the source selection on the TV and volume and other functions on the player. I still have separate remotes for the Apple TV, STB and WinPC.

The main disadvantage is that I have the maximum number of HDMI sources used unless I add an HDMI switch. If I had a separate HT receiver, then it would possibly have more HDMI inputs than the TV. It seems between 4 and 7 inputs, depending on the make and model.

28

Wow, completely excellent discussion here, thanks!

WAF may turn out to be OK for a center speaker, if I can fit it on the shelf in the furniture under the television set. Which I would be able to do if I bought one of those Home Theatre in a Box systems. I didn’t like about those that they duplicated a DVD player, but then if I had a thin HTiB amplifier/DVD player I could remove the existing DVD player, fit the new box on top of the satellite box, and have room on that same shelf for a center speaker, if it can fit in about a 20 by 7 inch space.

So how about spending $200 to $400 on a name brand HTiB system? Way better then the television’s speakers or a sound bar, right?

29

Here I think we’ve come to the realm of opinion and preferences, but let me make an observation. You might want to ask yourself what’s more important – having the prescribed distribution of sound around the room, or having the best possible audio fidelity. For instance, to take a couple of extremes, you might be able to get a 5.1 speaker system with some kind of amplifier for $200 to $400, or you could spend easily ten times that amount and end up with nothing more than an AV receiver and two front speakers. But which do you think would sound better? Way, way better?

What I’m suggesting is that a home theater system doesn’t have to be a “set”, it can be custom-assembled by you over time, maybe starting with just an AV receiver and a high quality pair of front speakers, and growing it from there. I would personally rather put limited money into an investment in a core capability that can be expanded, than into a complete system of lesser quality. That’s what I did, and the heart and soul of my sound system is the pair of magnificent front speakers.

But then again, the question of what’s “good enough” when it comes to quality, especially for something like TV sound, is very subjective. Many practical people will just go out and buy a HTiB and be perfectly happy with it, and it might be exactly the right choice for them.

My best suggestion is to make yourself a nuisance around audio stores by insisting on listening to lots and lots of different speaker systems, and take your time about it. You can also evaluate AV receivers but that can be done on the basis of specs and reviews. Speakers, OTOH, are very subjective and personal choices – you really have to get to know them well, up close and personal.

30

I would concur with wolfpup here. I have a certain dislike for crappy speakers (to say the least.) There are a whole range of things you can do, and making a clear set of priorities a good start.

Personally I listen to music the most, and things get built around that desire. But there are a lot variations possible. There are also some silly cheap ways of getting a good result.

When it comes to speakers I have never bought. Always made my own - sometimes from existing kits or designs, nowadays from my own designs. The insane cost charged for boxes of air over the cost of parts is nuts. And second hand is a real option. But you do need to know a bit about what is on offer. I have no idea what your desires or limitations may be. But some careful investigation of the options and avoiding some of the commodity crap can be very worthwhile.

31

HTiB is only marginally better than the tv speakers in most situations, and as you already said you are duplicating features you already have. I still maintain a soundbar is your best option as it is easy to hook up, sounds vastly better than the tv speakers, is relatively unobtrusive, and is within your budget. Check out the reviews on this Klipsch Icon SB-1. And it ships free right to your door! Crutchfield’s customer service is great to boot.

If you are intent on having a 5.1 setup then have a look at orb audio. They sound fantastic, look great, and compared to their competition are much less expensive.

32

My project concluded yesterday with the purchase of a HTiB system for $470. It was easy and foolproof to hook up, the television set recognized and used it without any configuration steps at all, and the sound is very remarkably better than the built in speakers. The remotes all seem to control the volume and muting without any configuration step, too. I bought a system of the same brand as the television set.

Some observations:

A HTiB system should be able to sound much better than a soundbar, because both are built around the idea of incorporating all the speaker elements with a dedicated amp and connection to the rest of the setup, but the soundbar adds the constraint that everything but the subwoofer has to fit into a single box that is small in one dimension and really tiny in the other two. If you’re trying to create a spatial arrangement of sounds, how is that constraint NOT going to be a serious one?

My television can’t drive separate wireless speakers, even though it does some decoding of the surround sound internally (to get signals for its built in speakers) and has Bluetooth built in.

Forty years ago people played endlessly with stereo systems at the component level. There were all sorts of considerations, but they were practically never based on compatibility per se. There was more to do with the engineering of sound quality (albeit much of this wasn’t done with good engineering methods and there was a great deal of subjective and misleading stuff going on). Now it takes a great deal of digging to find out what can connect to what else, and lots of bad information about it. You plug this into that, and nothing happens – that’s a pretty new development in consumer electronics, just the last maybe 20 or 30 years.

I could have gone way further with an AV receiver and separate speakers everyplace. These little mostly plastic boxes are obviously not as nice as they could be. I have to put this into a whole-life perspective, though - I have probably 8 years left to earn all I will ever earn, and there are a zillion places to put my money, and hanging around AV equipment means spending a lot of time and getting a lot of hustle. I wanted to spend $1000 on a nice television set, and wound up spending about $1800 in cash but also to my surprise around $600 worth of time. I’m pretty sure part of what is going on is the manufacturers trying to make it confusing to increase their sales. I had to post another query in a dedicated forum someplace and send two messages to Samsung just to get a definitive answer to the question of whether I could connect wireless speakers; this surprises me. At least two of the definitive answers I got from people in brick and mortar stores were just incorrect.

All that being said, the sound is really very nice; it’s eerie how it fills the room, and it’s now easier to make out the dialog.

One last note – “Dr. Who” definitely plays their background music too loud. WTF is up with that? Background music isn’t even supposed to be an important part of the show.