I Finally Did It!!!

Loud & Clear

Flibbity-flew. You know what I hate? It's that damn color they put in these modern 'movies.' Irritates me false teeth somethin' fierce! Prefer black & white without the white (too bright for me sight receptacles), always have.

Know what else I hate? I hate it when these damn kids laugh out loud, or jump up into the air when they knows I'm a seein' 'em! You don't think I wish I could do that!? Why do they have to flaunt it like that?!

Surround noises and colors are for morons who ain't smart enough to be able to concentrate on only ONE things at a time!

I'm older than George Burns' balls. :mad:

F1nut

Originally posted by Loud & Clear
Surround noises and colors are for morons who ain't smart enough to be able to concentrate on only ONE things at a time!

LOL....and some folks aren't smart enough to get the original point.

George Grand

I miss him already.

Great answers youse guys.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

DR. SNOW

WOW!

Ive been away over the weekend and didn't realize there was sooo much response to my origional post. Thanks for all the input! I think I will go buy some monster cable and some Bose speakers, perhaps I can get that neat clear base module!!!! JUST KIDDING GUYS/GALS. I appreciate all the input and actually I am kind of sorry that it turned the way it did. Quite honestly I joined the forum because I respect the opinions of people who have had experience with other equipment. The conversations I have seen hear have soured me somewhat. EVERYONE on this forum is entitled to an opinion and it should not come down to name calling and finger pointing. I think it really is rather unfortunate. It kinda reminded me of the holidays I spent with my family:o Not something I enjoyed as a kid. Nor do I enjoy reading it here. Thanks to all of you who wrote positive comments. Personally I think I will create a surround system. I like surround for movies and have a great appreciation for listening to music in 2 channel.

RuSsMaN

George fired the first shot across his bow. At least that's how I read it.

I kind of like this new guy.

Cheers,
Russ

polksda

Yumpin' Yiminy.

You like surround? Listen in surround.

You no like surround? Don't listen in surround.

There isn't one single correct answer; it's personal preference. Dowhatchalike.

I tend to prefer music in true stereo. However, there are some concert DVDs and DTS audio CDs that I really like the surround effects on. It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition...

What I prefer may not be what you prefer. So what? What's the BFHFD?

Oh, and just because a movie isn't in b&w or in mono, doesn't mean it's a piece of tripe made only for kids. The carmudgeon is coming through loud and clear, George...

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by DR. SNOW
I wanted to ask you fine people what you think about using the SDA series as HT speakers. I want to be able to listen to music as well without hampering the SDA effect. Has anyone tried making a switch to disable and enable the SDA effect? Is it recomended to run with the SDA effect with a HT setup or not, hence my first question. I found the Polk recomended center, rear and sub, but most are obsolete, are there updated recomendations or should I be keeping my eyes open for the obsolete stuff?

Hi Doc,

There is no need to disable the SDA effect regardless of whether you are listening to 2-channel music or multi-channel movies. The SDA effect uses Interaural crosstalk cancellation to create a more accurate sound. In real life there is only one source producing a sound. Our hearing uses the differences in timing of the sound coming from a single source to each ear to determine the location of the sound.

In stereo or multi-channel reproduction, two main sources attempt to recreate the original single source sound. As a result sounds from the left speaker is heard in the right ear and visa versa. These additional artifical sounds are called Interaural crosstalk, and they result in a loss of imaging because the additional sounds blur the original directional sound cues need by our hearing to localize the sound.

As a result the SDA effect will always improve imaging regardless of whether it is stereo or multi-channel soundtrack.

With regard to matching speakers to your CRS's, Tour2ma has provided a lot of good advice. I have a pair of SDA-1C's for my mains. With the exception of the passive radiator, they have the identical drivers as the CRS's. For a long time I used the CS400 center with good results. As Tour mentioned they were a good match, but the CRS's were a perfect match. So I now use two CRS's as my center. You might consider using a CS400, or even an other CRS as a center. The downside of using the CRS is even if you used two you would not be able to use the SDA effect because it requires two channels.

With regard to surrounds I am using the f/x500 for the sides and the LC265i's In-Wall for the surround back. Both work very well. The LC265i uses the same drivers as the LSi series. Despite the newness of the LSi line, these drivers match up well with the vintage SDA's. In fact it was Matt Polk himself who recommended that I match the LSi driver to my SDA's. So depending on your budget you should be able to match a center and surrounds from the LSi line with decent results.

Larry

George Grand

Polksda,

An extreme example is what I used.

Been down the surround road for both audio AND video, starting a loooong time ago.

If it's a good video, I get very engrossed in the MOVIE PART OF THE MOVIE, and find the "gee whiz I have helicopters circling around my room" part both annoying AND distracting. Maybe it comes with maturity, maybe not. Maybe it comes with being sick of all the gee whiz stuff, and maybe not. I am into human interest films, not sound effects. That is NOT moviemaking. OKAY? It's flash.

All I need is a REAL GOOD pair of speakers up front, so that when someone slams a car door, it sounds like someone slammed a car door, or when someone fires a cannon, that somebody fired a cannon. The AR-9's OR The Carver Amazing's will deliver that in spades, and image like all hell too. You like gimmicks, then enjoy gimmicks. It's not for me.

I am dead serious when I suggest that some of the folks will definitely buy into 25.1 when it gets to that. A totally passive Dynaco Quadaptor and two surround speakers, will give you 90% of this 5.1 or 7.1 stuff, at 1/90th the cost. Why can I make that statement? Maybe cause I've been THERE, and done THAT.

I especially took offense at yobbo's For Your Information look at my pile of very important equipment line. Who cares how much stuff he has? Is that pile of stuff supposed to make ME change MY MIND about what I like? Is it supposed to make me change my opinion of ANYTHING?

I re-iterate, "I" don't care what ANYBODY else has, I care about what "I" have. This does not make me "self-obsessed" it makes me a damn realist.

I kind of like Dr. Snow also. If it looks like I fired a shot across HIS bow, you're mistaken. I fired a shot dead amidships into the other individual. He's gone, and I'm fine with it.

Hi Larry.



George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

VR3

Must admit that I slightly agree with George...and I wont do this much...

Going from 5.1---to 4.1---to 2.1, I enjoy my 2.1 system much more. Even in larger rooms, the 5.1 setups I've heard... the surround channels above my head or behind me only detracted from my movie experience...

The center channel only left a continuous 'direction' of blah, is this thing even worth it? its ALWAYS there...

A good set of mains will murder any 5.1 system with a seamless blend and enveloping surround setup.

I'll put my 2.1 systems against ALOT of 5.1 systems as far as L to C to R blend, side action fill in, and even rear fill in...

I get it all, especially in my small room.

Now...I do agree if you have a REALLY large room, multiple speakers will be needed, of course...unless you have some extroidinary large speakers like Mr. Grand over here...its a a requirement if you REALLY want to have the enveloping experience..

My statement still stands though, even in larger rooms - a 2.1 system will rock a 5.1 system, no matter how well setup in seamless blend...

Back to regurally schelduled program

F1nut

Trey, you make me proud. I taught you well.:)

VR3

Yeah...well...

I'm gonna go watch me some 2.1 SUR-WOUND-ROUND

Yall have fun...

OH yeah...

Congrats on your speakers Doc...seems you were very deserving...seem to be in good hands!

PS: I've learned alot from the forum here...especially from the 2-channel nuts...and thats an understatement (big thanks to yall!)

Polk65

Originally posted by DR. SNOW
I finally dought a pair of Polk SDA-CRS+.
I wanted to ask you fine people what you think about using the SDA series as HT speakers.

I'm an SDA virgin again, now it's with movies. When I owned SDA 2.3TL's back in the late 80's I was using them only for music. Until recently, I had been using a 7.1 setup for movies and quite happy with it. About two weeks ago I scored a pair of CRS and have been listening to them both with music and movies.

A result of my short time with them is, during 75% of the movies I've watched, I check to be certain that my old center channel speaker is really off! As I walk back to my chair scratching my head, I just can't believe it.

Finally the sound matches the surface area of the movie. The soundstage has increased about 3x taller than it was before, which I really love. I'm hearing sounds from "outside" my speaker cabinets during movies that I never noticed before with the 7.1 setup which is quite interesting.

Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and A Streetcar Named Desire never sounded so good to me. I agree with Sid's comment about the center channel speaker. Previously I had found myself staring at it's location as the only source of dialog. Now the center dialog is about 2x wider and blends partially into the side sounds.

My next tests over the coming weeks will be with my RTA12's, sub, sides, rear, and center.

edit: I should kick my own a$$ for not buying SDA's again sooner.

billbillw

George,
You are right, you will get about 90% of the movie's soundtrack info from a 2-channel setup. For many that is enough. Just like you will get 90% of the image quality from a 27" tv and a vcr tape. What you won't get is the complete movie experience as the director intended. Sometimes, that extra 10% is enough to make the experience extraordinary instead of just average. Is a movie more enjoyable with a large screen tv or projection unit and DVD source? Yes, of course it is. I feel the same about multi-channel soundtracks.

I think that many of you 2-channel drum beaters have just not expereienced a PROPERLY setup multichannel system with GREAT multichannel source material. When I say properly setup, I mean every speaker is timbre matched and sized appropriately; the speakers are placed in optimal locations; the system is SPL level adjusted, time delay adjusted, and otherwise optimized. When everything is setup properly, the surround effect immerses you in the movie. It doesn't distract you. It brings a smile to your face when you get the feeling you are right there.

Yes, I will agree that some movie makers go overboard and it does get distracting, but the really good movies/directors/sound mixers use the surround effects only to add ambience and realism to the movie.

I can enjoy a movie in 2-channel, but I prefer multichannel. That is how the director wanted us to see the movie.

Music is a different story. I will not use any artificial processing on my music. CDs get played in 2 channel, no question. SACD and DVD-A are still a mixed bag due the varying quality of their multichannel mixes. Most of the early multichannel releases are "gee whiz" sounding, but many of the newer releases really sound good. I love the SACD multichannel of Dark Side of the Moon and the recent Concord Jazz Sampler multi-channel SACD.

Bottom line is, enjoy what you like and don't diss others for their opinions. Most audiophiles put many, many hours of research, testing, listening, experimenting, etc. into their equipment choices. Naturally they want to share that. At least one other forum member (Hbomb) was interested in nspindle's equipment. George was out of line posting the line "I don't care about your equipment" and treating him like he was some newbie who didn't know anything. Many people, including me, come to this forum after many years of audio tinkering and have been part of the audiophile community in one way or another. They may be new here, but not neccesarily a newbie. Your post count doesn't equate to your knowledge or experience.

HBombToo

Originally posted by billbillw
At least one other forum member (Hbomb) was interested in nspindle's equipment.

George was out of line posting the line "I don't care about your equipment" and treating him like he was some newbie who didn't know anything.

Many people, including me, come to this forum after many years of audio tinkering and have been part of the audiophile community in one way or another. They may be new here, but not neccesarily a newbie. Your post count doesn't equate to your knowledge or experience.

I'm always interested in new stuff but shoot the guy went ballistic and I lost interest real fast.

I did not read Georges post in that light. From an objective point of view on my end I saw it as sharing experience with "the gear I have" and that was the intent from start to finish. I learn a lot here due to that fact.

The third point is dead on as long as an individual does not get into the mind set of my gear is better than your gear or your stuff sounds like crap or some variant.

Henry

dorokusai

Blah Blah Blah

If a movie had the same impact on 2CH that it does in multichannel, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Take your 2CH movie experience and shove it up your arse flunkies....you simply didn't do something right to think that it is the same or better. Get real.

I mean that with respect of course to you older people, the younger ones can blast off

I think anything more than 7.1 in the typical individuals setup is simply excessive and unneccesary. 5.1 makes me giggle like a little girl.

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by George Grand

Hi Larry.

Hi George,

I see you're in the thick of it.

I have to say that this debate appears to be a digression from Doc's original question which I have attempted to answer in the posting preceeding yours. I think you and the other knowledgeable SDAers could be more helpful if you could focus on that issue rather than getting into a debate about your movie watching personal preferences.

To recap what Doc originally wanted to know was whether he should turn off the SDA effect for movies and how to match centers and surrounds to his CRS's.

Regards,

Larry

George Grand

Dr. Snow, I'm sorry I had a hand in this, but I don't think anyone is hearing me.

I DON'T care about anybody elses equipment. You shouldn't care about MY equipment. I would CARE if your equipment burst into flames and you didn't have it anymore, but aside from that, I don't care what you have. Do you CARE about what kind of car I drive? Do you CARE about what kind of house I live in? Aside from caring that YOUR car is not a hazard on the road to others and yourself, or that YOUR house is a firetrap and a danger to you, your family, and your neighbors, I don't CARE about what kind of house you live in, what kind of car you drive, and what kind of equipment you own.

I think the blowhards original statement was, "But I don't think ANYONE could argue, that if you're watching a dvd, it's better in surround, rather than 2 channel." Then as if to re-inforce his position, he listed what I imagine was his idea of a "Shut your mouth, LOOK AT WHAT I LISTEN TO" list of equipment. Well I feel like I CAN argue the point about watching a dvd in surround or two channel, and a list of equipment doesn't enter the picture as far as I'm concerned.

MAN, am I wasting my breath here or what?

The guy trolled in, and he trolled out. Fare thee well troll.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

billbillw

George,
If you really don't care what anyone else has, why do you read and post on this forum? The forum is to share knowledge and experience on audio equipment, especially Polk Audio equipment. What works and what doesn't work. Its a collective knowledge base. You can't discuss those experiences without sharing information the equipment that you own, have owned, or wish to own, and you can't really understand where others are coming from unless you know what they own, have owned, or wish to own.

No, we don't care what type of car or house you own because this is not a home improvement forum or an automobile forum.

DR. SNOW

Why can't we all just get along!:rolleyes:

Okay, as I said I have made a decision..... personally I like the dizzying effect of helicopters buzzing around ny head. Perhaps Mr. Grand doesn't and that is perfectly fine. My origional question, that some have generously answered, was...

""what you think about using the SDA series as HT speakers. I want to be able to listen to music as well without hampering the SDA effect. Has anyone tried making a switch to disable and enable the SDA effect? Is it recomended to run with the SDA effect with a HT setup or not, hence my first question. I found the Polk recomended center, rear and sub, but most are obsolete, are there updated recomendations or should I be keeping my eyes open for the obsolete stuff?""

My intention was not to start a very heated discussion. I wanted to ask the opinions of other SDA owners who had the in a HT setup. I have decided that I will add a new Denon 3805 in the near future. Then begin to add a center and surrounds as time and money allows. I am also working on my house so money is an issue. I am in enough trouble with the wife for building a set of stands for the SDA's while other projects that where started months ago are still not complete..... But the speakers have stands! Can you tell what my priorities are.;)

CU

dorokusai

Larry Chanin and Darque Knight have been on both sides of this issue. LC uses CRS's for centers....DK uses the LSiC....both are happy and giggle like little girls.

I think the CRS is a great speaker, I'm enjoying mine right now....have fun with it.

Everything can be fixed by quality audio, new home? screw it....I envision a 7.1 SDA refrigerator box with dual subwoofers....and a second hand mattress.

nobleone

Hello all,

I have been checking out the forums for a few months, but this
is my first post.
I own a pair of SDA SRS 2.3 and a Hafler XL600 both bought
in 1989. I Love BIG sound during shootouts and car
crashes, but with the virtual surround on my DVD player
turned on I have not felt the need to "upgrade" to HT.
To each their own.

Be talking again....someday....It will probably take another rant

Marcus

F1nut

Ranting is good, ranting is fun, rant away!

TroyD

As a wise man once said, if it's yours and you enjoy it...is it REALLY all that important what anyone else thinks???

Sheesh...

For the record, with SDA mains, I've used both an LSiC and (currently) a pair of CRS's....while the LSiC was good, the CRS's are much better.

BDT

jcmccorm

How do you use a pair of CRS's as center?

Do you position them side-by-side or on top of each other? Wouldn't that cause an interference pattern in that speaker's radiated sound pattern?

Cary

dorokusai

Take a look at Larry Chanin's system showcase.

jcmccorm

Thanks! I see what Larry is doing - two CRS's, one on the bottom of the screen and one on top. I've always read that this is a no-no as the two centers will set up an interference pattern that mimics a comb filter.

On the other hand, I've always wanted to try this as well. I'm using a Boston Acoustics VR-12 for center and ended up buying a second one on ebay so I could give this a shot with these.

The two CRS's would be a better match for my SRS's up front though. I always thought the Boston Acoustics VR-12 center matched pretty well until one scene in "The Incredibles" where the dialog pans back and forth between center and left front. The mismatch was so obvious it made me wince and look at my guests. Of course, as usual, it was only me that notices such minutia...

Cary

Larry Chanin

Originally posted by jcmccorm
Thanks! I see what Larry is doing - two CRS's, one on the bottom of the screen and one on top. I've always read that this is a no-no as the two centers will set up an interference pattern that mimics a comb filter.

On the other hand, I've always wanted to try this as well. I'm using a Boston Acoustics VR-12 for center and ended up buying a second one on ebay so I could give this a shot with these.

The two CRS's would be a better match for my SRS's up front though. I always thought the Boston Acoustics VR-12 center matched pretty well until one scene in "The Incredibles" where the dialog pans back and forth between center and left front. The mismatch was so obvious it made me wince and look at my guests. Of course, as usual, it was only me that notices such minutia...

Cary

Hi Cary,

With regard to comb filtering perhaps the following thread may be of interest:

Dual Centers for Front Projection?

In theory if the listener is equidistant from two speakers that are producing the same sound, the sounds reach your ears at the same time. Therefore, there is no delay between the sounds coming from each speaker, and without a delay there can not be comb filtering.

If you study the difference in geometry between vertically stacked dual centers versus horizontally oriented dual centers you will quickly realize that listeners sitting off-axis from stacked centers can still be equidistant from both speakers. However, listeners sitting off-axis from horizontally oriented dual centers will only be equidistant if they are sitting on-axis. Therefore, anyone sitting off-axis in a horizontal arrangement will be subjected to more comb filtering distortion than a stacked configuration because there will be more of a difference in distance to the speakers and therefore a delay between the sounds. This delay causes constructive and destructive interference between the two sounds which in turn creates the distinctive comb filtering pattern seen on frequency response plots.

Larry

nspindel

I'm digging this thread up from the past for no reason other than to eat some humble pie. I was a complete jerk to George Grand way back when I joined this forum. I'm embarrassed to be re-reading what I wrote 7 years ago. I apologized to George privately quite a while ago, and I now consider him a friend. But I also feel that I owe him an apology in public. George is a highly respected and liked member of this forum, and I completely regret that this conversation ever happened. I would hate for this thread to pop up in someone's google search and be read without me closing the loop on this discussion. I had no right speaking to him as I did, especially as a brand new member of the forum, and I apologize for my actions, however long ago they may be. I'm grateful that George was gracious enough to accept my private apology several years ago, and has been kind to me since. Even so, I wanted to do this out in the open as well. This is completely unprompted, I doubt anyone has read this thread in years, but I have always felt badly about my actions in the years since, and wanted to right my wrong.

zane77

I got into this thread before i realized it was 7 years old, then i couldn't stop reading. I apreciate you bring this back up and closing the gap. I also enjoy reading your opinions on how you have improved your music experiance over the years.

westmassguy

nspindel wrote: »

I'm digging this thread up from the past for no reason other than to eat some humble pie. I was a complete jerk to George Grand way back when I joined this forum. I'm embarrassed to be re-reading what I wrote 7 years ago. I apologized to George privately quite a while ago, and I now consider him a friend. But I also feel that I owe him an apology in public. George is a highly respected and liked member of this forum, and I completely regret that this conversation ever happened. I would hate for this thread to pop up in someone's google search and be read without me closing the loop on this discussion. I had no right speaking to him as I did, especially as a brand new member of the forum, and I apologize for my actions, however long ago they may be. I'm grateful that George was gracious enough to accept my private apology several years ago, and has been kind to me since. Even so, I wanted to do this out in the open as well. This is completely unprompted, I doubt anyone has read this thread in years, but I have always felt badly about my actions in the years since, and wanted to right my wrong.

So the Troll Accuser was once Accused of being a Troll himself. Karma really sucks sometimes. It's very easy to say things via the anonymity and relative safety of the internet, that we would otherwise temper if the person were sitting in front us. nspindle, please accept my apology for OUR last exchange.