Building a "Reference" Home Theater

An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has recently written a 14-page article on building a 'reference' home theater. They go through step-by-step and define all of the issues you need to think about when going with a new home theater setup. Exceptionally detailed but also easy to read."

Comments

Does not compute.

[Anonymous Coward]

"a 14-page article", "easy to read."

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things does not belong.

Re:Does not compute.

[pez4realz]

Perhaps the article is written in exceptionally large font.

Re:Does not compute.

[walt-sjc]

"a 14-page article", "easy to read."

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things does not belong.

Worse, it's /.ed already, and doesn't have a working print version.

I guess it's an apt name for the web site though.

Re:Does not compute.

[Hatta]

Are you really so dim you consider a 14 page article hard to read? Man you should check out books, some of them have hundreds of pages. And yes, many of them are easy to read.

Re:Does not compute.

[_Sharp'r_]

Here's a much more useful article for anyone who actually wants to setup a great HT. My version's also going to be much shorter and based on much better research, since I actually occasionally work as an independant HT consultant to help people out:

1. For speakers go to Ascend Acoustics. The 170's are great, if you have a small room, go ahead and get the even smaller ones. Buy them w/the mounting bracket and aim 'em all towards the center of the "sweet spot" you want in your room. $1200 w/shipping and brackets.
2. Buy a decent subwoofer. Get a Canton, for example. Get it as inexpensive as you can find online. Probably get one smaller than you think you'll need, since everyone overestimate's how big of a sub they need, especially if you have full size other speakers, like the Ascend 170s. $250-350
3. For wires, go to Monoprice for anything specialty (hdmi, etc...) and Home Depot for a big spool of large gauge speaker wire. Everything wire could possibly need for a HT shouldn't run more than $100-200 total. Use good shielded coax for your sub. Every other speaker is perfect with Home Depot copper.
4. Get a Denon 38XX receiver. A really good receiver is key. Do some research on which models do what to fit your specific needs, but get something decent in the $900-1200 range at least to get the most use out of your speakers. Denon won't steer you wrong. There are other brands that are comparable, but don't cost any less when they're truely comparable and usually have at least one receiver class that isn't worth the money.
5. Get the latest best deal HT projector by going to Projector Central and reading the latest set of reviews in your price range. Then shop online for the best deal. It changes too fast for a recommendation to be really useful, but you can get a Sanyo PLV-Z2000 1080p projector for $2200 right now. Get a ceiling mount kit for it if that fits your room.
6. Get a stewart filmscreen to fit your room. Remember, you want your head to be sitting about 1.3-1.8 time the screen width away from the screen. The variance is for if you prefer to sit in the front, middle, or back in big screen movie theaters. Your screen will last much longer than your electronics, so don't be afraid to get a nice one. If you have a totally light controlled room, get a white screen. If you don't, get a grey screen. Either way, get the model with the thick black velvet border, it's way worth it. $800-1800, depending on size and style.
7. Get an upscaling HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray player. Shop online for the best deal of the moment, or buy a PS3 if you want Blu-Ray. $400-750
8. Unless you absolutely must have the NFL sunday ticket, order Dishnetwork and get their current VIP-series HD DVR. Right now that's a 722, although a 622 is almost identical. Get the DishDVR package w/HD. Watch HD in pleasure. $90/month.
9. If you don't live alone, get a HT-specific uhf universal remote and program it to control everything else. Check Remote Central for the latest recommendations and deals. $100-600.
10. Use pot lights for the ceiling and rope lights from Home Depot for steps/theater aisle floors. Hook all lights up through remote controllable dimmers. Crown molding a bit down the wall w/rope lights in it also works well. Price Varies depending on taste.
11. If you might have power issues, get a $100-200 UPS online and plug your expensive stuff in through it.
12. Don't use a square room. Do look at the acoustic issues and consider soundproofing and deadening the walls and ceiling. (Carpet usually takes care of the floor).
13. For the best experience, no windows and black walls and ceiling. Put the door where if it opens, it doesn't shine light directly on the screen.
14. Ideally arrange the projector and screen so that the light go

Re:Does not compute.

[svunt]

If you don't live alone, get a HT-specific uhf universal remote and program it to control everything else. Check Remote Central [remotecentral.com] for the latest recommendations and deals. $100-600.

I must know, why can't I have a universal remote if I live alone?

Re:Does not compute.

[_Sharp'r_]

You can, but if you don't live alone, it becomes essential and required equipment, instead of just nice to have. :)

Re:Does not compute.

[svunt]

Sorry to hassle, I still don't get the difference; do your family lose remotes a lot? What is it about someone living with you that makes a universal remote more important?

Re:Does not compute.

[demonlapin]

Presumably his wife, like mine, hates having to use several remotes and curses his name every time she tries to watch a DVD when he's not there. Of course, I wired it, and I maintain it, so...

Re:Does not compute.

[AaronLawrence]

Kudos. A much more balanced and to-the-point summary. I don't know about the Ascend Accoustics speakers as they seem a bit specific and perhaps hard to get for some people. BUt especially, pointing people to Projector Central and Remote Central is the best advice around, as those guys are real experts and do thorough reviews.

Re:Does not compute.

[nobaloney]

If you live alone you'll probably know where you left the missing remote. If you don't live alone there's always going to be missing remotes. Nice to only have one to look for.

Re:Does not compute.

[_Sharp'r_]

If you set it up and installed it, you know what everything does and how it works. You know you need to push one button on the receiver remote to turn it on to get sound and another button on a different remote to turn the projector on and a third button to turn on the DVD player and a fourth button to switch the receiver to the DVD inputs in order to watch a DVD. If you set it up, you'll understand how that works and what's needed in a particular situation.

With others involved, it's a pain that elicits from others who live in the household complaints about how complicated it all is.

With a good programmable universal remote, you push the one button that is marked DVD and it makes sure everything is setup correctly for watching a DVD. When you want to watch TV, you push the TV button.

Realistically, if you set your devices somewhere out of direct line of sight, then you're going to want a universal uhf remote anyway, since that's a better solution than an IR repeater for the IR remotes that came with most of your equipment.

People also lose remotes, especially children. I have four kids and a wife, so I actually have three remotes. One is "My" remote. One is my wife's remote and one is the kid's remote. I always know where my remote is and never have to hunt for where the kids left the remote. If they can't find their remote, that stays their problem and doesn't turn into my problem. That's another advantage, but not the one I was officially thinking of.

Re:Does not compute.

[_Sharp'r_]

Thanks.

For someone who wants to spend a lot less than that, there are so many options at the local walmart/electronics store that it'd be useless to list them. Just go listen to them and pick something you like the best. For someone in what I consider the "high-end" price range, the ascend accoustics are available online direct from the maker, so anyone can get them at an excellent price. They're much better sounding than anything you'll find in an actual local storefront or even online for anywhere near the same price.

If you really want to spend lots more money, than that only makes sense if you are super rich and thus need a personal consultant to help you spend your money (so you're outside the target of the guide) or if you are specifically looking for a better looking cabinet in some way. If you get past Ascend's range of speakers, you aren't buying improved sound, you're buying a prettier cabinet and that's an ascetic purchase that you'll have to determine how much what the suggested change in looks is worth to you. Since you like the other links, you'll also like one for AVS forum, which can be a bit much for someone to read through it all who isn't seriously interested, but will confirm the consensus about Ascend. Having installed and listened to lots of speaker systems of wildly varying prices, I can also confirm that bias from personal experience. If I did my own theater over (and I will when I build a new house), I'd replace my very high-end Canton system with Ascends in a minute.

$60

[omeomi]

I think calling a $60 5.1 speaker system a "home theater" might be going a bit overboard...

Re:$60

[Aladrin]

Just skimmed the first page, huh? Maybe you should read the rest of it and then comment on their speaker recommendations.

Re:$60

[omeomi]

Just skimmed the first page, huh? Maybe you should read the rest of it and then comment on their speaker recommendations.

Maybe if they got to the point a little faster rather than burying it down several pages full of ads...and babbling about crappy systems from WalMart...

Re:$60

[0100010001010011]

What about a "Home Theater" for the rest of us? People that just want some basic surround sound and something that is going to entertain family and friends and not break the bank.

I regularly watch FatWallet for deals and occasionally run across a refurb high quality 5.1 receiver for ~$100. Occasionally they have the old nasty noone wants them anymore 480i projectors for My TV. Yes. I'm using my TV Speakers.

Why does everyone think of a $10k system with 1080p and $500 hand made speakers when they hear "Home Theater." The above system will eventually be built and it'll be enough of a 'theater' for me after investing in some blackout curtains.

Re:$60

[lordofthechia]

comment on their speaker recommendations. This is what gets me, speaker recommendations. They say you should get the ones you like but they really should go into detail as to the proper way to get speakers.

The way you do it is you take a CD with a couple of songs you typically listen to (also maybe a sample from a movie soundtrack). Important is that it should be something you're familiar with and preferably uses natural instruments (not synthesizers).

Then, compare speakers in your budget two at a time, make notes on which sounds closest to what the recording should sound like. When doing this make sure of two things:
1) the receiver base and treble settings are set flat
2) No other speakers (or subs are on).

Listen for how clear each instrument (and voice) comes out on each speaker.

When you get your two main speakers you need to get a matching center, you can switch between dolby pro-logic and stereo to compare the sound of your mains vs your central, or better, if they'll let you, hook up one the center channel in place of one of the main speakers and use the L/R fade on the reciever to compare the sound between the two (your music should be pretty even on both channels for this to work well). If you got bookshelf speakers you may want to really consider getting a 3rd identical speaker as your main (you probably will have to buy a 2nd pair since they won't sell them solo but in some cases it's worth it and you have a spare if something goes wrong in the future).

Don't assume the center channel provided by the manufacturer is the best matching center for your mains either. Get the best matching speaker period. When sounds pan across the front you don't want the quality of the sound to change too.

Rear speakers should be reasonably close matches to your fronts. When they're in your room they'll sound different anyway (since the quality of sound we hear is different when the source is in front of us vs the rear). You can also get dedicated surrounds (with drivers facing in different directions) vs traditional speakers for the rear. Always audition the rear speakers as you did your mains. Make sure they're good quality as well.

Last but not least, higher model number, more expensive *does not* mean better sounding. Louder.. maybe. But there are alot of considerations that go into balancing the sound from a speaker and some manufacturers get it right with their mid range models but lose it as they stray from that design.

Oh and if you're gonna listen to a Bose offering (typically not the best value for the price), really listen to the alternatives, you'll be surprised.

Re:$60

[omeomi]

Oh and if you're gonna listen to a Bose offering (typically not the best value for the price), really listen to the alternatives, you'll be surprised.

Have to agree with that. People tend to think Bose is top-notch, but judging by the Bose systems I've listened to, they really don't sound all that great for the money...there are usually much better alternatives at any price-point.

Re:$60

[metlin]

Oh and if you're gonna listen to a Bose offering (typically not the best value for the price), really listen to the alternatives, you'll be surprised.

Indeed. And don't listen to Bose in their sound-room -- that room has been rigged specifically to make audio sound way better, and it's not a fair indicator of how it would sound in your home.

And if you want to build a sound-proof room that's acoustically sound (pardon the pun), it is going to cost you a fair penny.

If you want something that isn't too expensive but yet good, you should definitely look at Polk Audio.

Re:$60

[fyngyrz]

1) the receiver base and treble settings are set flat

Yeah, because everybody knows that if the receiver is tilted, nothing is going to come out straight after that, no matter what angle you place your speakers at.

Re:$60

[zippthorne]

I think that charging more than that for, say, a Bose system is a bit overboard. The speakers are no better than what you get in the $60 system, the only difference I can discern is that Bose mangles audio in a way that "sounds bigger" by adding echoes and enhancing bass.

If the room you watch movies in is a fairly standard 12'x12'x10' box there's really no need for much more than a $60-$80 system. The components in such a system are superior in frequency response and isolation to expensive Hi Fi systems of a half century ago. AF electronics are cheap. High strength magnets are cheap. Precision machining is even cheap.

The law of diminishing returns kicks in quick for audio equipment, and the only reason you'll need to spend more is if you want to damage your ears by listening to an hour-long movie at jet-engine volume levels. In which case, you won't need high fidelity equipment for long.

Re:$60

[omeomi]

I'm not knocking budget-minded systems. And a refurb 5.1 receiver for $100 isn't really the same as a complete system with speakers for $60. You can probably get a decent receiver for $100, especially at refurbished prices. But calling a $60 complete system a "home theater", where the "subwoofer" is probably significantly smaller than a decent woofer, seems misleading...

Re:$60

[Anonymous Coward]

Important is that it should be something you're familiar with and preferably uses natural instruments (not synthesizers).

Speakers that are good for natural instruments, may not be that good for synthesized or surround sound if that's what you're going to be listening to. Take a CD with a sample of what you intend to be listening to.

Re:$60

[omeomi]

I think that charging more than that for, say, a Bose system is a bit overboard. The speakers are no better than what you get in the $60 system, the only difference I can discern is that Bose mangles audio in a way that "sounds bigger" by adding echoes and enhancing bass.

I generally agree with that, but that's because Bose is overpriced, and geared more toward making small speakers that sound good enough for idiots who don't know any better. There is a noticeable difference between a high-quality system and a $60-80 system, yes, even at low volume levels.

Re:$60

[SirKron]

If that is what you are coming from then any "Home Theatre in a Box" HTIB is an upgrade. That is not what the article is recommending. They are suggesting a "reference" level HT which by any true HT fan will say uses non-retail store equipment; definitely not HTIB stuff. As for your setup, you can upgrade by watching your shows on your PC with a good pair of headphones/earbuds.

Re:$60

[rs79]

" I regularly watch FatWallet for deals and occasionally run across a refurb high quality 5.1 receiver for ~$100 "

I regularly troll thrift shops and picked up a 4 channel Sanyo amp from the 70s or 80s for $35. To my great shock and amazement it decodes 4 channels from current DVDs just fine. I'm an audio idiot and have no idea what to do about a sub though. And it's not like some slashdotted article is gonna help.

Re:$60

[plague3106]

Ya, I don't know why people think they are any good. At best they seem average. I've got a Monitor Audio (I know, horrible company name) R225 as a center speaker at home, and it sounds really nice. I'm going to get some R270s for front R&L.. I listened to them in store, and they sounded really good, especially for the price.

Re:$60

[plague3106]

If price is a concern, the go for the Walmart $60 special. They correctly note that it will be an improvement over the speakers on your TV.

Hell, my first 5.1 system was all RCA; 4 standard bookshelf speakers, a smaller one for the center, a woofer, and a receiver. Got the whole system (with some cheapo wires) for $500. I was actually suprised how good it did sound, for a starter.

Later, I went from a walmart GE dvd player to a sony one, and that improved the sound even more. Now I'm upgrading components; a sony receiver and a new center speaker (Monitor Radius R225). But you can get a good system for not a lot of money if you look.

Re:$60

[jeffy210]

Thank you! This is what I've always been trying to tell people. Go listen to it yourself. Bjorn's, our local high end A/V store, has all of the speakers set up for you to switch between. I spent almost 2 hours flipping back and forth between every single speaker before finally settling on the Klipsch RF-3 reference series speakers (and matching center, 4 surrounds and sub). For me it was the warmth to their sound, but some people may not agree with that particular sound.

And Bose... don't get me started. As someone mentioned earlier, their demos are in a highly controlled environment. If you had a padded rectangular room, yeah, they'd sound great, but most people don't have that.

Bottom line. Take your time, and get what *you* like.

Re:$60

[jafiwam]

Get a self-powered sub. Typically those take the speaker output from the front channels, pass them through the sub (and re-amp off that) and then have hookups that go to the speakers.

I have a 100 watt Yammaha YST for my basic system that works great, it's been tucked in the corner on for 10 years and always responds with throbbing gusto when want to play. I am not running surround or anything though, I got the receiver about a month before surround first came out so it has all sorts of cool stuff except for that.

New versions have both speaker and "line" inputs.

I am too cheap to buy another system, since most my entertainment is in front of a computer, not the TV/stereo.

If at all possible, GO LISTEN TO THE THING. I didn't even think of Yamaha until I went to the store and listened to a bunch of different models. It was the only one that suited what my ears thought was good. Mine was $600 back in the day, but 150 watt ones are now $250.

Re:$60

[Knuckles]

It's hard to say what a recording "should sound like" since you were rarely there. So I'd recommend "go with the one that sounds best to you". And you forgot to mention that all speaker comparisons (all audio comparisons, really) are useless if you don't control for the same volume, since the human ear usually qualifies the louder sound as better. Oh, and you completely neglected speaker positioning, which has a huge impact. There are plenty guides out there, but IMO the best for the interested home user is this: http://www.audiophysic.de/aufstellung/index_e.html

Re:$60

[lordofthechia]

hard to say what a recording "should sound like" This is true. I was fortunate enough to have seen this particular artist (Lisa Loeb) in concert, so I was able to figure out which speakers made her voice and guitar sound the most realistic (I ended up with midrange Polks Bookshelves). But most artists' recordings are not comparable to how they sound in concert. This is why I had recommended the use of recordings with natural instruments as they are more likely to know what the instrument should sound like, and obviously make it a song you like.

As a side note, some Bjork songs are excellent (though to some people annoying) source materials when comparing subwoofers. I was using "Hyper Ballad" from her album Post in case you were wondering. As a side benefit it may help clear the demo room so you can have some privacy. Based on this and other comparisons I ended up w/ a Velodyne subwoofer.

Note that speaker manufacturers tend to change their designs every other year so even though these to me were the best choices at the time, I'd still listen to a variety of speakers if I was in the market again today.

Re:$60

[Brummund]

BOSE = Buy Other System Eventually

(Yeah yeah, I won't quit my dayjob)

Re:$60

[cayenne8]

"What about a "Home Theater" for the rest of us? People that just want some basic surround sound and something that is going to entertain family and friends and not break the bank....Why does everyone think of a $10k system with 1080p and $500 hand made speakers when they hear "Home Theater." The above system will eventually be built and it'll be enough of a 'theater' for me after investing in some blackout curtains."

Well, go out and listen to higher end systems, and you'll likely see what is available out there....and what you might aspire to get.

Thing is...you don't have to get it all at once. Unless you are pretty $$$...you can't do it that way. I've been building my stereo system since I was about 12 years old when I heard my first high end system. Over the years, watched for bargains...upgraded each piece as years went by...and now, I'm close to my dream system...and putting it together with a good video part for home theater. Altogether...my stuff is easily over $10K...but, I didn't buy it all at once..and I didn't pay that much for it....just a little at a time.

But, also, what depends the most..what looks and sounds best to YOU....but, don't put things down just because something is a bit pricey...to a certain point, you do get what you pay for if you shop carefully, but, some high end stuff you just can't get at a discount or at a discount store. But,do go out and listen and look at good stuff...it will give you an idea what you want to shoot for....

Re:$60

[wooferhound]

No Highs
No Lows
Must be Bose

Re:$60

[iluvcapra]

To my great shock and amazement it decodes 4 channels from current DVDs just fine.

You have to hand it to those Dolby guys, they really figured out a good system with Dolby Stereo. We still do Dolby SR/Stereo printmasters the same day we do the 5.1 printmasters, with the same mixers, and generally with the director present; it's just as authoritative artistically as the 5.1, and it's still just about the most compatible format there is for a wide class of room types and playback systems. It lacks a little awesomeness in a large room, but for any 800sq/ft or smaller room, or any overly long or broad room, I think it's the best compromise you can have. Split surrounds are a waste unless your head is at least 5-10 away from the closest one, IMHO.

Re:$60

[jhol13]

OK, I'll bite.

Put as much (of the) money (reserved for this) on the main speakers as you possibly can.

After that get a decent center speaker (the speech of the movies goes through it and a good one will be clearer - especially if you watch movies which are not on your mothers tongue).

The surround speakers do not add much information, they 99% of time just add a little "noise", cheap are pretty much OK.

There are a lot of people who disagree with me here, but: the subwoofer is just too expensive for a budget buyer. Don't get one at all. You will get a lot better main speakers by using e.g. $500 instead of $300 (and $200 for sub). Especially if you are used to listening music (where the sub is mostly useless). Problem: it will not "look" as good (if image is important to you ...), but if *will* sound better.

Take a couple of CD's to store and listen. Speakers do sound very different.

P.S. Don't listen $5000 speakers at first ("as a reference") because after that the $500 ones will sound crap :-)

Re:$60

[Knuckles]

Actually I wanted to add to my reply, "thanks for an otherwise great post", but I botched it. So, thanks :)

Re:$60

[Envy Life]

Listen for how clear each instrument (and voice) comes out on each speaker. Sometimes I wish people took this much care to choose which lossy format sounds best with their music. Unlike speakers, it costs nothing to choose a better codec than MP3, arguably one of the worst available at this point in time, not to mention all the copyright hinderances. Too bad that's the only common denominator between all the music providers, DAP players, cell phones, etc.

Re:$60

[hcdejong]

If the room you watch movies in is a fairly standard 12'x12'x10' box there's really no need for much more than a $60-$80 system. The components in such a system are superior in frequency response and isolation to expensive Hi Fi systems of a half century ago. AF electronics are cheap. High strength magnets are cheap. Precision machining is even cheap.

The law of diminishing returns kicks in quick for audio equipment, and the only reason you'll need to spend more is if you want to damage your ears by listening to an hour-long movie at jet-engine volume levels. In which case, you won't need high fidelity equipment for long.

You're right about the law of diminishing returns, but $80 is ridiculous. Diminishing returns kick in sooner for some components than others. Decent DVD players can be had for under $100, amplifiers and a TV don't need to cost the earth either. For speakers, every dollar you spend can audibly improve the sound. A $200 speaker will sound so much better than a $100 speaker that non-fanatics can easily hear the difference.
The performance/price curve flattens gradually, but real improvement can be had all the way up to the $10000 region.
The main reason for this is that speaker design still isn't an exact science. Getting it right is difficult, and the materials haven't been subject to Moore's law so they're still expensive. There's no way to create a truly neutral speaker, every manufacturer deals with this in its own way so speakers sound very different.
As a result, personal taste plays an important role in selecting speakers.

Re:$60

[nukular]

For graduation from college I received a pair of Bose 901 Series 7 (I think???) that were and still are Bose's top of the line speaker...I thought I had "awesome" speakers (that cost around $1500).

Years later I got a surround sound system and due to some problems with hooking up the active equalizer for the Bose I had to get some new speakers. My dealer set me down in front of a pair of $750 speakers (NHT SuperTwo's) and my jaw dropped. I bought them... I finally heard what real speakers sound like compared to Bose. Bose is marketing genius. Sell overpriced crap to people too lazy to find out for themselves that spending far less can actually get you far far more.

Re:$60

[GWBasic]

The way you do it is you take a CD with a couple of songs you typically listen to (also maybe a sample from a movie soundtrack). Important is that it should be something you're familiar with and preferably uses natural instruments (not synthesizers).

You really need a 5.1 source to test subwoofers. Most CDs have low/loud bass filtered out. If you happen to come across the 5.1 bootleg of Rubber Soul, you'll know what I mean.

You can read the printer-friendly article...

[sczimme]

...here; this might be preferable to 14 separate pages.

Re:You can read the printer-friendly article...

[walt-sjc]

That page takes me to: Sorry: Print Article is not available to some older articles.

As a previous theatre buff...

[dada21]

...I spent years building my own home theaters in each house I owned and lived in. Since I performed all the labor myself, they actually did add value upon resale.

One area that, in my experience, offers the most bang-for-the-buck is a two-part issue: room dimensions and sound-proofing, i.e. room treatment.

There are a LOT of expensive and probably useless room treatments. For me, the ultimate sound didn't come from watts or speaker power-handling but in properly sound-proofing the room against external noise. The lower the noise floor, the clearer the sound. This is key to having a good movie experience, I'd say, because you don't need it loud to be dynamic.

Room dimensions can be just as important, as certain rooms (square is the worst) have standing waves that emphasize or de-emphasize certain frequencies at certain locations. My ultimate theater had an odd shape (slightly angular walls and ceiling) but the sound was amazing. We also covered the walls in fairly cheap acoustic foam of varying lengths, and covered the foam with nice acoustically transparent cloth (red) so you couldn't see the varying foam squares. It was a slightly dead room, but it really had punch for the action films my friends liked.

Lastly, the proper bass crossover combined with the proper bass drivers is the final key for those who want action-style entertainment. I am a HUGE fan of Bag End from Barrington, Illinois. They make an ELF crossover and driver system which is just a miracle in a box. It is the flatest, most dynamic bass system imaginable, and the crossover was wonderful since it didn't overemphasize higher frequency bass to muddle male vocals or punchy sound effects.

One sidenote: I almost never focused on surround sound. Honestly, I was more happy with pseudo-surround out of low power, but dynamic speakers, than I was at have 16.5 channel surround sound. When I removed my rear channels, my visitors were always blown away by the clarity and depth of the properly positioned, amplified and mounted front 2 to 3 speakers I had installed. My current home theatre only has 3 speakers, and we're extremely happy with the install, which I did for a fraction of the overblown sound system my neighbor has. Even better, we're only driving the efficient and dynamic speakers with HEAVY 30 watt amps each, but since our noise floor is so low and our room is so quiet and dead, the sound is gorgeous, even for music.

I'm done with my theatre days, as the money is best spent elsewhere, and the upgrade bug is finally over.

Re:As a previous theatre buff...

[blhack]

There are a LOT of expensive and probably useless room treatments. For me, the ultimate sound didn't come from watts or speaker power-handling but in properly sound-proofing the room against external noise. The lower the noise floor, the clearer the sound. This is key to having a good movie experience, I'd say, because you don't need it loud to be dynamic. yes, yes, yes, yes, yeS!!

Sound-proofing a room is, IMHO, the MOST important thing that you can do for a home theater (or stereo room, if you're an audiophile). Not ONLY because it makes the experience better for you while you're watching the movie, but because it gives you the ability to listen at whatever sound level you want, whenever you want, without worrying about waking the kids.

We bought a house with a theater that the previous owner put some serious work into. One major area of focus was the soundproofing of the room. This has been invaluable. When everyone is asleep and I'm in the middle of an all-nigh code-session and want a break, I can thrown in a movie and actually LISTEN to it without having to worry about waking the 2 year old.

Re:As a previous theatre buff...

[mikelieman]

It seems that these "Home Theater" guys never seem to understand how the Audio should work.

All that discussion about a reference system, and while he gets the "Bulk Monster Cable is Just Fine, as is any other properly sized conductor", he never once mentions setting up the speakers properly, i.e. Impulse Alignment, Room EQ, etc?

Oh, and if the band "Great White" taught us anything, it's to make sure your Acoustic Treatments are fireproof and properly rated for the application.

Re:As a previous theatre buff...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

For me, the ultimate sound didn't come from watts or speaker power-handling

Of course speaker watts are irrelevant - but you need to do the math, make the measurements or experience to know that. A good one watt per channel is probably going to suit far more people than one would suspect. You either need inefficient speakers, a large room or both to need sustain more than 1 Wpc. You get a little more headroom with more watts, but it's a losing game, and the amps are usually less efficient. Doubling the watts raises the headroom by about 3 dB.

Re:As a previous theatre buff...

[funkatron]

Just one thing that neither you nor the article pointed out for choosing speakers. LISTEN TO THEM. Find a shop that can demo them and take along a selection of the stuff you'll use them for. Sure the specs might look better on some models but the specs won't tell you much about how they actually sound. Are they clean, punchy, warm? Does dialog sound clear on them? Are there certain sounds they don't do well? Choose for the sound not the numbers.

Re:As a previous theatre buff...

[Reverberant]

One area that, in my experience, offers the most bang-for-the-buck is a two-part issue: room dimensions and sound-proofing, i.e. room treatment.

You're absolutely correct that the room plays (IMNSHO) the most important role in an audio system, but I have one nit to pick with this statement: room treatment /= sound-proofing (i.e. sound insulation).

Room treatment (bass traps, absorption, diffusion) is all about effect of the acoustics within the room. Room treatment changes room acoustics properties like reverberation time (echoes/reflections), standing wave amplitudes, and speech intelligibility.

Sound-proofing/sound-insulation (double-walls, double-studs, resilient channel, "Quietrock", mass-loaded vinyl, etc) is all about the effect of sound outside the room. If you want to be able to listen to your favorite action/scifi/sports program at full volume without waking up the kids in the next room, you need sound insulation. Doing things like adding egg-crate foam to the walls will change the acoustics within the room, but not outside the room.

As an example: an open window is an ideal sound absorber since is reflects ~0% percent of sound. However it makes a very poor sound-insulator since it allows ~100% of sound to be transmitted through it.

Re:As a previous theatre buff...

[Michael O-P]

Oh, and if the band "Great White" taught us anything, it's to make sure your Acoustic Treatments are fireproof and properly rated for the application.

"Once Bitten...Twice Shy" - A great album and a life-lesson about pyrotechnics and foam.

Re:As a previous theatre buff...

[antdude]

So, what happens if you get locked in the soundproof room? :)

Homemade projectors

[rustalot42684]

You can build your own homemade projectors for a fraction of the price of a commercial one. Check out http://www.lumenlab.com/. Their forums are excellent.

Re:Homemade projectors

[blhack]

If you're in college and want something huge to play halo on the, yes, hacking together an old overhead-projector and an LCD will work GREAT! No, that isn't sarcasm, I've played on home built-projectors, and they're really fun.

But, if you're building a "reference" home-theater, you're probably going to want to lean a little more towards one of These....

prepare to open your checkbook though, these things cost around $50,000+ dollars.

Re:Homemade projectors

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone has experience with their eVo projector? that cheap replacement lamp makes it very tempting.

Re:Homemade projectors

[pilgrim23]

My home theater is totally home made of various parts acquired over the years. No I am not a audiophile who can tell a db difference in whatness, matter of fact I have tinnitus in my right ear but, I do like cool sounds all around so...I got some cable and strung (in wall) cables to some speakers in the back (standard stereo speakers off a old Sears Roebuck stereo from some 30 years back) - Hung them from the Ceiling pointed down. It worked like a champ. Added 2 more to the front pointed out. Then a 3rd behind the TV. I bought a amp/tuner that has front back middle and woofer. For the last, I bought a quality PC speaker system and plugged its woofer in; the other speakers are under the couch' talk about an added feature! Then I hooked the amp to my various video feeds (I have everything from Syabas based Avel and Eyehome (there is CAT5 and a router behind the amp), to DVD, VHS, Laserdisc, and yes even Beta) via both analog A/B switches and in 2 cases Toslink on a "light" switch. the whole thing cost surprisingly little.

What?

[Jeffrey Baker]

These jokers didn't even mention the most important part of a home theater: comfy chairs.

Re:What?

[sm62704]

I don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the home theater, that's all

-mcgrew

Re:What?

[Seakip18]

I couldn't agree more. The only downside is I can't count the number of times I've had to rewatch an episode or movie because I ended up falling asleep on my couch.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a home theater, not a dungeon!

Re:What?

[Trespass]

I agree, especially if by 'comfy chairs', you mean 'a drink and a bong'. :)

Who cares? It's all about the speaker cables

[Anonymous Coward]

I think calling a $60 5.1 speaker system a "home theater" might be going a bit overboard...

The speakers themselves play little role in your sound system, so it's fine if you get ones so cheap. A real home theatre environment, however, depends entirely on $200 speaker cables. Good (= expensive) speaker cables can compensate for lesser stereo equipment, as well as for a small penis.

Re:Who cares? It's all about the speaker cables

[zeromorph]

Pffffff, without a few thousand dollar tube amplifier no compensation.

Home theatre. No tubes? Lame!

Re:Who cares? It's all about the speaker cables

[idiotwithastick]

psh, $200? You should go for the expensive stuff. And those are just the interconnects; speaker cables run you 50% more.

Re:Who cares? It's all about the speaker cables

[Anonymous Coward]

Those cables aren't good enough. You would definitely want to use these for your $60 speakers:

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm

Re:Who cares? It's all about the speaker cables

[cayenne8]

psh, $200? You should go for the expensive stuff [audiogon.com]. And those are just the interconnects; speaker cables run you 50% more."

While I'll agree that there are some really stupid things out there to buy for home audio, realistically, really good audio reproduction, much like good video....does cost some money. A $20 pair of Radio Shack speakers isn't going to sound as good as my Klipschorn speakers...

I guess I'm just saying...like with many things in life, you DO get what you pay for...so, don't immediately dismiss an audio discussion when the price tag on an item goes above $100. You have to go with what sounds pleasing to your ear, and yes at some point, there is a point of diminishing returns for each dollar spent, but, you're not going to get a really good sound system at Target for $200 if you really enjoy good sound reproduction whether just for audio, or as part of a AV Home theater set up.

Sadly enough, there are a lot of kids out there, that have never listed to any more than low bitrate mp3's through stock iPod earbuds....and don't know what really good sound CAN sound like.

Did these guys ever watch the "Grindhouse" flicks?

[CyberLord Seven]

The major components of a theater will be the visual, audio, and visceral experience, with a good source material. Movies should draw you in not just emotionally with their stories, but physically with their presentation. (emphasis mine)

"Planet Terror" was not made like this.

Mostly Very Poor

[the eric conspiracy]

Some of the advice for the video display was ok, but the rest of the article was very poor. One of the main determinations of audio performance is room acoustics - yet this is not covered at all. Monster cables are generic stuff that is horribly overpriced with outrageous markups. Never buy that stuff. Power filters are a total wast of money for 95% of people, and can often hurt more than they help. The speaker selection (Polk) is sort of a mass-market default - there is much better to be had out there in other brands, especially from the Canadian companies like PSB and Paradigm. Polk is by no means a brand that you would expect in a reference home theater.

It appears to me that this article was written with a lot of feedback from a big box store like Best Buy because the brands they recommend are typically what these stores carry, and in particular they push Monster stuff and power filters hard because of the huge markups.

Re:Mostly Very Poor

[jhol13]

My pet peeve is subwoofer. I think its effect far too often overestimated. Their recommendation to use "30-40% of the speaker budget should go to the subwoofer" is IMHO idiotic.

Maybe if you only watch movies and such a movies where the "boom" is most important part of the movie, maybe then there would be sense to put 40% to subwoofer. Or you are in a pissing contest ("mysubisbigger") with your friends ...

But if you listen music then you should use 60-80% to main speakers (and divide the rest to center, surround and sub). Maybe forget the sub altogether (especially with a tight budget).

And the "center channel quality" ... if the language in the movie is not your mothers tongue it *is* important (english isn't mine, and understanding is easier with a good center). YMMV.

Re:Mostly Very Poor

[node159]

The display stuff was rubbish... They didn't even understand the most basic concept of static to dynamic image perception. Waste of time really.

What?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

No mention of $500/ft. "interconnects" made of 24k gold?

Only if the puffy cushions don't work

[blueZ3]

Those old women are made of sterner stuff than you might imagine, Cardinal Fang

Not included

[MeditationSensation]

Audiophile smugness not included.

Re:Not included

[hudsonhawk]

As a smug audiophile, I can tell you that it costs a lot more than this to get.

And just like evey other gearhead's guide

[joeflies]

it's all technology and no mention on the sound proofing of the room. Sure, doing staggered studs in your wall isn't as fun as talking about inverse telecine and other minutiae. But prepping a room is just as, and maybe even more important, than any one single piece of equipment, especially when talking about what is going to represent a "reference" environment.

Speaker cable

[r_jensen11]

I'm perfectly happy with the 12 or 14 gauge Phillips speaker cable I bought at the hardware store. Given that I don't have $10K speakers and a $10K receiver and a $10K amplifier and a $1k power "cleaner", I think it's more than acceptable. I think it only cost $20 for a 50' roll. Maybe less.

Re:Speaker cable

[walt-sjc]

Home Depot caries some nice 12G in-wall speaker cable. It's the finely stranded type. Unless you are doing a 3000W system, it works just fine. When you are pulling cable for a 7.1 system, reasonably priced is nice.

I would challenge anyone in a double blind test to tell the difference on standard consumer gear between this cable and anything from Monster. Standard consumer gear (the under $2000 amp stuff) has so much noise in it already, that cable won't make any difference at all.

Too much wire/cable BS

[TheMeuge]

They dedicate an ENORMOUS amount of page space to cables... when they are by far the LEAST important part of the setup.

www.partsexpress.com has excellent Dayton-brand cables for a fraction of the price of Monster-cable. (And by the way, MENTIONING moster-cable among audio pros is a faux-pas in and of itself). Expensive digital cables are a HUGE ripoff, because jitter is largely a consequence of the source, rather than the transmission... and a well-made (yes, just look at it) $10 digital cable is going to sound no different from the $1000 MIT insanity.

Analog cables need to be well-made, but again... no need to spend more than $10-15 per channel. As long as they are well-insulated and shielded, they'll work just fine.

Trust me - on my multi-thousand $ system (Aragon, B&K, MSB, etc...) I could detect no audible difference between the most expensive cables I could borrow ($1000 MIT), and the $15 set that I soldered myself.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

I hate to spark an argument, but I think the cable is actually far more important with digital than with analog. You can get a quite accurate representation of an analog audio signal at the far end of practically any conductor. Literally any wire will be a fairly good analog audio connector. But digital is different: with a digital signal the frequencies in transmission are much higher, and the signal is much more likely to be distorted or interfered with. The result is that the inter-edge arrival time will be distorted, and this, in turn, maps directly into harmonic distortion in the analog reproduction.

There are ways around this, including buffering and reclocking the digital signal at the receiver, but in general this step is not taken in consumer electronics. So you'll be well advised to spend a few dollars (not thousands) on a good piece of coax with BNC connectors, or another kind of good digital cable, if you plan to use a digital signal.

Optical isn't any better, because the optical receivers and transmitters are extremely sensitive to noise on their power supplies.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Phisbut]

(And by the way, MENTIONING moster-cable among audio pros is a faux-pas in and of itself). Expensive digital cables are a HUGE ripoff, because jitter is largely a consequence of the source, rather than the transmission... and a well-made (yes, just look at it) $10 digital cable is going to sound no different from the $1000 MIT insanity.

So true. A consumer care TV show up here made a report about stores like BestBuy and al. trying to sell you cables costing several hundred dollars. They even went to a lab to have the cables analyzed and tested, and it showed that a $0.99 HDMI cable bought on eBay performed no worse than a $250 monster cable.

See (and watch) the report here (French, search for the words "câble numérique" or scroll about 80% down the page).

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[networkBoy]

Cable quality matters just as much with digital as with analog.
Here's why: http://networkboy.net/hdjitter.shtml. To be fair, of course, there is little to gain once you have reached the "decent quality" tier.
-nB

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[egomaniac]

Bull. Shit.

For some reason people seem to turn off their brains and start appealing to voodoo magic when dealing with audio technology. Let's put it in a more familiar context: computers.

Suppose you're downloading a digital representation of music -- an MP3, say -- from the Internet. Now, we all know that an MP3 is just a series of bits, and as long as those bits arrive unmodified the song is going to sound exactly the same. Suppose I were to claim that you needed some super-high-fidelity Ethernet cable in order for the MP3 to sound its best after being downloaded, because otherwise the inter-edge arrival time in the digital signal will be distorted, and this, in turn, would map directly into harmonic distortion in the analog reproduction.

Anybody with half a brain would simply laugh at me. The bits either arrived properly or they didn't, and single-bit errors in the MP3 are going to produce pops and static, rather than anything so clean as harmonic distortion. Harmonic distortion is an analog problem, there's just no plausible way it can occur with a digital signal. Furthermore, we all know that you can hook your computer up with pretty much any old Ethernet cable, and unless the cable is seriously crap it's going to work perfectly even at gigabit speeds (far higher than anything you encounter in audio).

The same is, for the most part, true with digital audio as well. You're either going to get a perfect signal or horrible pops and static. There really isn't an in-between, and you're certainly not going to get harmonic distortion. Admittedly digital audio does not feature error correction, so marginal connections are more likely to give you problems, but it's not going to be subtle.

For the record: I have a home theater with a 160" screen and $15K worth of speakers and audio gear. And I use the absolute cheapest generic (but still quality) digital cables I could find, just as I hook my computers up with the cheapest (but still quality) Ethernet cable I could find. I don't think I spent more than $5 on any of my digital audio cables, and the sound from my setup is still awe-inspiring.

Video, of course, is a different story -- none of the video cable standards were really intended to span the 30' run between my equipment room and the projector, and video runs at a much higher bandwidth than audio. I found that I had to buy relatively expensive video cables in order to get a good signal (but we're still talking $100, not $1000), and again with the digital hookups it's nothing subtle. With good cables, the signal is perfect. With lousy cables, it's covered with white and black snow.

And I'd like to echo the comments of a previous poster: if you are looking for high-quality cables / connectors /etc. but don't want to get ripped off, use Parts Express. They kick all kinds of ass.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[modecx]

What? Ok, some of those issues might be important on a high bandwidth digital link many many meters long... For a home theater with relatively low bandwidth links of rarely exceeding ten feet? Pfeh! S/PDIF is the de-facto home theater digital audio interconnect. For all practical purposes, in consumer devices It's limited to sending 48khz PWM data, it's not remotely near anything possibly considered high frequency.

The signal is biphase mark code phase modulated, with 4 bits of synchronization preamble per 32bit word. It takes either a seriously fucked up cable to degrade the signal bad enough for the receiver to sputter, or it takes a cable long enough to make impedance or optical attenuation a factor; in which case it's outside of the spec of the interface in the first place!

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[walt-sjc]

Just make sure any digital cable you buy is made with digital copper - preferable coated with digital gold. Please. I've also got some great swamp land in Florida for ya...

There is no such thing as a "digital cable". Cable is cable. Digital signals in a well designed system use + and - wires, which cancels out much of the external interference. If a signal gets through at all it works pefectly. If they don't use +/- wires, they modulate on a carrier (hence the coax.)

the inter-edge arrival time will be distorted, and this, in turn, maps directly into harmonic distortion

Someone has been smoking too many audiophile magazines. It's a one or a zero in a certain time slot. That's it. The time slots are lock step at a precise frequency.

The gauge of a wire makes more of a difference for longer runs than anything else as there is less loss with larger cables. With short runs it makes no difference at all what type of cable you use. You can use a crappy 30 year old 3' RCA plug audio cable to hook your CD player up to your receiver (via SP/DIF) and the result is no different than a $100 "digital" monster cable.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Your ignorance on this topic is staggering. Consumer audio equipment uses the inter-symbol arrival time to drive its internal clock. That's why interference on the cable is bad. Distortion in the time domain maps directly into distortion in the frequency domain due to the digital-to-analog convergence.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Like the previous poster, you are woefully misinformed. Consumer audio equipment reads the clock straight off the wire. If the last bit arrives at the wrong time, then the analog signal is produced at the wrong time, which means you have distortion in the frequency domain. The quality of digital audio relies entirely on low phase noise of the sample clock. If you have phase noise on the sample clock, then you have harmonic distortion in the analog output. QED. This is all so basic, it's incredible that none of you understand it. Don't they teach anything in EE classes any more?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[fyngyrz]

Someone has fed you a load of nonsense.

Yes, frequencies are high in a digital cable. Considerably higher than in an analog cable that is trying to carry the same data. However, there are only two states that have to be reliably detected in a digital signal: Is the thing ON, or is it OFF? This means (generally speaking) that at the sample time, which is in the optimal place to catch the change, if the signal simply manages to be in the correct 50% of the range it needs to be in at the right time, it'll be interpreted correctly. Once converted back into a digital one or zero, there is no, repeat no THD or anything else that is a consequence of any distortion that the cable might have introduced. And that conversion happens at the very first digital input the signal is fed to.

The analog cable, however, has no such leeway. Any change in the analog signal comes right through as a change - the black level moves, the dynamic range decreases, images get auras, shadows, high frequency components ring and create repeating echos; analog interference, such as AC signals, CB radios, your local AM station and the crud in the AC lines when you run your vacuum cleaner or air conditioner can all get into the signal and distort it, even when only a tiny bit manages to leak through the shielding. With a digital signal, in order for those same interfering signals to have an effect, the digital signal has to already be degraded to almost 50% or there will probably be no effect at all.

The home theater image itself would tell you instantly if there is effective distortion (meaning, it's changing the bits being detected) that is getting into the signal even if the cable was just carrying visible image data (it isn't!) Because if errors were getting in there, there's no particular reason for them to be bits of low significance; they would be a random mix of all significance, and so you'd see bright spots in dark areas and dark spots in bright areas, errors as high as 50% as the most significant bit errored out. Audio would be the same - there wouldn't be a "little" THD, it would be a freaking mess. Ever watch digital satellite? Notice the huge errors, complete loss of the image frame? That is what happens when you lose bits in a digital transmission, not "increased THD." If the image data is compressed, then the visibility of errors is even worse - that's why satellite images lose partial frames, key frames, and image regions, not just individual pixels.

Clock jitter can introduce THD, sure enough, but that is so easy to avoid it is pitiful. And it isn't a consequence of cables unless the clock itself is carried on the cable, which it generally isn't anyway. No matter if the signal is "buffered" or "re-clocked", in the end, some input takes it as either a one, or a zero and outputs a stable one/zero result, essentially re-thresholding it. If this process works you get a fully reconstructed digital signal of ones and zeros with extremely rare errors (like, one a day.) If it doesn't work, you get an unwatchable, unlistenable signal. Remember that those errors aren't correlated to the data; they can be bits of any significance, they can be lost encryption bits, they can be lost framing or format bits... boom, wreckage.

I run a cheap HDMI cable ($60) 30 feet (the HDMI spec says 32 feet, no more) carrying image data to my 1080p projector; and similarly cheap ($6) but shorter HDMI cables carrying audio and image data from satellite, DVD and a PS3 that also serves as a Blueray player to my receiver. The only signal we ever see any errors on (and they're a huge mess, sure enough) is the satellite signal; we're not at a strong point in the footprint (NE Montana) and we get some pretty good cloud and precipitation combinations, not to mention some solar issues at certain times of the year. These errors aren't a consequence of digital cables.

One more thing: The audio THD in a system can usually be characterized by the THD of the speakers. Most even decent stereo gear has THD

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Ah yes, yet a third ignorant yokel, holding forth on topics he doesn't understand. S/PDIF is not ethernet. The data and the time of arrival of that data are both key to the protocol. Yes, the protocol is broken. But that means you need a good cable! Also I'm sorry to inform you that your understanding of "high frequency" is incorrect. The important part is not the symbol rate, but the rise and fall time. As transmitters have moved to newer and faster logic, the frequency spectrum on a digital audio cable (and any other digital cable) has actually become higher and higher over the years. You should consider an S/PDIF cable to be working in the domain of 100MHz or thereabouts, because of the very fast rise times we have in modern driver circuits.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Wow, there is no shortage of you ignorant dudes on Slashdot, is there? I'm not talking about bit-flipping errors. I'm talking about the fact that the broken-ass S/PDIF protocol relies heavily on the lack of phase noise in the inter-symbol arrival time on the wire. Therefore it also relies heavily on perfect transmission. Therefore you need a good cable. You say that the clock isn't generally carried on the cable, but you're wrong. Generally, the clock *is* carried on the cable. And most consumer electronics have clock recovery circuits that are so bad as to be jokes.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing he's ignorant of is the obvious bullshit you've been fed. "distortion in the time domain"??? "digital to analogue convergence"?!?! no such term

you've been reading too many glossy brochures.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[blhack]

Trust me - on my multi-thousand $ system (Aragon, B&K, MSB, etc...) I could detect no audible difference between the most expensive cables I could borrow ($1000 MIT), and the $15 set that I soldered myself. There is your problem.
Yes, B&K is really nice stuff.....(its what i have in my theater), but you are nowhere NEAR the realm of a true reference system yet.

This is starting to become a new cliche' on slashdot, making fun of people who spend a lot of money on audio gear. Well guess what guys, if they have the money for them, and it sounds better to them (because of placebo effect or whatever it is) then WHO CARES! The only reason you have to make fun of these people is your inability to drop a half million dollars on speakers, 80 grand on cables, etc.

People who's job it is to know good sound (mastering engineers) are the people out there proclaiming that these 80k cables, and whatnot are worth it, just pick up a copy of audiophile or hi-fi and read it.

Obligatory car analogy:
I can go out and buy a shifter cart that will outperform a $250,000 ferrari by leaps and bounds for about a 10th the cost. SO why do people buy ferraris? why do I want a ferrari? BECAUSE THEY'RE freaking COOL! The people out buying these things work really hard for their money (yes, being locked inside of an office for 12 hours a day , 7 days a week IS hard work), but they work really hard so that they can have the luxury of spending it on dumb crap! If these cables and speakers and pre-amps, and turntables are all so ridiculous then why don't all of you who are suddenly "experts" on the subject start manufacturing them?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[egomaniac]

Your ignorance on this topic is staggering. Consumer audio equipment uses the inter-symbol arrival time to drive its internal clock. That's why interference on the cable is bad. Distortion in the time domain maps directly into distortion in the frequency domain due to the digital-to-analog convergence.

Ummm... okay.

First, I'm using optical cables. Since they're safely wrapped in an opaque covering, I'm not really sure how you imagine interference would come into play. I'm also not at all sure how an optical cable could possibly affect the timing of the signal traveling through it, besides introducing a constant (ridiculously small) delay.

Since evidently I'm staggeringly ignorant on this subject, could you please explain to me how a $5 optical cable could distort the signal (WITHOUT introducing bit flip errors!) in ways that could actually be heard by listeners. Perhaps you could point me to a blind study where listeners were actually able to hear a difference between different digital cables? I highly doubt one exists, because this sounds like typical audiophile bullshit.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[blhack]

I don't know of a single audiophile out there who uses any digital component in their system. Its all turntables and tubes. Even if you do have a CD player in the system, all of the audio processing is done in the unit. Its passing an analog signal to your amplifier.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[fyngyrz]

If you have phase noise on the sample clock, then you have harmonic distortion in the analog output.

There's some misinformation here, all right, but it is you who are the source. You're confusing things across domains.

The digital signal is coming in at a rate much, much higher than the reproduced signal. For instance, if we were dealing with 8-bit audio at 20 KHz, then for every analog sample there are 8 digital bits of a bitstream that have to be recovered. In an uncompressible signal, this requires 8 bits to come in at a rate of 20 KHz. Time must be allowed for this, even in the case where the signal is (at the moment) compressible. So the bitrate has to be eight times higher than 20 KHz. But - Nyquest explanation goes here - the signal can't actually be 20 KHz, it has to be 44 KHz so we can avoid aliasing by filtering. Yet the frequency response of the system is 22 KHz (less, actually, but theoretically, it could be 22 KHz.) Now, if one of those bits, arriving at a bitrate of 8 * 44 KHz, or 352 KHz, jitters (because of the clock) and "arrives late" to quote you, how "late" can it be without shoving the next bit out of the sample recovery slot? The answer is less than 1/2 bit time at 352 KHz - which is 704 KHZ; Now, ask yourself, using that same knowledge you gleaned in basic engineering class: How much of a 704 KHz phase jitter do you think will get through a steep filter at 22 KHz, if indeed the byte being recovered jitters at that rate? The answer of course, is none of it. The rate of change that a 22 KHz filter allows is so slow that signals at hundreds of KHz don't have any effect at all on the signal integration; they're simply too fast and too transient to slew the summing process.

But wait - we're not talking about an 8 bit signal, are we? No. We're talking about a signal that is many bits deeper, and coming a whole lot faster - but still sees a brick wall filter way, way, down low, often still at 20 KHz. So the jitter is even smaller, and the filter is even stronger with respect to it.

Digital domain signals certainly have potential problems, but THD due to jitter isn't one of them in this particular application (hifi and home theater.)

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

That's just a typo. I meant conversion, not convergence.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[egomaniac]

I don't know of a single audiophile out there who uses any digital component in their system. Its all turntables and tubes. Even if you do have a CD player in the system, all of the audio processing is done in the unit. Its passing an analog signal to your amplifier.

First, lots of audiophiles use digital audio. Ridiculously expensive CD / DVD / etc. players wouldn't exist otherwise.

Second, who said I was talking about audiophiles? Audiophiles are pretty much by definition insane -- then spend huge sums of money on mythical improvements to their systems that only they can hear, and which miraculously disappear when they have to identify them during a blind test.

I don't include people who just "like good music". I like good music, and I probably spent more money than I really should have on my setup. But you're not really in audiophile territory until you're doing insane things like buying $100 power outlets (not surge protectors or anything like that, just ordinary wall outlets), coloring the edges of your CDs green, or putting special pieces of magical wood on your CD player in order to make it sound better. Sadly, I'm not making any of those examples up. True audiophiles are f'in crazy.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[fyngyrz]

Jeff, as I explained to you in my other post, phase noise at 700 KHz - higher, actually - isn't going to produce THD at your speakers. It'd flip bits well before it produced a phase error significant enough to make it past the low pass filters. You're simply wrong.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

I'm sorry, but your simplistic extrapolation of information theory simply does not model reality. The frequency of the phase noise is independent of the signal frequency. In fact, because of the sad design of S/PDIF, the phase noise is correlated with the signal, which is the worst possible case. In fact, the worst induced phase noise is on the zero crossing, which means that the lowest level signals have the highest distortion.

On the off chance that you are capable of educating yourself on this topic, I leave you with this link regarding phase noise: http://www.wenzel.com/documents/noise.html

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Firethorn]

Umm... No. What are you even doing on /.?

Digital data is just that. Digital: It doesn't matter whether the incoming bits would actually be .2/1.2, -.1/.8, it's all seen as 0 and 1. Noise is ignored until it's so bad that the receiving end can't sort out the 1&0, and can't recover using the normally included error correction systems. The cabling needed is set by design specs - which are set low for stuff like this.

If stuff was really this sensative, we wouldn't be pushing gigabit data streams over Unshielded Twisted Pair(UTP), and Ten/hundred gigabit streams over fiber.

Now, spending a few dollars on good quality cables makes a certain amount of sense from the standpoint that a good cable can handle more abuse than the cheapest you can get - the connector is usually easier to use, holds on tighter(so it doesn't wiggle loose), and can withstand more unpluggings before wearing out.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

With optical, there is no such thing as higher or lower quality cable. In that sense, optical is superior to copper. But the optical receivers and transmitters which convert the signal from and to electrical signals are quite sensitive to the quality of their power supply, and because of that systems using optical interconnects normally have higher distortion on the analog outputs than systems using a good copper interconnect. And there's nothing about optical which ameliorates the fundamental design issues of S/PDIF.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[WinterSolstice]

I prefer the term "stereophiles" because they listen to the stereo, not the music ;)

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[myz24]

I've read each of your comments and honestly who gives a shit? I mean really, you must be trolling. Like the previous poster said, it's either all static and pops or it's so close to perfect you might as well say it is perfect. How the hell at that point can you KNOW that something you think you hear was introduced by some cable or during the recording process?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[fyngyrz]

In fact, the worst induced phase noise is on the zero crossing, which means that the lowest level signals have the highest distortion.

Jeff, Jeff... The electronics don't give a hoot about the zero crossing. There is no information to be recovered at the zero crossing. They also don't care if the sample window moves a fraction of the window in time one way or the other. The whole point is to sample in the middle of the window, threshold the signal at a rate far higher than the recovered audio, and take that result as gospel. That's the whole process. There is no low level THD in the recovered signal caused by the cables, Jeff. None. It's all in your (very) confused imagination.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Yes, the way you have stated the problem sounds impossible. But the phase noise isn't at 700kHz, it's at low frequencies. Read DIGITAL-TO-ANALOG CONVERTER WITH LOW INTERSAMPLE TRANSITION DISTORTION AND LOW SENSITIVITY TO SAMPLE JITTER AND TRANSRESISTANCE AMPLIFIER SLEW RATE, Hawksford, M.O.J., JAES, vol. 42, no. 11, pp 901-917, November 1994. On page 904 you can clearly see that the jitter spectrum is well within the audible range, well below 2kHz even. Hawksford also clearly derives the relationship between jitter in the time domain and harmonic distortion in the frequency domain.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[egomaniac]

With optical, there is no such thing as higher or lower quality cable.

That's funny, because that's pretty much exactly what I said in my original post, for which you called me "staggeringly ignorant"...

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

I'm referring to the zero-crossing in the analog domain. That's the very worst case for S/PDIF because the encoding flips every bit in the word. Therefore crossing zero causes a maximal net current flow. Optical has the same problem because crossing zero causes the maximal net current draw from the power supply of the transmitter. But obviously you have no experience with any of these design issues, and your thoughts on the topic are based on pure speculation.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[walt-sjc]

Sounds like you have never heard of a PLL which is SOP on everything that receives a clocked signal.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[egomaniac]

Like the previous poster, you are woefully misinformed. Consumer audio equipment reads the clock straight off the wire. If the last bit arrives at the wrong time, then the analog signal is produced at the wrong time, which means you have distortion in the frequency domain. The quality of digital audio relies entirely on low phase noise of the sample clock. If you have phase noise on the sample clock, then you have harmonic distortion in the analog output. QED. This is all so basic, it's incredible that none of you understand it. Don't they teach anything in EE classes any more?

Maybe I missed something, but aren't we talking about a GOD DAMNED COPPER CABLE HERE?

I would really, really like to know how a copper cable can alter the time at which some bits but not others arrive. I realize you're going to cop out and start talking about crappy electronics or somesuch, but that's cheating -- the discussion started about cables. We were talking about how expensive cables are unnecessary in digital audio, because as long as you're not getting bit flips or echo or anything like that (which you shouldn't be, even with a $5 cable), you're going to hear the exact same sound.

So, please explain to me how a non-pathologically-screwed-up cable can possibly alter the timing of some bits, but not others.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Actually what you said is "you're not going to get harmonic distortion" which is the opposite of reality. Here's the peer-reviewed watershed work on jitter and harmonic distortion, published in the Journal of the AES. Educate yourself. http://www.essex.ac.uk/ESE/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/C44%20DAC%20Transisiton%20distortion,%20jitter,%20slew%20rate.pdf

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[plague3106]

Suppose you're downloading a digital representation of music -- an MP3, say -- from the Internet. Now, we all know that an MP3 is just a series of bits, and as long as those bits arrive unmodified the song is going to sound exactly the same. Suppose I were to claim that you needed some super-high-fidelity Ethernet cable in order for the MP3 to sound its best after being downloaded, because otherwise the inter-edge arrival time in the digital signal will be distorted, and this, in turn, would map directly into harmonic distortion in the analog reproduction.

Well your argument here is a bit off, because you're not using the Ethernet cable to PLAY the audio. Now, if we were talking about POTS line used for networking, interfernce suddenly DOES become an important factor. Ethernet cabling is more expensive than RJ45 because besides there being more wires, they need to be twisted to resist interference.

A standard speaker cable is just ONE plain old copper wire, and if you'll remember from your digital systems class, two straight copper wires is an antenna, a twisted pair is not. So, the cheapo audio cables may not be shielded in anyway, meaning they are more prone to interference. That hurts the signal, digital or analog. The more expensive ones will be shielded or twisted.

Also, the gauge of the wire could affect the signal as well, depending on how many amps your receiver is putting out.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[fyngyrz]

Intersample slew on a D/A isn't a cable issue, Jeff. Signals aren't coming in from a cable and going right into a D/A. There's tons of switching, signal processing (Dolby, EQ, DTS, etc), etc. going on before the D/A ever sees the signal, and by that time, the digital data is clean as a whistle. Intersample slew error is an issue, certainly, but any D/A hardware that produced audible errors would not (just as a for instance) be a component used in a receiver that produces measured THD of fractions of a percent. You understand? The actual measured performance of the whole system at the speaker output jacks, which certainly includes the cables, is about 50x to 500x (depending on your hardware) lower than, for instance, the distortion the speakers add to the signal. The problem you postulate simply does not exist in any meaningful (as in suggesting the listener could ever possibly hear it) way.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Some random magnetic field will interfere with the cable and that will affect how the signal is received at the other end. This is basic EE stuff. How do you think an antenna works? Therefore a good digital cable would be one which is least susceptible to interference from stray magnetic fields, such as a well-shielded RG-6 of the type used for cable TV. Even more important is to have constant impedance along the transmission line, which is why BNC is much better than RCA connectors. Finally, a huge improvement would be to use a balanced cable, where the stray interference can be cancelled. Unfortunately, common consumer digital audio cables have none of these features. They are badly shielded, they don't have controlled impedance, and they aren't balanced.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Blkdeath]

Suppose you're downloading a digital representation of music -- an MP3, say -- from the Internet. Now, we all know that an MP3 is just a series of bits, and as long as those bits arrive unmodified the song is going to sound exactly the same.

Except that I don't "download" my movie soundtracks from my DVD player to my receiver and then to my speakers before pressing "play" - this has to happen in real-time and reach each of my six speakers in the proper order and without interference at any level.

People consider cables to be unimportant with digital signals because they confuse ages old analog "snow" with a series of digital 1s and 0s. The "snow" doesn't go away when you convert to digital, instead it turns into pixelization or blocky bits on the screen, motion blur, etc. As for the sound arena it turns into hums, pops, crackles or gaps in the sound when the signal is interrupted by any of the hundreds of sources of RFI / EMI in a residential setting. (That, or the power shifting as a major appliance is turned on/off during the viewing period).

People like to jump on the "Monster is evil!" bandwagon because the cables are horrifically over priced. I'll admit that their margins are absurd, but to compare a proper THX grade monster cable to a $10-15 store-bought jobbie? Please.

As to the laughable post I saw further down that indicated gold was akin to snake oil? Somebody needs to take an electrical refresher course. Gold IS a better conductor than copper, it just costs too damn much to wire everything with so we go with the next best alternative. However in high(er) end theatre setups (mine tops $10k without the cables) gold connectors are the way to go.

People ask me what benefeit I have, what extra I'm getting by having Monster cables and power filtering for my rig. I always tell them the same thing; it's not what I gain it's what I lose. I lose the distortion, pixelization and interference in my signals that would otherwise interrupt my enjoyment of my purchase.

For the record; when you're on the cusp of making a $5000 equipment purchase it's quite easy at that point to convince the salesman to throw in some Monster cabling gratis. That's how I get the quality of the Monster cables without suffering the ridiculous markup.

The same is, for the most part, true with digital audio as well. You're either going to get a perfect signal or horrible pops and static. There really isn't an in-between, and you're certainly not going to get harmonic distortion. Admittedly digital audio does not feature error correction, so marginal connections are more likely to give you problems, but it's not going to be subtle.

This seems to be at odds with the rest of your post. I'm confused; you admit that you can suffer pops and static using cheap cables for digital audio, but you don't believe in high-end shielded digital audio cables?!?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

What do you think the jitter rejection of a standard S/PDIF PLL is? I'll tell you: it's zero across the audible spectrum. Please read the datasheet for the Cirrus Logic 8416, which is by far the most popular digital audio receiver chip. The jitter attenuation is only -6dB at 20kHz. At 3kHz, it's +2dB! The PLLs in consumer electronics are a sad joke indeed.

Datasheet, which you have obviously never read. Please see page 55.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Wrong again. Did you read the paper? He's inducing jitter into the test circuit using a magnetic loop around the S/PDIF cable. The result is clearly visible in the output distortion. Here's another peer-reviewed paper where the same test circuit is used. See page 3 for the test jig. http://www.scientificonversion.com/AES2001.pdf

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[egomaniac]

First, I consider RG-6 to be "common consumer cable", since it's dirt cheap and easily available. I used RG-6 to make my component video cables. Admittedly overkill for coax digital audio, but hardly expensive.

Secondly, I don't doubt that you're a smart guy, but if you honestly truly believe that you need something of at least RG-6 quality with BNC connectors to get clean digital audio, I'm afraid you have indeed been reading too many glossy brochures. Audio frequencies just aren't that demanding. Your ears, no matter how you may think otherwise, just aren't that good. Unless there is a ridiculous amount of RFI in the room, a typical 3-to-6 foot run of cable isn't going to be meaningfully affected by it, especially in digital applications.

I very much doubt that any human could hear even the slightest difference between a cheap no-name RCA cable and a nice expensive cable with BNC connectors in digital audio applications. (With obvious caveats like "the RCA cable isn't actually messed up" and "both cables are making good solid connections"). By all means, point me to a study showing otherwise. I'd love to read it.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[atamido]

Except that with the exception of playing a CD, the vast majority of the time audio carried over SPDIF is going to be compressed as DTS or DD. All of the timing will occur in the internal logics while decompressing the audio.

Of course, now a lot of audio on newer equipment is being transmitted over HDMI, which makes this whole discussion moot.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[heinousjay]

And yet it sounds fine. Apparently in theory it sucks and in practice it works.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[TheMeuge]

People who's job it is to know good sound (mastering engineers) are the people out there proclaiming that these 80k cables, and whatnot are worth it

Are you kidding me?

Sound engineers stay FAR FAR away from audiophile magazines.

Shit, I once took an article from 'Stereophile' to a physics professors at NYU so that he could explain to me what the terminology in a cable review/ad article meant. He told me that 90% of the terms they used, have no meaning whatsoever, in science.

Who do you think I should trust? My ears and a physics PhD... or misc people who get thousands $$$ from 10000% markup on cables?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[TheMeuge]

Yes, B&K is really nice stuff.....(its what i have in my theater), but you are nowhere NEAR the realm of a true reference system yet.

I've been through the specs countless times... and while I KNOW FOR A FACT that amps can sound better than my B&K, in terms of price it's already a Mercedes of the audio world. Not many people even bother with dedicated amps anymore, and even less so with monoblocs..., so if you assume that the average audio buyer spends even $50/channel in amplification, my amps are 10X that...

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

If you're making your own cables, then you are likely to be way ahead of the game anyway. But since you asked, Dunn and Hawksford found that jitter of 100ps at 20kHz was audible in controlled listening tests. You can read more about that in their AES paper, or in Digital Interface Handbook (2003). Proceedings of the 111th AES says that your basic consumer S/PDIF receiver has jitter of 4600ps. Therefore, your average consumer digital interconnect has audible problems. You might argue that the remainder of your "basic consumer receiver" has other problems which swamp this, and you would probably be right about that. But the original poster, way upthread, who tried to imply that digital is digital and therefore perfect, is dead wrong. In reality it's much more difficult to make a really good digital system compared to the difficulty of a really good analog one.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[egomaniac]

You seem to keep forgetting that this discussion is about cables. Not digital to analog converters or any other component of the system. Cables. In the context of cables, I submit that it is impossible for you to get harmonic distortion by using a shoddy digital cable compared to a good one. That's what I said originally, and I stand by it. I see nothing in this paper (which is about DACs) which is even the slightest bit relevant to this discussion.

Admittedly all I did was skim it -- perhaps somewhere in there is an admonishment against using cheap cables...

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[walt-sjc]

Jeff - we are dealing with the S/PDIF interface frequency - not the audio frequency. You are very confused.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[walt-sjc]

No - I said that cable is cable, and that there is no such thing as digital cables. The cable, as long as it passes bits, will pass digital data perfectly and will not have ANY impact at all on shorter lengths. I could damn near use coat hangers and make it work.

You are confusing the error created by devices with error caused by cable quality.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[verbatim_verbose]

Even if that is true, how is a flaky digital cable going to change the inter-symbol arrival time? As before, it gets there or it doesn't... and if it doesn't the "distortion in the time domain" isn't going to be your problem -- you'll still be dropping pieces of audio data.

Or do these flaky digital cables somehow warp time, and slow down the bits flowing down them?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[hudsonhawk]

There's no sense in even trying to defend cables on Slashdot.

There's a lot of groupthink that goes on with both sides of the debate. Audiophiles are guilty of buying into a lot of silly myths, and using bad methodology to determine quality. But the anti-audiophile crowd is just as guilty, condemning the science on the whole because some bad companies sell snake oil, condemning audiophiles as a whole because some of them are ridiculous cartoons who buy $300 wooden knobs because they think their stereo will sound better.

Most of all they look at studies that ask the question, "Can everyone hear the difference?" and assume that they answer the question, "Can anyone hear the difference?" There's a big difference between those two questions.

The fact is that analog cables measurably influence the waveform that passes over them. PCM jitter measurably influences the waveform that the DAC produces (assuming the DAC doesn't reclock of course). Can everyone hear the differences between these things? Probably not. Can anyone? The answer is yes but it takes a trained ear.

It certainly doesn't help when people are insisting that HDMI cables can make a "huge" difference, or to have companies like Monster peddling overpriced lamp cable, or to have audiophiles perpetuating bad myths about themselves and their hobby. But to judge the hobby as a whole because of percentage of quacks is a compositional fallacy.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[lgw]

If you're trolling, you're working way to hard at it, and fundamentally mistunderstand that fine art. If you're sincere, you're full of shit and ignorance to an amazing degree even by Slashdot poster standards, which is saying something, or you just spent $1000 on a digital cable and are desprately trying to defend yourself, which is probably more likely.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[fyngyrz]

Yes, I read it.

First of all, closely coupled (of neccesity, because magnetic field effects fall off as the square of the distance) induced fields of 6 MHz are not in any way real-world interference for your typical home theater setup. Though I'll come back to that.

Secondly, and as the author of the paper notes, the cable impedance is 50 ohms, and so in order to induce a change in the signal carried inside, the power of the 6 MHz signal has to be fairly extreme in order to induce any change within the cable.

Third, again as the author of the paper notes, the interfering signal is a 6 MHz two volt square wave, something you aren't going to see in a home environment even if there was a 6 MHz signal source. Heck, you won't even find that in most labs unless they're trying to make it, as is the case here.

Fourth, none of this in any way implicates the cable as a source of jitter. It implicates outside signals as a source of jitter; the only related question is, does a really fine cable do a better job of keeping real-world noise (IOW, not a 2 volt, closely coupled, high power square wave) out of your home cables? And the answer, as we all know, is no, it does not. It is trivial to make a cable with a nominal 50-ish ohm impedance on a per conductor basis.

Sixth, home theater HDMI uses differential signaling [TDMS]... so induced signals like this are irrelevant anyway, as they are by their nature common mode.)

Seventh, the paper you have there does not test cables. It tests transformers. There is no question that the recovery interface, when actually different, will provide for different types of recovery. Hence his spread of results over his spread of tested transformers.

Eighth, you should note that even in the case of this horrendously strong, not real-world induced signal, chosen specifically for its unique beat frequency against the sample rate and therefore maximal capability to induce jitter (without any regard for the likelihood of such a signal to exist in the home theater environment), the jitter he detects is +/- 10 nanoseconds. The highest frequency to be recovered out of a typical 44 KHz signal is 20 KHz, which is a signal with a period of 50 microseconds. Adding (or subtracting) 10 Ns to the center position of a 50 uS waveform (and mind you, that's absolute worst case, because 20 KHz is the fastest thing to come out of that filter, period) results in time domain distortion that resolves to 4 Hz . or .00005%, which is inaudible (and again, doesn't even hold a candle to what a speaker will do to that signal when it gets hold of it. Doing the same analysis for 20 Hz, we see that the period of 20Hz is 50,000 uS, and when we add 10 uS to that, we get 50,000.01 uS, which is time domain distortion that resolves to 19.999996 Hz, or a .0000002% time domain error. Not only inaudible, just plain irrelevant.

And all of this, of course, is reflected in the pristine visuals and amazing audio we get from high end home theater systems today - even using cheap cables.

I suppose I should own up to what I'm using, as it has become germane: I've got 30 feet of HDMI cable driving a 1080p DLP projector, which in turn produces a 17 foot (205") diagonal image. Plus a bunch of cheap ($6) short cables from various sources to the receiver. I can walk up to that image and put a finger right under a specific pixel and watch the silly thing as long as I have the patience to. I can watch it from a stable source, such as a menu out of the PS3 or a still from a Blueray disk, or I can watch it change with the signal. I can see it in context with its neighbors, and if there were positional jitter (which is what this jitter equates to in video) I'd see it if it were perceptible - and it is not. That's a 30 foot, $60 cable, laid right next to four or five AC lines, some twisted pair control signals for my alarm system, and going by several large fluorescent fixtures in the basement. This is a real-wo

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, Blue Jeans cable is also a good source. I just use 16 gauge lamp wire for speaker cable. Electrons are electrons and resistance is a non issue.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Hatta]

Shit, I once took an article from 'Stereophile' to a physics professors at NYU so that he could explain to me what the terminology in a cable review/ad article meant. He told me that 90% of the terms they used, have no meaning whatsoever, in science.

I once took a porn mag to my biology professor and got told the same thing.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[ozbird]

For speakers: Mains-rated figure-8 cable (2 x 24/0.2mm), A$0.99/metre.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[bobschneider8]

And I'd like to echo the comments of a previous poster: if you are looking for high-quality cables / connectors /etc. but don't want to get ripped off, use Parts Express. They kick all kinds of ass.

Parts Express is good, but I buy most of my cables from http://www.markertek.com/ This is a pro video house, and sells cables to audio and video pros. Well made from good parts, and reasonably priced.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[jagdish]

Where can I find these super-high-fidelity Ethernet cables? Are they gold plated?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[turing_m]

"If these cables and speakers and pre-amps, and turntables are all so ridiculous then why don't all of you who are suddenly "experts" on the subject start manufacturing them?"

Maybe they have a conscience?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[the eric conspiracy]

Absolutely correct. In fact I have read that one of the professional audio societies put on a seminar at their annual meeting titled something like "Audiophile Cables: Consumer Fraud". It is a small market; otherwise I think some Attorney General would go after these guys.

There are a lot of other, similar frauds in the audiophile world, including if you can believe it CD demagnetizers, magic clocks, cable burn in devices, you name it.

These are the real facts:

1. Properly designed amplifiers operating below clipping is indistinguishable from each other.
2. CD Redbook is indistinguishable in audio quality from any higher resolution stereo format.
3. Cables conforming to sound electrical (LCR) standards made from commodity materials do not audibly alter audio reproduction.
4. Jitter levels in properly operating systems are not audible.
5. Power filters are a waste of money and in some circumstances can do harm. If you are worried about power get a surge protector that works at your electrical distribution box and have a dedicated power line run to your system.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

The only thing that's perfectly clear is that nobody commenting in this thread aside from myself has ever built, measured, and seriously listened to digital audio equipment. The upthread mind experiments are nothing more than mental masturbation and ignore all the relevant literature accumulated over the quarter-century since the invention of the art. My only consolation is that this impressive display of ignorance has been captured by Google for all time.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Your mind experiment seems impressive, if you have never read the literature on this topic. Dunn and Hawksford showed long ago that 100ps jitter is audible in blind listening tests. Not only that, they derived the equations for calculating harmonic distortion based on jitter, using real mathematics, not your sheer conjecture. And, again, you have totally misrepresented my point by focusing on bit errors, which are of course not common in consumer electronics.

Here's the point, once again, for those who seem intent on ignoring it. You cannot simply focus on the magnitude of timing errors. In D-A conversion the spectrum of phase noise is mapped, directly, onto the output. If you have a 120Hz jitter, you will have a 120Hz peak on your output spectrum, which will be audible, depending on the magnitude. Audible magnitudes are on the order of 1ns, not 1us. Since you are a ham operator, I'm sure I don't need to point out that 120Hz is an extremely common stray magnetic field. Also you should have realized when writing that lengthy non-explanation that a 10us timing error would be so gross as to unlock the receiver. For you to claim that such an error would be inaudible is absurd on its face.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Your original claim was along the lines of "I'm using optical, so cable quality doesn't matter."

I think he did a pretty decent job of showing that the choice of optical, while eliminating the effects of cheaper vs. more expensive cables, introduces a whole new set of problems that can be worse than what a shoddy copper cable would introduce.

This makes your point about cables somewhat moot if the debate is talking about the effect of shoddy copper cables vs the expensive ones since your solution is likely inferior to both copper cabling solutions.

It would be similar to a debate on whether airbags in cars actually make it safer or not. If you comment that airbags don't make any difference because you ride a motorcycle, that doesn't really contribute to the debate since practically any motorcycle you ride would be less safe than any car period, regardless of whether it has airbags. In both cases, you introduce an overall inferior option where the debated component makes little to no difference.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[lgw]

Clearly, any expert who disagrees with you is wrong, just like all those idiots who ignore all the published work that justifies creation science. The fact that a sub-megahertz self-clocking serial bus for short cable runs is effectively synchronous, not a transmission line means nothing - they just don't share your religion. I'm sure your cable sounds very good, and the green pens you use for your CDs make them sound better, and the power cable vibration isolaters are well worth the money.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Gold IS a better conductor than copper, it just costs too damn much to wire everything with so we go with the next best alternative.

While I agree with you that gold does make a difference, it's not such a simple solution as you make it out to be. For instance, silver is a better conductor than gold, yet it gets used less than gold, especially when it comes to audio. Audio often sounds too crisp with silver where as gold adds a warmth to the sound that makes it more pleasant to listen to.

Gold interconnects can also, literally and figuratively, be worth their weight in gold in that they won't corrode over time and damage the expensive equipment they're connected to. When you're spending $20k on a receiver/amp/etc, the last thing you want to do is hook up a cable that will damage it in any way.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Jeffrey Baker]

Keep piling it on. When you say "sub-megahertz" you only further compound your error. The important bit is not, and has never been, the symbol rate. The important thing is the rise time, and today's transmitters have rise times measured in 100s of picoseconds. So any cable is likely to distort this signal, some more than others, and reflection can be a serious problem. That's why you have to treat these cables as transmission lines. Even if your equipment happens to have expensive transmitters with slew-rate limiting, you are still likely to be looking at signals in the 50MHz area.

It doesn't help that S/PDIF is not exactly low-voltage. Signals levels are in the vicinity of 700mV. You try pushing an edge that fast on a cable that looks like a gigantic unterminated antenna.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[wolrahnaes]

I can't seem to find the link anymore, but there was an experiment I saw recently (probably linked from digg) where someone made a "cable" using the ends of two different free RCA cables that had come with various cheap equipment of theirs, the center was a coat hanger. They then hooked one end up to a DVD player and the other end to a special piece of equipment (I think made by Dolby Labs) which measured the bitstream errors. After a few hours of playback, they had an error count of ZERO.

If that doesn't prove to you the pointlessness of special cables at least for S/PDIF, I don't know what will.

HDMI on the other hand is known to be affected by cable quality, at least on the video side. At long distances, low quality cables will introduce "sparkle" effects (very visible). Once again the audio is fairly low bandwidth, so I can't see it being notably affected by anything.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[wolrahnaes]

Still can't find a link, but I found the text.

Calm down Mrs. Crawford, yes, through a wire hanger... It'll work just fine...

Ok,

So if any of you followed the digital wire wars a while back you may recall that some people maintained that you absolutely, positively, NEEDED a 75 ohm digital cable to connect your DVD player to your pre/pro... Nothing else will do... Anything else, and you risk errors in the bitstream so bad, that they are not only uncorrectable but you will also lose that "smooth airiness on the highs; open and more believeable soundstage; (insert your favorite audiophile tripe here)" and that basically the more money you spend on a digital cable, the more likely you are to achieve a sonic nirvana.

And you may or may not remember that after some rumblings and an e-mail from Jon Wenger, I built "The Finest Digital Transfer Wire In-the-WORLD!"® by taking two blue painted wire hangers and cutting an old, cheap, ugly green rca patch cord in two, soldering the ends onto the wire hangers.

You may remember my initial listening tests between that, a cheap, ugly yellow patch cord, a proper RG-6, 75 ohm cable with gold rca's, and the optical tos-link for comparison, yielded no discernable results, BUT there were too many other factors, like my ears may not be as golden or magical as someone else's, or that the toslink was shoddy anyway, etc.

Well, with Jon's help, I have now finished lab testing the cable.

For the dvd player, we used a professional version of the Sony 7000 reference player. It's actually model number DVP-S7000TP, serial # 2023. This is a pretty cool player... it has a nice gray matte, professional looking face, with a really cool rotary region selection switch near the headphone jack! For the processor we used a Dolby Labs model number DP562 multichannel ac-3 decoder, serial # 500280. The very cool feature, which is very necessary for our scientific experiment (since my pedestrian ears can't be trusted to be refined enough for the audiophiles whose heads travel in extra rarified air,) of this Dolby produced decoder is that it will do a bit error rate count... Yup, it will count each and every error it sees... Which is crc (cyclic redundancy check) protected which means the odds of having multiple errors such that the crc check passes an error in the data stream, is almost impossible. The output of the dvd player is an rca coax connector, and the input to the decoder is an XLR balanced connector. Jon normally has a Canare XLR to rca wire connecting the two.

I brought all my wires in case the number of errors that the wire hanger wire rolled was so great, that we would want to try the others and tabulate results... If you would like to see a picture of the wires (including the Sky-Blue/Lime-Green model of "The Finest Digital Transfer Wire In-the-WORLD!"®) go to: See a photo of the wire on my main Home Theater page.

Now we initially had a little problem with the hookup because we planned on using an rca female to female adapter and putting the test wire right between the Sony 7000 and the Canare cable, BUT we could not find the female to female... Not wanting to give up without giving it the old college try, Jon found two wires with alligator clips on them, so we used those.

So just to recap this thing to death, we had: The professional Sony S7000TP reference dvd player, going to a 20 year old, ugly green, rca patch cord which was cut in two. On one side of the green rca I soldered a blue painted wire hanger to the shield and another to the center conductor. I soldered the other ends of the wire hangers to the other half of the ugly green rca patch cord. We then clipped the alligator clips with thin wire to the centers and shields of the rca connectors of my cable and of the Canare cable, and then plugged the other XLR-balanced side of the Canare into the Dolby Labs decoder. I honestly did not know how badly we would be rolling errors on this one... and with open, scientific minds, we played a dvd...

Ar

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Firethorn]

Well your argument here is a bit off, because you're not using the Ethernet cable to PLAY the audio. Now, if we were talking about POTS line used for networking, interfernce suddenly DOES become an important factor. Ethernet cabling is more expensive than RJ45 because besides there being more wires, they need to be twisted to resist interference.

A lot of POTS lines are twisted though. Cat3 anyone? A lot of phone cords aren't twisted because they're short and the quality of data a phone needs to carry is exceptionally limited.

A standard speaker cable is just ONE plain old copper wire

Actually, it's two wires for a speaker cable.

and if you'll remember from your digital systems class, two straight copper wires is an antenna, a twisted pair is not. So, the cheapo audio cables may not be shielded in anyway, meaning they are more prone to interference. That hurts the signal, digital or analog. The more expensive ones will be shielded or twisted.

The point that the digital crowd are trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you have 100% of the signal remaining or 51% - as long as enough remains for the system to reconstruct the bits, you get the same signal out of the line as you put onto it. This isn't true with analogue(the run from the amp to the speaker). Better cables make sense there - longer runs, analogue, higher power.

Besides, we're generally not talking about the wire from the amp to the speaker, we're talking about the digital wire from the player to the receiver, which is a digital connection. There are people who claim that extremely expensive special digital cables costing hundreds of dollars a meter improve the sound for this connection. We're saying that it doesn't really matter as long as your cable meets specs. The extremely bad cheap cables might not work right, but a good quality generic will get the job done just as well as the monster cable+ crowd.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[lordlod]

On a completely related issue, how well insulated is your receiver?

Regardless of the source of the reference frequency the DAC is driven by a crystal oscillator. Crystal oscillators have terrible issues with temperature sensitivity, a slight variation in temperature can cause an oscillator to move in all sorts of odd non-linear ways. The only good way to avoid these problems is to build an oven into the oscillator, which drastically shortens it's life and increases it's cost, so it's rarely done.

Typically there is some basic temperature compensation, but some oscillators even have a saw-tooth style response to temperature due to this compensation. So as you slide through temperature the frequency will jump up and down repeatedly.

This crystal oscillator directly drives the DAC process. Who knows what kind of errors could be introduced by someone causing a breeze by walking past, people breathing near your device or worst of all, somebody opening a door and getting a rush of cold air in.

So while I commend your efforts on ensuring that you have the best cables you really need to insulate the DAC, I'd suggest putting up one of those kids cages to stop people walking near it and wrapping the whole thing in a blanket to try and smooth out any sudden changes. I'm always amazed at home many fellow audiophiles don't pay enough attention to this aspect of their sound.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[fyngyrz]

10 nS jitter, Jeff, from the paper you cited. Likewise, read up as to why they used a 6 MHz field. 120 Hz fields are irrelevant. They even explain why. Otherwise, have a nice day. Have to move on now.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Gold is a good material for connectors because it is a soft metal and therefore moulds more easily around the imperfections in the connecting surface, thereby sigificantly reducing the contact resistance. This is the reason for its use.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Let it go Jeff, you really haven't got a clue.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[CnlPepper]

Jeff, you know what is interesting? It is interesting that despite you "obviously being right" none of the posters in this topic have offered any support to your, frankly, riduculous claims. If that doesn't start to trigger some small mental cog that maybe you are infact the ignorant yokel than I don't know what will. I suspect you are simply delusional.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[plague3106]

A lot of POTS lines are twisted though. Cat3 anyone? A lot of phone cords aren't twisted because they're short and the quality of data a phone needs to carry is exceptionally limited.

I'd say that goes toward proving my point (I don't see much wiring that's inside the house). How much is cat3 compared to the same length of phone cord?

The point that the digital crowd are trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you have 100% of the signal remaining or 51% - as long as enough remains for the system to reconstruct the bits, you get the same signal out of the line as you put onto it. This isn't true with analogue(the run from the amp to the speaker). Better cables make sense there - longer runs, analogue, higher power.

Have digital speakers taken off? I haven't seen them anywhere, either in Best Buy or in a high end audio stores. If they haven't, which I suspect is the case, then the point the digital people are making is moot. That's the point I'm trying to make; since speakers are likely analog, you DO need some higher quality cables, either shielded or twisted. I'm not saying you need $1000 cables, but good cables DO make a difference.

In the digital case, losing 49% of the signal likely won't be enough to put the original signal back together.

Besides, we're generally not talking about the wire from the amp to the speaker, we're talking about the digital wire from the player to the receiver, which is a digital connection. There are people who claim that extremely expensive special digital cables costing hundreds of dollars a meter improve the sound for this connection. We're saying that it doesn't really matter as long as your cable meets specs. The extremely bad cheap cables might not work right, but a good quality generic will get the job done just as well as the monster cable+ crowd.

I did read half of the article, and it did sound like the cable from the speakers to the amp were being discussed. I agree that DVD to receiver you don't need super expensive cables, but they can make a difference as well. I replaced an old RCA stereo+video cable with a newer, higher quality one, and it made a HUGE difference. The old cables were of very low quality, and I certainly didn't spend a lot to replace it.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Firethorn]

Except that I don't "download" my movie soundtracks from my DVD player to my receiver and then to my speakers before pressing "play" - this has to happen in real-time and reach each of my six speakers in the proper order and without interference at any level.

The data is traveling over dedicated circuits with short runs. It's not even a high speed data link shows the max speed of data transmission of 3Mhz, with a 6Mhz clock. An appropriate length of Cat3 could handle that, much less a $5 cat 6 cable.

People consider cables to be unimportant with digital signals because they confuse ages old analog "snow" with a series of digital 1s and 0s. The "snow" doesn't go away when you convert to digital, instead it turns into pixelization or blocky bits on the screen, motion blur, etc. As for the sound arena it turns into hums, pops, crackles or gaps in the sound
IE Digital bit errors are MORE visible and hearable than analogue distortion. People don't worry about cable as much with digital data for the reason I mentioned - As long as the distortions don't start flipping bits, you're getting the same signal out as you put in.

when the signal is interrupted by any of the hundreds of sources of RFI / EMI in a residential setting. (That, or the power shifting as a major appliance is turned on/off during the viewing period).

Like these aren't present in businesses? If it was such a bit deal, why does my UTP network work at speeds 100X that of audio traffic?

People like to jump on the "Monster is evil!" bandwagon because the cables are horrifically over priced. I'll admit that their margins are absurd, but to compare a proper THX grade monster cable to a $10-15 store-bought jobbie? Please.

I have. I prefered the $10 RCA cables I got from Radioshack a while back over the $40 Monster equivalent. I think you're confusing the <$5 bargain basement cables with 'decent generics'. The problem I have with stores like best buy and walmart is that they often jump directly from the ultra-cheaply built yumcha brand to decent quality but highly priced monsters.

Let's look a bit of the spectrum:

$6.99 Gold Plated!
$14.99 Oxygen Free!
$16.99 Copper Shield

Now, is there anybody here who believes that they'd be able to hear the difference between these three cables when used to transmit digital data?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Firethorn]

Hit submit instead of preview by accident, rest of post

As to the laughable post I saw further down that indicated gold was akin to snake oil? Somebody needs to take an electrical refresher course. Gold IS a better conductor than copper, it just costs too damn much to wire everything with so we go with the next best alternative. However in high(er) end theatre setups (mine tops $10k without the cables) gold connectors are the way to go.

Gold is WORSE than copper at conductivity.

Gold: 22.1 (lower is better)
Copper: 17.1
Silver: 15.9
Iron: 96.1

What makes Gold good for connectors is that it doesn't corrode or oxidize like copper/silver will, oxidation increases resistance.

For the record; when you're on the cusp of making a $5000 equipment purchase it's quite easy at that point to convince the salesman to throw in some Monster cabling gratis. That's how I get the quality of the Monster cables without suffering the ridiculous markup.

Then you paid the right price for them; none of us will argue with using monster cables if you got them for free.

This seems to be at odds with the rest of your post. I'm confused; you admit that you can suffer pops and static using cheap cables for digital audio, but you don't believe in high-end shielded digital audio cables?!?

Because the signal will make it through intact on any half decent cable that meets specifications? Heck, in my earlier post the cheapest cable still had shielding. Better quality cable enables longer runs before interference shows up- not better sound.

We're not talking 'bottom line' here, we're talking 'sub monster generic cables that are still well constructed'.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[GWBasic]

The same is, for the most part, true with digital audio as well. You're either going to get a perfect signal or horrible pops and static. There really isn't an in-between, and you're certainly not going to get harmonic distortion. Admittedly digital audio does not feature error correction, so marginal connections are more likely to give you problems, but it's not going to be subtle.

Not quite...

The digital audio standards allow some flexibility in the sampling rate; IE, your CD player can fluxuate between 44.09khz and 44.11khz. Your reciever will play back the samples at the speed that it recieves it. Of course, the fluctuation is much less then the fluctuation that occurs in the natural warping of a vinyl record...

If I remember correctly, the specific sampling rates aren't part of the SPDIF spec, you could theoretically send a 39khz signal or a 46khz signal to a reciever and it would handle it.

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[lgw]

• Rise time only matters if it takes more than about 10% of the unit interval. Anything faster is fine.
• If the rise is too steep for the cable impedance, it won't be after it travels a ways (but again, as long as it doesn't look like a sine wave at the other end, it's fine).
• 75-ohm coax cable handles multi-gigahertz signals perfectly well as a transmission line, so a rise time of hundreds of picoseconds is no problem.
• None of which matters, because the unit interval is so long compared to the cable length that it might as well be DC.
• Higher voltage just means less interference from nearby EM.

Err, was anything you just said correct?

Re:Too much wire/cable BS

[Firethorn]

I'd say that goes toward proving my point (I don't see much wiring that's inside the house). How much is cat3 compared to the same length of phone cord?

Cat3 is phone cord. It's probably actually cheaper per foot. It'd be pretty hard to find in preassembled lengths, I think it's mostly used for in wall wiring.

Have digital speakers taken off? I haven't seen them anywhere, either in Best Buy or in a high end audio stores. If they haven't, which I suspect is the case, then the point the digital people are making is moot. That's the point I'm trying to make; since speakers are likely analog, you DO need some higher quality cables, either shielded or twisted. I'm not saying you need $1000 cables, but good cables DO make a difference.

No, they haven't. On the other hand, we haven't been talking about speaker cables - we've been talking about the digital wires used between components like the player, receiver, and frequenly the TV today.

In the digital case, losing 49% of the signal likely won't be enough to put the original signal back together.

It was just an example, just to give you an idea though - wireless networking works despite orders of magnitude of signal loss. If the receiving antenna gets 1/1000 of the signal strength - it's considered good. I wasn't thinking '49% of bits lost', I was thinking '49% of what tells the difference between a 1 and a 0 has been lost'. IE there's still 51% of that difference left, which can be plenty.

The old cables were of very low quality, and I certainly didn't spend a lot to replace it.

And we've made multiple mentions of 'decent' quality - not 'very low'. Sure, a cruddy ethernet cable might work, but it might not. Going a step or two up gives you a cable that will work.

Have we learned nothing from Nike, Gap, et al?

[mcmonkey]

When everyone is asleep and I'm in the middle of an all-night code-session and want a break, I can thrown in a movie and actually LISTEN to it without having to worry about waking the 2 year old.

Shouldn't the 2-yr old be coding? At least making wallets or macrame key chains or something. Kids today have it so easy ;)

The article's IDE cable example is moronic.

[fahrvergnugen]

Cables do make a difference. Consider the difference between the 80-conductor IDE cables and the 40-pin IDE cables. If there was no difference, why are there performance issues? The problem is that bits aren't bits. Even when transmitting 0's and 1's, it's still a question of voltages what is driving that voltage. A lot of science has shown that "all things equal," there shouldn't be a difference in sound quality - but for whatever reasons, all things don't seem to be equal. The problem that clouds everything is that cables are frequently overpriced.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

80-conducter IDE cables still only have 40 pins. The other 40 pins are insulation and grounding, used to space and isolate the active conductors so there isn't any crosstalk. There's not just a performance difference if you plug a modern disk drive into the controller using a 40-conductor cable, there's inevitable data corruption. This has NOTHING to do with expensive speaker cable, or the Monster myth. It's one of the stupidest justifications I've ever seen.

AND THEN they go on about PCM jitter with a straight face. Holy god, people still believe in this?

Re:The article's IDE cable example is moronic.

[Lumpy]

yes they do. these types of articles only server to further misinform the uneducated masses and make things like audio and video a "mystery" to further promote the you need an expert to help you line.

This kind of crap has gone so far that people are buying $150.00 IDC power cables for their equipment so that the power will be cleaner and the video will be clearer. One reviewer had the balls to say "the colors are more dynamic" with this overpriced power cord that does not do squat.

Home theaters are the new audiophile Make crap up outlet.

Missing some MAJOR elements of a reference theater

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you use to get the floors at the official level of stickiness?

How much used chewing gum and in what pattern to you place it under the seats?

These ommissions will make your home acoustics a sham.

Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[hudsonhawk]

There's nothing even remotely "reference" level about anything suggested here. Their suggestion for speakers, as mentioned elsewhere, is very poor (Polk? Really?) given that there's much better stuff available from great companies like PSB, Paradigm, and NHT.

That they top it off with a $400 receiver, and completely dodge the notion of getting into separates (other than to say that it's complicated and they haven't really listened to anything), makes it lose all credibility. The cable and power conditioning sections are a joke - they steadfastly refuse to entertain any alternatives to Monster Cable (hint: almost all the alternatives are better values for the money; just because you can get Monster Cable on sale doesn't make it a good value - their markup tends to be 3x-4x that of other cable manufacturers).

I get the feeling that they've listened to a handful of mass market pieces and decided to just suggest whatever crap it was they bought. As mentioned elsewhere, they don't even touch on room acoustics and setup factors, which can greatly influence the end results.

In short these guys don't know anything more about setting up a reference level home theater than your average Best Buy salesperson. Given their selection of brands, that's probably what they are in fact.

Re:Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[rho]

Their suggestion for speakers, as mentioned elsewhere, is very poor (Polk? Really?) given that there's much better stuff available from great companies like PSB, Paradigm, and NHT.

Or even the speaker kits from places like Parts Express. A speaker kit is remarkably good value, if you're not a complete schlub and can solder a simple crossover without burning your house down. Too many retail speakers are designed to look good first; to sound good second. This is a good plan for the companies involved because most people will not be able to tell the difference anyway. But if you're going to try to do it right, at least, you know, try to do it right.

I'm less titchy about the receiver. I guess if you're talking about a "reference" system, then separates are a valid topic of discussion, but most middle-tier receivers are thoroughly adequate.

Re:Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[eth1]

Yup, these guys skip a lot of the important stuff.

After researching a home theater room myself, I've come to the conclusion that if you can do your research in less than two months, and don't have a permanent headache from it, you probably still don't understand it. :)

Example: matching the crossovers on the processor's LFE channel/subwoofer combo with the ones the processor applies to the satellite speakers. If you're not careful, you end up with a 2nd order on satellites vs. 4th order on the LFE channel.

Re:Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I would never buy monster anything even at fire sale prices. Equal or better quality cables can be had at parts express or blue jeans cable. Asisde from the fact that they do mention the SVS line of speakers and subs which are quite good, this article was a joke form the audio perspective.

Re:Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys are talking about the Polk LSi lineup which is vastly superior to the mainstream line. It's like saying a Veyron sucks because it's from Volkswagen. To beat the LSi, you need to get into the likes of Dynaudio, Sonus Faber, B&W 800 series, JM Labs.

Re:Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[GWBasic]

That they top it off with a $400 receiver, and completely dodge the notion of getting into separates (other than to say that it's complicated and they haven't really listened to anything), makes it lose all credibility. The cable and power conditioning sections are a joke - they steadfastly refuse to entertain any alternatives to Monster Cable (hint: almost all the alternatives are better values for the money; just because you can get Monster Cable on sale doesn't make it a good value - their markup tends to be 3x-4x that of other cable manufacturers).

Ever read a book on amplifer design?

The first chapter on amplifier design states that $400 recievers are perfect. This is because market forces drive companies like Sony and RCA to have the best quality components at the lowest possible price.

Seperates only make sense when you need to go much louder then a reference home theater.

Re:Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[hudsonhawk]

That's... a joke, right?

I'm pretty sure that market forces drive companies in the opposite direction of what you're indicating... they drive companies to use the lowest quality components that they can get away with, while charging as much as the market will allow.

But, I'm going to go with the notion that your post is a joke. Otherwise my head would explode.

Re:Wow, this is a really, really terrible article

[GWBasic]

That's... a joke, right? I'm pretty sure that market forces drive companies in the opposite direction of what you're indicating... they drive companies to use the lowest quality components that they can get away with, while charging as much as the market will allow.

Which is why there are idiots who buy $10,000 tube amps with $100 / foot cables. ;)

But it really is true, a $400 reciever is effectivly "perfect" when it comes to home theater:

• It's loud enough
• It won't have any noticable distortion
• It's durable

Anything lower quality won't survive in the market place, and anything higher quality wouldn't make enough profit.

firing squad

[u-bend]

Looks like their server was taken out and shot by the firing squad. Anyone have a mirror?

Don't forget to take room volume into account

[hudsonhawk]

If you have a huge cavernous room, a satellite and sub setup isn't going to work for you. A small driver simply isn't physically capable of moving enough air to fill up that room with sound.

The sound of speakers varies greatly based on the size and shape of a room. If at all possible, do home trials of the speakers you're thinking about buying (most locally owned audio retailers will let you do this), or at least listen to them in a comparably sized room, at a similar distance to what you'll be listening to them in your home.

Learn from the Masters: HDTV Podcast

[bigdady92]

I've been listening to these guys for over a year:

http://www.htguys.com/

Everything that they put out in their twice a week podcast and on the website is nuggets of gold information for your home theater. They just did a podcast going over EXACTLY this type of information detailing what everything is, how it works, what cables are fine to get, and they do it on a fair budget (whole theater system soup to nuts for under 2k including TV).

I built my home theater based on the information I gleaned from them. I saved a ton of time and money building my system out and I was able to identify my needs and what doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Just listen to these guys and you can scroll through their entire archive of podcasts to get the information you want, download or play it on that site directly.

Regular home theatre ?

[snowtigger]

Geeks don't need a "regular" home theatre. What you really need is one of these:

The Death Star Theater

I once tried to build a home theater

[LM741N]

But my wife complained about all the trash, rats, and sticky floor.

Yeah, garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to sound like a snob...
(my moderate, middle of the road system is a VMPS RM40/Cinenova amp/Arcam preamp/Onix CD/ surround sound via Briian Eno's wiring diagra, (Works for 5.1) player) is nothing special and BUT it is good enough with full room treatment...

They call that ultimate?

to use the equivalent adage as "I wouldn't put that gas in my lawnmower".

"I wouldn't watch >i>All in the Family on that".

Where's the Avalon Sentinels? Where's the dual layer alternating density basswood walls?

I guess if computer speakers are your standard, that is something special... but... ugh.

matching system

[192939495969798999]

The dumbest thing you can do is to have a system where one component is way better than the entire rest of the system. In this case, the one "good" component will be dirtied down to the crappy-ness of the rest of the system, and will basically represent an enormous waste of money. It's much better to have a matching set of equipment for a given price range, rather than have a pair of Thiel speakers with a late 90's Wal-mart receiver. This goes for cabling too -- having gold cables doesn't help if your system is crap, but if you have a system designed to push supreme clarity, then having supremely clear cables makes sense.

HTPC's for HDM's

[QuantumPion]

Now is a great time to build an HTPC for watching high definition movies. LG just released their dual-format hddvd/blu-ray reader drive for under $300, and nvidia/ati have low-cost HDCP enabled video cards which can offload the decoding work from the CPU. This allows you to make a cheap dual format HDM player which is essentially future proof to future changes in the various standards.

Atmospheric effects

[LM741N]

The key to any home stereo system is the gas its immersed in. For example, nitrous oxide provides much better bass response than say helium. Propane is also one of the better gases as its inexpensive.

Good digital cables

[TheLink]

Yes, cable length makes a big difference for digital signals. That's why I keep my 1Gbps Cat 5 cables to not more than 100m.

As for analog, one of my university professors used to say - audio frequencies are practically DC. While he might have been stretching things a bit, given the low frequencies involved ( < 100Khz) and the existing technologies available for decades I'd say there's some truth in what he's saying.

I has 4-conductor speaker cablez!

[wsanders]

They move sound twice as much as your crummy 2-conductor cables.

I'm going to rewire my house with 16-conductor ethernet cablez, then I will rulez!

Bean bags?

[TheLink]

No bean bag recommendations? I'd like to see a "reference" bean bag.

How about some "reference" popcorn too?

And if you torrent your movies don't forget some reference clips[1] warning against the evils of "piracy" so that you get the real theater experience too. :p

[1] http://youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4

Re:Bean bags?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally offtopic but your sig is hilarious. I usually expect something witty, but that was downright clever. It took me several minutes to remember my password and log back in. Well played.

TheStonepedo

Re:Bean bags?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really curious now. I've had this sig for YEARS. What's with so many people clicking on my sig nowadays? Esp without even looking at the url? Years ago this hardly ever happened, or at least nobody bothered mentioning it.

Is it because the ghastly goatse.cx and tubgirl links have become uncommon, so there's a new generation of "innocent" "click happy" slashdotters?

Re:Bean bags?

[mink]

You didn't used to have it pointed to goatse did you? I remember many years ago someone having a sig like yours linked to it.

Re:Bean bags?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Never ever linked to goatse.

There were plenty of people putting it in their "content" as well.

I thought you were gonna say...

[msimm]

beer. But to each their own reverend, to each their own.

LinuxMCE

[Doc Ruby]

The LinuxMCE project looks like it would be better than the wimpy/uptight WindowsMCE for running a home theater in a feature-stuffed home media network, including content, telephony, automation, alarms, remote monitoring, and all kinds of bundled features of disparate apps for "the Home of the Future". But it also looks like it's got plenty of holes in support and reliability. It could use a lot of attention from developers and users feeding back improvements.

FWIW, if the project porting X and codecs to the PS3 had more developers, the PS3 would be an excellent home media terminal running LinuxMCE without whatever Sony's planning to saddle it with.

No mention of room treatments

[tamuct01]

While the article was pretty thorough on equipment, cables, etc. they failed to mention room treatments. Bad room treatment can cause even the best audio gear to sound less than fantastic. Perhaps they should save some more bucks and lose the Monster cable and invest in room treatments.

No it isn't, you must not be a "pro"

[SIIHP]

"(And by the way, MENTIONING moster-cable among audio pros is a faux-pas in and of itself). "

We "mention" monster cables here at out shop full of professionals all the time.

The reason we do it is because the CUSTOMERS who PAY MONEY know what monster cables are and will pay more for them.

I have no idea why you want to make less money, but good luck with that.

Re:No it isn't, you must not be a "pro"

[TheMeuge]

Yes, you "mention" them... but knowing full well that selling cables at an audio shop is the equivalent of selling drinks in the restaurant... in terms of markup.

I doubt that the professionals you work with, would recommend the most expensive cables to their own family (unless they got them at a huge discount, of course).

Cable quality is important to be sure... but the law of diminishing returns kicks in real fast. So if I spend $20 on a cable, I am likely getting 95% of the performance I could get with a $200 cable... and that's assuming that the quality scales both directly and linearly with price.

Re:No it isn't, you must not be a "pro"

[SIIHP]

None of which has anything at all to do with my point.

You think performance is the metric, but we're a business. If the customer want monster, they get monster. If we suggest monster, or offer sheridan for instance instead, nobody knows who sheridan is, despite the fact that sheridan makes quality cable.

It's not always, or even often, about performance, which is something any "pro" would know straight away.

Re:No it isn't, you must not be a "pro"

[TheMeuge]

I agree...

I was talking about performance, and price/performance ratios... which is the reason for most of what I said...

Re:No it isn't, you must not be a "pro"

[rhizome]

The reason we do it is because the CUSTOMERS who PAY MONEY know what monster cables are and will pay more for them.

Can you honestly say that CUSTOMERS who will PAY MONEY for Monster Cable really know "what monster cables are?" What, in your experience, do they say Monster Cables "are?"

Re:No it isn't, you must not be a "pro"

[Anonymous Coward]

"What, in your experience, do they say Monster Cables 'are?'"

Something they've heard of, which means name recognition, which means (in their minds) better. You argue with them about it, I'll take their money and give them what they want.

"Can you honestly say that CUSTOMERS who will PAY MONEY for Monster Cable really know 'what monster cables are?"'"

I can honestly tell you I don't care, THEY think it matters, which is good enough for me.

You're not going to use any homeberew crap

[SIIHP]

To build a reference theatre.

You're attempting to whore karma by wedging Linux into a discussion where it doesn't belong.

Instead, what you've done is prove you're totally ignorant to what a reference theatre is.

Do yourself a favor and stick to trolling political discussions, at least there you're mildly entertaining. On this subject you're just an idiot with an opinion, one that anyone installing a reference theatre would laugh at.

Re:You're not going to use any homeberew crap

[Doc Ruby]

I'm rubber, you're glue.

Re:You're not going to use any homeberew crap

[SIIHP]

I'm a professional theatre installer and you're not.

Re:You're not going to use any homeberew crap

[Doc Ruby]

Who's a good doggie? Good dooogggiee! Good dooggie!

Re:You're not going to use any homeberew crap

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who's a good doggie?"

Show some class guy, stop dragging your girl into this.

TFA was written by an idiot.

[SnowDog74]

Aside from the fact that the barrage of ads on that site nearly melted my laptop, a few observations:

The article starts off with a disclaimer in the first page. When an opinion piece has to state, "this doesn't represent an endorsement from FiringSquad, but rather our research," the opposite is generally true.

He decides the lack of 1080p content is a myth. His argument? You can convert 1080i back to 1080p. While this is fundamentally true, so is the statement that there's little 1080p content available. Converting it doesn't mean that the content was natively available in 1080p. I know, seems trivial... but this is a precursor to an argumentation style he uses that gets tiresome and downright disingenuous as the article goes on.

He has a table of data for maximum viewing distances to appreciate the full benefit of 1080p quality. He doesn't bother to cite any sources or what methodology was used to arrive at the data... but nevermind, it does get worse.

He's right about LCoS being superior, but for the wrong reason. It isn't the control circuit but rather the fact that there's a liquid crystal display element for each pixel and, in principle, support for resolutions well above 1920 x 1080. Also the fact that baseline LCD displays and DLP do not display a red, green and blue pixel simultaneously for each pixel of resolution on the final image.

Then he uses THX and SMPTE theatrical standards and applies them to a home auditorium, to support his argument that the opposite is true? What ever gave him the idea that these standards were ever applicable to small home auditoriums in the first place? Theatrical exhibition is a different deal entirely, whether digital or optical... but I'm guessing that the THX/SMPTE specs he's quoting were for 35mm which has much higher effective resolution than 2k/4k digital theatrical projection systems.

He confuses the term motion blur with the issue of print clarity. Motion blur is a side effect of optics whereby an object in motion is blurred by way of the aperture and shutter timing of the exposure. This is actually a good thing because in a motion picture format, i.e. a series of still images, it assists the brain in perceiving fluid motion from a series of still images. Motion blur is NOT correlated with effective clarity but exposure length. Therefore it's ridiculous to say that 35mm is equivalent to 720p. In fact, 35mm, depending on the film stock used and the style of cinematography (e.g. sharp, grainy, diffuse glow, etc.) used, motion picture can render images whose digital equivalent would extend up to 6000 pixels of horizontal resolution... three times that of HD 1080p.

While it's true that theatrical Dolby Digital is 320 Kbps and DVD Dolby Digital is typically 448 Kbps, he makes no mention of additional parameters in Dolby Digital home encoding (e.g. dialogue normalization, Dynamic Range Compression, etc.), he doesn't discuss theatrical DTS (an ADPCM-style format with a 1.5Mbps bitstream), nor does he observe that Dolby Digital at 448-640 Kbps is acoustically transparent relative to an uncompressed source. He also confuses the term "lossless" with "uncompressed"... Lossless refers to compression formats, but "high resolution audio" like that on a DVD-Audio recording is typically 20 or 24-bit Linear PCM, which is an uncompressed format. Calling it lossless is superfluous.

He doesn't mention that in addition to the majority of sound being in the front channels, 5.1 is actually 5.1, whereas 7.1 is not. At best, 7.1 is actually 6.1 with the two rear surround channels paired in mono as in DTS-ES. At least, 7.1 is actually Dolby Digital 5.1 discrete with the two paired rear surround channels still mono, but also stereo matrixed into the left and right surround channels the same way that Dolby Surround analog carries the rear surround stereo matrixed into the front left and right channels.

I mostly ignored his commments on power filtering and cables because that subject has been beaten to death already. H

Re:TFA was written by an idiot.

[joeytmann]

Idiot may be a bit strong, I just think his research is very flawed. My case in point is the use of THX sound. Unless you are willing to spend a fuckton of cash on having a THX certified sound engineer come out to plan your home theater's sound system, then spend the next few months building and sound proofing and setting up the proper treatments to reflect and deaden the sound waves, don't even both wasting the extra cash on THX capable reciever. But since this is a reference theater built on a budget, save yourself the grand or two stay way from the THX recievers. They chose the Denon 4802, I have the 3806 great system and setup is a breeze using its own program to "adjust" itself to your room.

I do like their choice of the Sony projector. I spent a few months researching the projector I was going to purchase for my HT, most of it reading avsforums.com. I chose the VPL-VW100, the VPL-VW50 wasn't out yet or else I would have probably bought that, it was simply the best projector that does 1080p under 10K. Again, if you can spend a fuckton of cash there are a lot of more expensive projectors out there in the 25k range that will blow this one out of the water.

article has breadth, but not much depth

[peas_n_carrots]

The article has alot of breadth, but is a bit misleading due to its lack of depth. For example, they gloss over the different projector technologies. They really don't say much about DLP rainbow artifacts, or that DLP suffers from poor color accuracy. DLP does offer high contrast, but at the expense of brightness. They don't mention the recent generation (starting from ~2 years ago) of LCD front projectors that virtually eliminate screen door effects. I'd wager that a $1500 Panasonic AE1000 would give that Sorny $3000 LCOS a run for its money and maybe outperform it in some areas. Projector Central has really comprehensive reviews: http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vw50.htm I will grant them that for a "reference" theater, $3k is not too unreasonable to spend on the display. Just more than I would like to :) Regarding speakers, that's a very subjective topic. Even taking a CD to a store and listening to their speakers doesn't give an entirely accurate represetnation of how they'll perform in *your* home. Rooms and settings are different, receivers/amps are different. Plus, the biggest thing with quality speakers that few people mention is that it takes time for the speakers to settle in. It sounds strange (pun intended), but it's true. When I first bought my Polk RT-55's, they sounded good and I was happy enough with them. After a year I noticed that they sounded richer and fuller. It's difficult to describe, but it was a substantial enough improvement that I noticed it, and that's saying something. Overall it's a good read, but take their info with a grain of salt.

Re:article has breadth, but not much depth

[peas_n_carrots]

err... I meant the Panasonic AX100, not the pricier AE1000 :|

zzz

I don't know about you...

[Ayanami Rei]

But the playback clock in the DAC in my amplifier is not actually slaved to the S/PDIF bitstream. That clock is only used for unpacking the frames themselves -- it gets thrown into a buffer before playback. That's where the digital EQ and 5.1 matrixing happens... A separate, internal clock is used for analog output.

This is standard for all but the shittiest designs available now.

You're confusing two different things.

[Ayanami Rei]

S/PDIF encodes the audio using PCM frames, which are electrically encoded using Biphase Mark Code

A S/PDIF representation of a "zero-crossing" would be a series of PCM frames where the binary value in a channel goes from >0 to 100 or so "electrical" zero-crossings. This is by design. Even a completely silent audio signal (all numerical 0) is encoded by a repetitive, square-wavish mark/space sequence on the channel.

There is ZERO harmonic correlation between the encoded S/PDIF signal and the logical analog signal. This is by design... to ensure a noise-resistant channel by which clocking and data frames can be transmitted with resiliency.

Moreover, most output DACs don't actually use the incoming clock signal for playback. They use an internal oscillator. The input clock is merely used to delineate frames and get data into intermediate buffers.

Please mod parent up

[atamido]

It would be a real shame if this thread went solid without this post being modded up to combat the over anxious nut job.

Personally, I've used all sorts of random RCA cables laying around for a SPDIF connection and never had an issue. I've even used an incredibly cheap RCA splitter, to connect two SPDIF sources with video RCA cables to a single SDIF receiver. Granted, it didn't work with both sources transmitting at the same time, but if only one was transmitting then it worked fine most of the time. You _might_ hear a single pop for ever 10+ hours of listening.

Comfy chairs

[judas6000]

and popcorn, it's just not the cinema without popcorn

Best Speakers Bar None

[judas6000]

All this talk of hi-fi audio and home cinema systems no one has mentioned B&W http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/ or Wilson Benesch http://www.wilson-benesch.com./

All this talk of Polk audio and Bose, the really top end people have been forgotten. B&W make some truly fantastic speakers in the 800 series, in particular the 802D while the A.C.T. range that Wilson Benesch produce is phenomenal.
These two really should be a serious consideration in any high end audio setup.

Horrible Article

[mozumder]

Indeed the most important element of a home theatre is THE ROOM itself. Anyone that takes a microphone into an empty room is going to record about 50db of ambient noise, from everything from the air conditioner and refrigerator, to the rumbles of cars and planes outside. Most sound systems are going to output at most 100db. This limits you to a 50db signal to noise ratio. This will destroy the theoretical 96db signal to noise ratio of a CD, or the 124db signal to noise ratio of DVD-A/SACD. Additionally, reverb and room modes are going to destroy all sense of ambience if there's too much interference.

The first thing one should do in building a home theatre is to build a room that's as dark and acoustically perfect as possible. Then you can worry about speakers/amps/screens/etc.

Study how to build a room. There are many techniques to make a room sound isolated, especially from those that have built home recording studios.

1080p24?

[Kris_J]

For a 24fps screen to be any use the source has to be 24fps too. I notice on my one and only Blu-ray title it says neither PAL nor NTSC (but still has a region). Are Blu-ray and HD-DVD stored in the original frame rate and converted by the player?

NTSC only article

[Ezza]

A lot of stuff that is not really relevant to a PAL or SECAM world. I am personally not too worried about 3:2 inverse telecine for example.

Then again it would be nice if 24fps film wasn't just sped up for us in the PAL universe.

Great, I can use this..

[Harald Paulsen]

..in my parents basement!

10 minutes with the lord of the wires

[rs79]

God bless little Robbie Robriguez (and his recipes).

Suggested brands

[Alpha830RulZ]

There are at least two brands sold over the internet only that will let you have a 30 day free trial at home. Axiom and Aperion both make -very- nice speakers. You'd be out the cost of return shipping if you don't like them, which is non-trivial, but they are reasonably safe choices. -Disclosure- I have and love the Axioms, which I bought based on reviews and the guarantee.

This is a tech primer and nothing more

[angus_rg]

This article is really a technology primer, and not what I would consider "building a home theater". Technology is not the only concern. For a "theater", shouldn't you include EVERYTHING like lighting, seating, risers, etc.

Aside from that, they spend more time selling what they chose rather then talking about the different types of technolgies. They mention used, why not mention other used options as well? From demo's I've seen their "Pearl" projector can't touch my Marquee 8500(which is only upper middle of the line in the CRT world). My marque cost 1/2 of what their "used" pearl costs, has a picture just as sharp, if not sharper, much better color, contrast to die for and a much longer lifespan. Not to mention, it came with a $7k rear projection system so you don't even see the airplane in my basement. Man, I love internet classified ads.