Forum names and content

MathsManiac

Ok, so clearly the only useful thing to come out of the completely crazy recent thread about speaker cable was the suggestion to reorganise the forum names slightly. I know I'm a relative newcomer, but I'd like to second that proposal.

I find it impossible to predict which of the two fora (this one or "HE Audio Hi-Fis and Separates") I'm likely to find any particular topic in this area, and the actual questions in each frequently overlap the two areas.

Might I suggest that a much more natural division, especially in the context of the names of the other HE fora, is to go for:
"HE Home theatre amps and speakers", and
"HE 2-channel audio HiFi"

I know this may not completely eliminate overlap, but I do think the vast majority of questions/threads fall without much ambiguity into one of these two categories.

So, that's my tuppence-ha'penny worth.

The Ritz

So, that's my tuppence-ha'penny worth.

......... and it's very welcome. The issue is under active discussion with Admins, a clear separation between home cinema and hifi could very well help, amongst other classifications.

All suggestions welcome............. don't be shy.



Ritz

Slaphead07

MathsManiac wrote: »

"HE Home theatre amps and speakers", and
"HE 2-channel audio HiFi"

Makes sense to me, although the whole "Home Entertainment" tag implies Home Cinema to me.

ZENER

MathsManiac wrote: »

Ok, so clearly the only useful thing to come out of the completely crazy recent thread about speaker cable was the suggestion to reorganise the forum names slightly.

Actually I take offence to that ridiculous comment. Granted some of it may have gone over the heads of a few but it was a thread about speaker cables so it was bound to get technical but it was useful none the less. Aside from the points scoring section I thought the merits of better cable were well presented and readers with an interest would have learnt something from it.

Using it as an excuse to promote a seperate thread makes no sense either imo. Don't all speakers use cables ?

ZEN

Slaphead07

ZENER wrote: »

Actually I take offence to that ridiculous comment. Granted some of it may have gone over the heads of a few but it was a thread about speaker cables so it was bound to get technical but it was useful none the less. Aside from the points scoring section I thought the merits of better cable were well presented and readers with an interest would have learnt something from it.

Using it as an excuse to promote a seperate thread makes no sense either imo. Don't all speakers use cables ?

ZEN

Agreed.... but too silly a comment to take real offence at.

MathsManiac

The suggestion to reorganise the structure of the fora arose in that thread, which is why I referred to it.

My apologies for suggesting that the thread was of limited value. I was interested in the topic myself, but I just found the ratio of insult to useful information/opinion a little high for my taste.

I accept in retrospect that I shouldn't have referred to it in that manner, particularly since it created the potential for this thread to go off-topic.

I do believe that it would be more user-friendly to either merge the two sub-fora concerned, or divide them in a different way. My suggestion was based on the belief that, if separation is useful at all, then separating the 2-channel audio-hifi world from the home-cinema audio world is more natural than separating the amps-and-speakers world from the rest of the hifi world.

I also think that trying to separate high-end audiophile from the rest (which was another suggestion) would be problematic. The people with low-end questions or comments are likely to be one-time or low-frequency visitors and, not appreciating the subtleties of the situation, are likely to post their query to the high-end forum anyway (particularly since they will reason that that's where the real experts are hanging out).

Apologies again for my earlier indiscretion.

Turbulent Bill

'HE Music' (or 'HE Music Systems' to avoid confusion with 'Music' and its sub-fora) and 'HE Home Theatre' might work. It's probably better to gather these hardware groups by what they're intended to be used for, rather than their generic components.

ZENER

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

'HE Music' . . . 'HE Home Theatre' might work.

Sounds about right to me. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle though. I have a CD player, stereo amplifier and a pair of front speakers for music that also double up as the front section of a 5.1 movie projection system. Pretty sure there would be others in a similar situation too. In my mind though if someone has the inclination to ask about speaker cables in the first place (such as in the thread being mentioned) then it doesn't really matter which forum they post in does it ?

ZEN

The Ritz

Using it as an excuse to promote a seperate thread makes no sense either imo. Don't all speakers use cables ?

It's not so much an excuse as it becoming obvious that some, if not all, of the unnecessarily argumentative posting can come from a lack of clarity about the ethos of different sections of the HE forums. One solution is to be more proactive about moving threads about, but a quick tour through threads suggests that better classification would help avoid this, as well (hopefully) as giving people well-focussed fora in which to discuss etc.

I'm thinking along the lines of redefining the HE Audio Amplifiers and Speakers and HE Audio HiFis & Separates into something like the following:




Home Cinema

AV Receivers and Speakers

All-in-one Systems

Music

Hi-Fi Separates

All-in-one Systems

MP3 and Digital Music



This is just initial thoughts - I'm very interested in all and any opinions and suggestions.



Ritz.

Slaphead07

Music

Hi-Fi Separates

All-in-one Systems

MP3 and Digital Music

Is that a header and 3 sub forums? That would make sense to me. Although, and I admit I might be alone in this, I'd prefer to keep "high end" gear separate again - even if I am in there on my own! DID/Harvey Norman boxes are a world away from Hifi and there does need to be some separation. Maybe "High End" could be a sub of the "Hi-Fi Separates" forum?

The Ritz

I think a single hi fi separates forum should be capable of dealing with all levels and would have thought that it would be preferable to keep expertise in this area in one location to make advice available and to sponsor discussion etc. The notion of suggesting this kind of re-classification is to make a distinction between "one box" systems and those which have a more diverse and detailed approach, reflecting a greater interest in the technology and quality of systems etc. Labelling a forum "high end" has an elitist quality which I suspect might not sit easily with the overall ethos of Boards. A Home Cinema separates system can range from entry level to very exotic kit, but I regard it as a continuum with the opportunity to experiment and learn.

Ritz

Turbulent Bill

The Ritz wrote: »

I think a single hi fi separates forum should be capable of dealing with all levels and would have thought that it would be preferable to keep expertise in this area in one location to make advice available and to sponsor discussion etc. The notion of suggesting this kind of re-classification is to make a distinction between "one box" systems and those which have a more diverse and detailed approach, reflecting a greater interest in the technology and quality of systems etc. Labelling a forum "high end" has an elitist quality which I suspect might not sit easily with the overall ethos of Boards. A Home Cinema separates system can range from entry level to very exotic kit, but I regard it as a continuum with the opportunity to experiment and learn.

Ritz

I'm not sure about splitting the 'Music' section between separates and single boxes. It's fundamentally about listening to music, so there is a continuum (of sorts) between Argos heaps and the finest of kit. Also, there's bound to be some 'What should I buy to play my CDs?' queries, where you might need input from different fields (e.g., expensive one-box vs. 2nd-hand separates).

Just my 2c, any of the suggestions in this thread would represent an improvement on the current layout.

mathias

Well , I'll throw in my views seeing as the subject came up , the discussion about cables was very interesting , liked it a lot , however ,

These days , seeing as were talking about separation of home cinema and music , ( ie Stereo vs surround ) I dont agree that they are necessarily separate these days , my favourite listening pleasures at the moment involve SACD and DVD audio , ( The source being a Pioneer multi disc player which is also my main DVD player ) and for that you need a pretty good surround system , equal to or better than most home cinema set ups , front and rear speakers for me need to be the same excellent quality , unlike cinema sound , a good multi channel classical recording on SACD puts you in the conductors position , and this requires an excellent sound field all around.

Likewise with Rock music , Dark side of the moon on 30th anniversary SACD is a really good test for a good music surround system , another example, the Love album by the Beatles on the special box set makes full use of the surround capabilities of my amp , and I love it.

So if forums were indeed split , where would you post on this ?

Slaphead07

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

It's fundamentally about listening to music, so there is a continuum (of sorts) between Argos heaps and the finest of kit.

A slight aside.
While it obviously is all about listening to music there's really very little in common between electrical store "hifi" and the real stuff. Entire instruments and voices go unheard on the mainstream stuff never mind more subtle aspects such as imagery and soundstage which don't exist at all in Argos and Co. Chalk and cheese.

Slaphead07

mathias wrote: »

unlike cinema sound , a good multi channel classical recording on SACD puts you in the conductors position

Exactly when does a conductor have the orchestra playing behind him?

SACD and DVD Audio are interesting formats alright but music belongs in the realm of 2 channel stereo. You may find Dark side of the Moon interesting in a surround system but it's nothing more than a novelty remix and more to do with marketing than music.

Turbulent Bill

Slaphead07 wrote: »

A slight aside.
While it obviously is all about listening to music there's really very little in common between electrical store "hifi" and the real stuff. Entire instruments and voices go unheard on the mainstream stuff never mind more subtle aspects such as imagery and soundstage which don't exist at all in Argos and Co. Chalk and cheese.

I agree, and that's why it should be 'HE Music' rather than anything with 'Hi-Fi' in it. My reasoning is that you get a broader spread of opinion on different pieces of equipment without arguing whether it represents hi-fi or not. Splitting into further sub-fora means that threads get bogged down on whether they belong there in the first place (a current problem), and the topic gets lost.

A side benefit of a big forum is that people who wouldn't be aware of (or consider) separates might have their eyes (and ears) opened.

mathias

Exactly when does a conductor have the orchestra playing behind him?

You dont go to many classical concerts then , the conductor is usually in a pit and can have the musicians almost totally surrounding him , with perhaps about 40 -60 degree gap at the back , my favourite is baroque , Bach mostly , try a show and see , especially a show where baroque only instruments are used.

And as for choral symphonys , well that was always a surround experience if youve seen any of the classical church setups.

but music belongs in the realm of 2 channel stereo

If you mostly listen to music that was originally played on a stage in front of an audience , I agree , but this is fastly becoming an outdated concept , some concert DVD's attempt to put you in the theatre with the ambience created in that theatre at the time of the show , and some succeed brilliantly at this. Especially in multichannel 24bit/96khz on all channels

It's nothing more than a novelty remix and more to do with marketing than music.

Now that just tells me that you havnt heard it at all , novelty remix , good lord but thats ridiculous.

Another good example of surround being used to great effect is Roger waters , who uses a quadrophonic setup at all his concerts , this is reproduced to great effect on some of his recordings.

Im all for good stereo systems , however SACD and DVD Audio have been used to fantastic effect on recent recordings with some newer artists taking full advantage of the medium , especially in the classical medium , and stereo was always limited in that respect , not everything comes from directly in front of the listener , Purism can be taken too far.

Slaphead07

mathias wrote: »

some concert DVD's attempt to put you in the theatre with the ambience created in that theatre at the time of the show , and some succeed brilliantly at this. Especially in multichannel 24bit/96khz on all channels



Now that just tells me that you havnt heard it at all , novelty remix , good lord but thats ridiculous.

Another good example of surround being used to great effect is Roger waters , who uses a quadrophonic setup at all his concerts , this is reproduced to great effect on some of his recordings.

Let's just say I disagree with all the above. If you think multi channel surround sound is the future of music then you don't understand HiFi at all, it would be my opinion that such systems are actually the opposite of HiFi. But then I don't regard Dark Side of the Moon as anything other than turgid pretentious nonsense no matter how you repackage it.

By the way, by it's very nature you can't take purity too far.

mathias

you don't understand HiFi at all,

Ah , so thats your idea of a discussion then , such a closed mind is simply not worth debating with , and to take such a low shot as to aim a comment at my taste in music in a discussion about hi fi ( whatever nonsensical view you have of the term ) just confirms it , ignore list for you ,

Goodbye.

Slaphead07

mathias wrote: »

, ignore list for you ,

Goodbye.

I am crestfallen.

The Ritz

I am crestfallen.

Really ? Very sarcastic, indeed. You just managed to divert a thread about the structure of the forum (a topic raised by yourself, among others) by alienating someone who has a different view to your own. If you can't illustrate your point of view about these issues in a way which respects other peoples views,

If you think multi channel surround sound is the future of music then you don't understand HiFi at all,

.......................................etc,


then I suggest you learn pretty quickly.


Mathias,

Appreciate the point you make about multi-channel music.............



General warning:
Please keep this thread on topic - future diversions or insults will be appropriately rewarded.


Ritz.

Slaphead07

I didn't divert the topic at all. My point is that multi channel and 2 channel stereo are not the same thing - a perfectly valid point if we're to rearrange forums to cover these very topics. Multi channel surround sound is pretty much the opposite of HiFi. One is designed to manipulate and process a signal and the other is designed to tamper as little as possible with what was actually recorded. That's not anyone's view.... it's a fact.
If somebody wishes to take umbrage because of a perceived slight then so be it... but I'm neither inclined nor qualified to deal with such neurosis.

Maybe the broad populist nature of these boards is simply not designed to cover anything but the mainstream? That seems a pity.

311

Suggestion for the forums ,

HE Audio/Visual = Cinema & Surround Sound
HE Audio = HiFi & Multichannel.

andy1249

B]Originally posted by Slaphead07[/B]
One is designed to manipulate and process a signal and the other is designed to tamper as little as possible with what was actually recorded. That's not anyone's view.... it's a fact.

Completely Wrong there my friend , you seem to be thinking of Dolby pro logic , a simple manipulation of a stereo signal.

Modern SACD or DVD audio recordings , and for that matter some DVD soundtracks , have 5 or more discrete channels on the disc , it is definitely not a manipulation of a stereo signal , and in the case of Classical music , which I might add has taken to multichannel like a duck to water , some recordings are fully intended to be heard in multichannel ,

So in this respect , for a true multi channel recording , Hi fi means as you said , getting the sound off the disc as the creator of the disc intended , and if its a multi channel recording , then you need a multi channel set up.

If your source is stereo , then a good stereo setup is needed ,
If its multichannel , then a good multichannel setup is needed , I myself go for separate systems for each , but I can see no reason for a decent high end setup not to include two amps and multiple high quality speakers.

As for stereo , if you know anything about recording studios and how they work , the master tapes are usually each instrument recording on its own. Depending on the setup this can be 48 or more individual recordings , the final stereo mixdown is the last step in a series of compromises to make the final product acceptable to the artist.

Stereo is by no means the final word in Hi-fi , technology has moved on , there are more channels available now and artists are making use of them , I suggest to learn to accept that.

Slaphead07

andy1249 wrote: »

Stereo is by no means the final word in Hi-fi , technology has moved on , there are more channels available now and artists are making use of them , I suggest to learn to accept that.

I'm not thinking of Dolby Pro Logic, that has nothing to do with it. I know some guys (mainly into classical music) who enjoy SACD but they do so with a 2 channel system. They wouldn't touch a multi channel system if they were given away free.

Who's still got a quadraphonic system from the '70s? Technology has always been there... marketing has come on in leaps in bounds.

andy1249

I'm not thinking of Dolby Pro Logic, that has nothing to do with it.

then why did you post this ,

One is designed to manipulate and process a signal and the other is designed to tamper as little as possible with what was actually recorded.

Some SACD's are hybrid , some are not and cannot be played on a CD player , in either case there are multiple discrete channels , so how on earth is it designed to manipulate and process a signal , Thats why I thought you mistook it for pro logic, a fake multichannel process that actually does " manipulate and process a signal" and in the context you posted has everything to do with the discussion , I think your technical knowledge here is a bit lacking.

The fact is , if the content is recorded in multi-channel , and you listen in stereo , then that is in no way Hi-fi , in the sense that you are not listening to the content of the disc as intended.

And just a question on the side here , this " I know some guys line" .... have you ever heard a multi channel SACD on a Multi channel system ... or are you operating on hearsay ?

The Ritz

Slaphead07,

If somebody wishes to take umbrage because of a perceived slight then so be it... but I'm neither inclined nor qualified to deal with such neurosis.

So the problem is the "neurotics" who take umbrage, as opposed to your inability to acccept someone else's point of view with good grace, or without insulting them or alienating them in a discussion ?

One week ban - PM me in a week to have it lifted.


Andy1249,
If you (or anyone else) wants to pursue the topic of stereo vs. multichannel, Please open a different thread and keep this one on topic.


Ritz

ZENER

It would appear the whole topic is a hotbed of different opinions and prejudices. For me high fidelity means reproducing in the most accurate way whatever is on the disc/LP/file. The number of channels is not the point, it's the quality of what comes out of the speakers and what comes from the speakers need not necessarily be music either in my opinion.

From a purely technical pov be it music or a movie soundtrack the reproduction path is the same - a quality source > a quality interconnect > a quality amplifier > appropriate speaker cable > quality speakers (2, 2.1 5.1 7.1 . . whatever).

The divide as far as I'm concerned is separating the home cinema in a box from Amstrad from the people here with SACD/DVD Audio sources and decent brand speakers and amplifiers.

Ideally separate locations would be nice for home cinema and high quality audio listening but in my case that's not possible but it doesn't mean I try any less harder to achieve the best possible results. All the aspects you apply to audio can equally apply to cinema setups.

I don't think there is ever going to be total agreement on what constitutes "hi-fi" here but I think we can agree at least that it's not this !!

ZEN