random thoughts. rants. general nonsense.

^^^ That's not a question.

The Scribbling Man said:

^^^ That's not a question.

Click to expand...

Verily, it's a statement.

Yea, verily.

Forsooth!

This is a statement?

We have the new Zaphod Beeblebrox everybody.

While Ebenezer and the Ghost of Christmas Present stare off into the distance, the Ghost of Christmas Past cops a feel, much to Jacob Marley's surprise.

My "Wake me up when it's quitting time" shirt came in the mail.

I'm really thankful for this place gathering the kinds of people you don't see everyday on the internet.  You guys are fascinating individuals.

really glad you joined handman

We have to be somewhere!

The Czech Republic was robbed!

I want my first psychedelic experience to happen while I'm listening to a Kate Bush album.

Me (months ago): "I really need new glasses."

Me (yesterday, after my glasses break): "Right - now I have an excuse. I'm getting new glasses." 

Me (today): *sellotapes glasses*

"Sellotape" always makes me think of Flight of the Conchords since I had literally never heard the term before I had heard of Flight of the Conchords.

When your housemate has surround tracks on multi-channel stereo and you switching it to the correct sound setting only causes them to view you as an even bigger snob. 

"Does it really make a difference?" They ask.

YES. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

The Scribbling Man said:

When your housemate has surround tracks on multi-channel stereo and you switching it to the correct sound setting only causes them to view you as an even bigger snob. 

"Does it really make a difference?" They ask.

YES. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Click to expand...

If you're referring to a Dolby surround setting (as in the old fashioned 2.0 matrixed surround) and they have it set on all channel stereo instead of pro logic or whatever variant their receiver uses i wholeheartedly agree.  Honestly i think this format of surround is highly underrated.  To me it sounds just as good as modern surround formats but at less than half the bitrate,  or you can even matrix down a dts track to a 2.0 track with a high bitrate normally used for 5.1 files and get dts comparable sound quality on systems that don't support it.

Yes,  it's less discrete.  But honestly... so what.  I don't watch the movie pressing my ears to each individual speaker to make sure there's no bleeding.

(Although i am glad discrete mixes are included on home video since it makes editing way easier,  but I will ALWAYS publish in matrixed 2.0 with a high bitrate)

I'm talking about actual surround, which most things seem to be in these days anyway (not that that's always the best option, necessarily). 

But honestly, they just turn it on and watch it whatever it's set to, and I can't believe they can't tell the difference between different settings. As in, they literally don't seem to notice that there's a difference between stereo spread everywhere, and surround, where there are significantly different things going on in different speakers. Plus, some of the settings on the amp (like virtual) just sound awful. 

Personally, I find it weird having dialogue coming out of all speakers, especially when it's coming from behind. I also have a keen ear, and having that slight change in quality when spreading a track across all speakers when it's designed for two grates on me. So my preference is to keep it in traditional stereo. 

I think the only time I use multichannel is when I'm watching YouTube, or sometimes when I'm streaming music (depending on what it is). I typically opt for playing a CD on direct mode where possible though. 

I imagine how well the sound is spread will vary though depending on your reciever. The quality of speakers would also likely play a part in how noticeable minor changes are.