Looking for Sound Recommendations

[MHMabrito]

I've been searching around for a proper sound set-up for my 65' LG C9. Recently watching the video with Linus and Anthony they mentioned the Sonos Arc and the Samsung Q90R. Rtings also has the Q90R rated as the best sound setup. 

I'm looking for some recommendations in case this is not the case. I live in Chicago, I'd like to stay under $1k USD.

[MHMabrito]

@Aereldor

[Aereldor]

If you hate cables everywhere, the Enclave Audio Cinehome 5.1 is a good system. You don't have to worry about a receiver either, it comes with everything you need. It's $1000

https://www.amazon.com/Enclave-Audio-CineHome-Wireless-Surround/dp/B081QQ7YXY/

 

The 2016 version is $800 if you want to save, and someone's selling it 'used - like new' for $600.

https://www.amazon.com/Enclave-Audio-CineHome-Wireless-Theater/dp/B00W972KB4/

[MHMabrito]

8 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

If you hate cables everywhere, the Enclave Audio Cinehome 5.1 is a good system. You don't have to worry about a receiver either, it comes with everything you need. It's $1000

https://www.amazon.com/Enclave-Audio-CineHome-Wireless-Surround/dp/B081QQ7YXY/

 

The 2016 version is $800 if you want to save, and someone's selling it 'used - like new' for $600.

https://www.amazon.com/Enclave-Audio-CineHome-Wireless-Theater/dp/B00W972KB4/

I'm kind of new to the audiophile side of things, is 5.1 good enough - or should I try to reach for the 7.1 my dolby atmos my TV can handle?

[Aereldor]

3 minutes ago, MHMabrito said:

I'm kind of new to the audiophile side of things, is 5.1 good enough - or should I try to reach for the 7.1 my dolby atmos my TV can handle?

To be fair, I'm a musician, so I'm a 2.0 guy. But surround is nice to have for movies, and a lot of stuff is being recorded/produced with 7.1 in mind over 5.1, starting in 2012 I think.

 

A good 7.1 set is the Fluance Elite -

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07984G7M9/

Paired with a Sony 790 receiver

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-STR-DH790-7-2-ch-Receiver-Vision/dp/B079YW5VQL/
 

I'm not aware of a low-cost, all-in one wireless package like the Enclave speakers I mentioned earlier. Not for 7.1 and not under $1000

[MHMabrito]

You know more about it than me, just trying to find the best bang for the buck. 

[Dedayog]

6 hours ago, MHMabrito said:

I'm kind of new to the audiophile side of things, is 5.1 good enough - or should I try to reach for the 7.1 my dolby atmos my TV can handle?

I gave up on 5.1 after 20 years of it. It's nice for the theatre room if you're dedicating one, but for all intents and purposes 3.1 or 2.1 is good enough.   2.0 is great for listening to music if you have balanced speakers, tho a lot of towers are skinny and meant to go with a sub anyway.  Be mindful of what you purchase.

[Aereldor]

6 hours ago, MHMabrito said:

You know more about it than me, just trying to find the best bang for the buck. 

I won't see your replies unless you quote me using the arrow below my posts.

 

My two recommendations so far are among the best bang for buck for both 5.1 and 7.1 systems. I like 2.0 but there are real benefits to surround.

[MHMabrito]

6 hours ago, Aereldor said:

I won't see your replies unless you quote me using the arrow below my posts.

 

My two recommendations so far are among the best bang for buck for both 5.1 and 7.1 systems. I like 2.0 but there are real benefits to surround.

Whats the difference between 2.1, 5.1, and 7.1?

[Dedayog]

36 minutes ago, MHMabrito said:

Whats the difference between 2.1, 5.1, and 7.1?

The first number is the main channel count (number of regular speakers usually) and the number after the decimal is the number of LFE channels (subwoofers usually).

 

5.1 is  front, left, right, rear right, rear left and subwoofer.

 

7.1 adds side speakers to make a fuller circle around you.

 

2.1 is just left and right (stereo sound) with an added subwoofer for more low frequency response as I said more speakers don't go low anymore.  Hard to find your dad's speakers with a 12" woofer in them anymore

[MHMabrito]

13 hours ago, Dedayog said:

The first number is the main channel count (number of regular speakers usually) and the number after the decimal is the number of LFE channels (subwoofers usually).

 

5.1 is  front, left, right, rear right, rear left and subwoofer.

 

7.1 adds side speakers to make a fuller circle around you.

 

2.1 is just left and right (stereo sound) with an added subwoofer for more low frequency response as I said more speakers don't go low anymore.  Hard to find your dad's speakers with a 12" woofer in them anymore

Does any of that mean one is better than the other?

[Dedayog]

51 minutes ago, MHMabrito said:

Does any of that mean one is better than the other?

No, it just means you define your listening or theatre preference and buy it.

 

Some people like hearing planes fly behind them, or from to back, etc.

 

Any decent receiver will play 5.1 or 7.1 for movies and then Stereo for straight music.

 

I use center, left, right and subwoofer for movies as rear speakers are not feasible in my living room and I am fine with just a bit of left right spatial action.

 

It's 100% preference and budget.

[Aereldor]

5 hours ago, MHMabrito said:

Does any of that mean one is better than the other?

For movies/tv etc, I would say that surround is better because movies nowdays are mixed with surround systems in mind. Hell even netflix supports Dolby Atmos on select titles. It adds a lot to the

5.1 vs 7.1 is trickier, I'd say both are great. I'm just recommending 7.1 because starting in  2011 companies switched from mixing primarily for 5.1 systems, and started designing their releases specifically for the best results on 7.1 systems.

 

This is not to say that music will sound BAD on these. Since music is just 2.0 - left and right - the sounds will just be mirrored by the surround speakers. The satelite speakers (the ones in the back and sides, not the 3 in front) have more high end and the subwoofer has more low-end, so the distribution of frequencies happens organically.

 

And because on a $1000 budget, you can definitely afford it. I'll stand by the Fluance Elite and the Sony 790. 

 

The reasons to go 2.0 is if you're primarily listening to music, are low on space, and are on a tighter budget. Hell, a lot of people I know have a 2.0 and a 5.1 system in the same room. 
 

[JZStudios]

On 8/11/2020 at 5:40 AM, MHMabrito said:

I'm kind of new to the audiophile side of things, is 5.1 good enough - or should I try to reach for the 7.1 my dolby atmos my TV can handle?

What are you primarily listening to?

• Broadcast TV and music? Stick with stereo. 5.1 albums exist, but most of them are more like stereo expanded out to 5.1 instead of being re-mixed for it, so it's just like listening to stereo. And there's nothing streaming 5.1 music, so you have to buy SACDs or digital albums.
• Movies? Ehh. In my experience there's very few movies that really make good use of surround sound, especially consistently throughout the movie instead of just a scene or two. There's some golden gems, I recently watched the Harry Potter movies and the surround is shockingly good.
• But games... games are sheer gold with a good surround system. The fact that a good game audio mix has localized 3d sound sources that spin around as you control the camera is brilliant. You can hear where everything is at pretty much all times. A properly set up 5.1 is all you need. 7.1 is cool, but it gets a bit overkill, i.e. it's not... super different from 5.1. And a lot of sources like older movies and even some games only do 5.1 output. Haven't tried Atmos at all. If it works well and height information is done correctly, I could see it being neat, but I don't know if it would be game changer. Switching from 5.1 to stereo for games I just feel like something is missing now. It's fine for 90% of movies to watch in stereo.

4 hours ago, Aereldor said:

This is not to say that music will sound BAD on these. Since music is just 2.0 - left and right - the sounds will just be mirrored by the surround speakers. The satelite speakers (the ones in the back and sides, not the 3 in front) have more high end and the subwoofer has more low-end, so the distribution of frequencies happens organically.

That depends on the sound source and what the receiver is set to. Typically stereo audio sources are treated the same as 5.1, it's just the other 4 channels (Outside LFE crossover) aren't used and produce silence. There's typically "upmixing" modes in the receiver to make it "5.1" or the source that's playing it might also do it.

[circeseye]

10 hours ago, Aereldor said:

For movies/tv etc, I would say that surround is better because movies nowdays are mixed with surround systems in mind. Hell even netflix supports Dolby Atmos on select titles. It adds a lot to the

5.1 vs 7.1 is trickier, I'd say both are great. I'm just recommending 7.1 because starting in  2011 companies switched from mixing primarily for 5.1 systems, and started designing their releases specifically for the best results on 7.1 systems.

 

This is not to say that music will sound BAD on these. Since music is just 2.0 - left and right - the sounds will just be mirrored by the surround speakers. The satelite speakers (the ones in the back and sides, not the 3 in front) have more high end and the subwoofer has more low-end, so the distribution of frequencies happens organically.

 

And because on a $1000 budget, you can definitely afford it. I'll stand by the Fluance Elite and the Sony 790. 

 

The reasons to go 2.0 is if you're primarily listening to music, are low on space, and are on a tighter budget. Hell, a lot of people I know have a 2.0 and a 5.1 system in the same room. 
 

thank you for the Fluance brand recommendation....i would never have thought of bipol's as my surrounds and rears in my search for new speakers in my upcoming 7.2.4 upgrade.