"Why can't I seem to duplicate what I hear at our local multiplex?"

November 28, 2005

To Doug Schneider,

Your review of the new Omnisat v2 system really got me thinking. Why can't I seem to duplicate what I hear at our local multiplex? It is brand new, with superb surround sound that I cannot seem to create in my home theater no matter what I do. In fact, every time I go to a movie these days, I am always tuned into the amazingly effective surround sound while watching the movie.

I have all the best equipment, and I have worked very hard to calibrate the system to achieve maximum performance. But still, it isn't even close to what I hear at our multiplex. You said pretty much the same thing in your review about most of the home-theater systems you've heard in the past.

So, what, in your opinion, accounts for the difference that the Omnisat v2 system provides in terms of achieving "cinema sound"?

Is it due to the fact that the design is Omnipolar? It almost has to be, doesn't it? I mean, what else about the system could account for it? But Mirage came out with the Omnipolar design many years ago, right? Has this design always provided a close approximation to cinema sound? Or is there something special about v2 system that would account for it?

I have never heard any system, anywhere, that can duplicate what I hear every time I go to the local multiplex. If the Omnisat v2 system can bring you that much closer to this level of sound quality, then that alone is big step over the competition.

For me, it's all about realism. The more realistic the sound, the more involving the cinema experience. Based on your review, I think I need to strongly consider the Omnisat v2 system as the next step toward "realism" in home theater.

Brent Tuthill

Ironically, most good home-theater speakers are more accurate than the ones in the theater. For example, when you listen to dialogue, a good pair of home speakers from a good number of manufacturers nail the tonal balance better than what you hear in theaters. However, even though they get that part right, I rarely hear a home-theater system that’s as involving as what I hear in a well-designed theater.

One thing that explains why some theaters sound better is that oftentimes, even though the speaker systems used don’t have the same fidelity, theater owners involved experts in acoustics to make the theater and the sound system work as one. Most people don’t go that far in their home; they simply plunk the home-theater system into place instead.

The other big difference is what I called in the Mirage review the "bubble of sound." What this refers to is an expansive, enveloping quality that the Mirage system seems to achieve far better than almost all the conventional systems I’ve heard. For me, this "bubble" better approximates what I hear in a theater, with the speakers essentially "disappearing" sonically, which I find far less distracting.

And that’s really the key -- less distracting. Some videophiles seem thrilled to hear their center-channels, their surrounds, and their mains, as if it’s a good thing that you can localize the speakers. I don’t want that. I believe the speakers should be seen, heard, but not "localized" -- in other words, you can’t tell where the sound is coming from even though you might be able to see the speakers. Again, I can hear that quality through the Mirage system, and in most of the good theaters I go to.

As for the sound being due to the speakers Omnipolar nature, I can’t say for sure. However, when Mirage was calling their speakers "bipolar" (it’s more of a marketing term that anything -- they were still chasing the same design goals) and using front- and rear-mounted drivers instead of the Omniguide technology, they had a similar level of involvement for me. For example, I heard a very early Mirage home-theater system based on the older M-series models and it was quite stunning for how enveloping it was.

So, yes, there could be something to the technology that Mirage is using that better approximates that enveloping surround sound that I like in a real theater, and why I ranked the Mirage Omnisat v2 system so highly....Doug Schneider

Source advice

November 11, 2005

Editor,

I have read your excellent reviews and I am getting close to making a purchase now that my theater area is almost finished, but I would greatly appreciate your advice. I have the Paradigm S8, C5, ADP speakers, and a Velodyne DD18 subwoofer. My electronics are Anthem P5, P2, and the D1, along with an InFocus 7210 projector. I need a universal player that is black and rack-mountable (or at least black and for which I can have a custom shelf made).

I have been trying to decide if I should spend the money on the Simaudio Moon Orbiter or Esoteric DV-50S or go with a Denon 3910 or 5910. I'm looking for quality audio and video (isn't everyone?). Are the two high-end machines (Orbiter and DV-50S) that much better than the Denons? If you were spending your money what would you do?

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate your advice, especially since HD-DVD or Blue-ray is around the corner.

Rick

You have assembled a fine system. The last piece to the puzzle is important, and I think the way you intend to use your gear should determine what you buy. For home theater, particularly video quality, I don't think the Esoteric or the Simaudio players would differentiate themselves over the Denon 5910 -- at least enough to warrant the additional cash. In fact, I have seen the 5910 in action, and it can be stunning on video. It's no slouch on audio either, but that's where the money spent on the Simaudio and Esoteric would prove its worth. Both of those players are particularly good with stereo sources, so if you have a large CD collection and their sound quality is especially important to you, the more expensive players would be a fine option. So in the end I think it comes down to how you plan to use your system and what your main priorities are. Either way you should enjoy yourself for years to come with a system like that....Jeff Fritz

• Go Back