Published October 19, 2002 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Q: \u00a0 My TV uses digital cable. \u00a0 I run the signal through my VCR and my surround sound set up (Denon amplifier and Cerwin Vega speakers). \u00a0With the exception of the VCR, which is new, all the other gear is about 12 years old. I only have surround sound audio on about 10% of the TV shows. \u00a0Try as I might to adjust the modes it never sounded full. Are the newer amplifiers better with the quad stereo? \u00a0 Thanks for any advice you can lend.<\/p>\n
-Bill Eckels<\/p>\n
A: \u00a0Not all programming is broadcast in surround sound. \u00a0 Depending on what you like to watch, the 10% figure may be accurate. \u00a0 If it isn’t broadcast in surround, you will only hear the left and right front speakers .<\/p>\n
You asked if the newer amplifiers are better with quad sound. \u00a0 The answer is “probably”, depending on how high up the model line you purchased when you bought your Denon about twelve years ago. \u00a0 Four channel sound, or “quad stereo” as you call it, has already been supplanted by six and seven channel systems that can use six or seven speakers! \u00a0 Few people actually use all those channels, though, and great results can be obtained without all seven. \u00a0 My own system’s surround controller can be configured for seven speakers, but I only use four and have no interest in going beyond that. \u00a0 Using seven speakers in all but very large home theaters is extreme overkill, expensive, and would be hard for many home users to properly configure.<\/p>\n
Any newer amplifier or receiver you buy is likely to have better surround processing, but there is a good possibility that the amplifier section will not be as strong as your twelve year-old Denon. \u00a0 Despite inflation, a six speaker surround receiver costs about the same today as a two speaker stereo receiver did twelve years ago. \u00a0 \u00a0 Today’s receivers have more features that they once did, and they need to work at least five separate speakers with the same amount of power going into each one for modern digital surround systems. \u00a0 The manufacturers had to save the money somewhere, and where they save it tends to be the amplifier section of the receiver. \u00a0 A modern receiver advertised as “60 watts” may actually have significantly less real-world power than a 60 watt receiver made in 1990. \u00a0 The manufacturers can rate it as a 60 watt receiver by changing the measurement parameters. \u00a0 For example, the new receiver may be 60 watts at 1% distortion, and your Denon may be 60 watts at .09% distortion. \u00a0 \u00a0 If you measured them at equal distortion levels, you would find that the receiver rated at .09% distortion would produce much more power do a better job working your speakers.<\/p>\n
Cable Comments: \u00a0 The past few weeks I have indicated my preference for television programming through satellite subscription rather than cable. \u00a0 I’ve received more email on this subject than any other, and it has only increased with the recent articles. \u00a0 Soon I will be writing a much more comprehensive article discussing cable vs. satellite, but in the meanwhile I would like to mention some of the positive features cable offers its subscribers:
\n1.Regional programming, such as PCN, is regularly offered
\n2.No need for a clear view of the satellite
\n3.It is possible to watch one program through the digital box, and tape another from the analog cable line
\n4.Basic local broadcast service available for a low price
\n5.Ideal for use in homes with many TVs \u00a0 (more then 3-4)
\n6.Cable is a far less expensive and easier to use for high-speed internet
\n \u00a0<\/p>\n