Poll: How important is surround sound to you?
By Richard Lawler 
posted Nov 15th 2009 4:15PM
posted Nov 15th 2009 4:15PM
posted Nov 15th 2009 4:15PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
You need one right in the middle that is something like, "not as important as the visuals, but I like it and it can be a plus." That would be the option I would take anyway (I clicked other on the poll). As for the second part of the question, I have 5.1 and don't really have any urgent desire to go beyond that (6.1, 7.1, 9.2 etc.).
I was just happy to see "Other". I've come to accept that my audio priorities are different than the mainstream.
Surround sound VERY important to me. As a home theater nut since early high school days, surround sound quality has improved dramatically recently as Blu Rays are encoded in DTS-HD and True HD.
But many people out there do not have trained ears or cannot tell a difference between high end and an average system. For those kind of people they don't need expensive equipment because, logically speaking it's a waste of money. They are simply happy having a little Bose cubes. A typical average Joe thinks a Pioneer, Onkyo, Sony, Yamaha receivers are "high end" stuff. Boy, they have no idea!
That picture on this article, that's Wilson Audio WAMM speakers! They are old, but they retailed at $150,000! (a little out of my range).
I don't make 6 figures, but I do have a decent system which took a LONG time to build. When you sit down and have the system properly calibrated, it leaves a smile from ear to ear!
Every one of us has a budget. Whether your budget is $1000 or $1,000,000 you want to research to buy the best system the money can buy. When you buy any of the HT components, think of it as a little investment which will last you many years of enjoyment. So take it seriously.
I am happy with my 5.1, although my system is 7.1 ready.
Want to know a secret? Buy USED equipment save LOTS of money! There are HT nuts out there who have enough money to buy the latest stuff and they get rid them by 50% off typically from the retail price.
My favorite website for used high end audio gear? www.audiogon.com, it's the largest high end audio/video classified! For example, I bought a slightly used JL Audio Fathom F113 Subwoofer, considered one of the best subs on the market (2500watt!). It retails at almost $4000, but I bought it $1900 including shipping! How could you beat that?
Another example. I have a Marantz AV8003 Preamp/Processor, A $2600 equipment that sounds as good as a preamp/processor that costs three times as much, got it used for $1250 in mint condition!
I think audio quality is more important than video quality. Because I love music so much, surround sound HT system turns into a great stereo system.
You can calibrate, tweak until the cows come home. Each one of us have hobbies. Well, HT is one of my favorite hobbies, so it is actually fun to tinker around once in awhile.
My recommendation for bang for the buck speaker company are:
Paradigm, PSB, Definitive Technology, Atlantic Technology. You simply can't go wrong with any of these companies, even their entry level stuff kicks ass!
I got a Yamaha 7.1. I've only seen a couple of blu-rays that use 7.1,
but it goes well with PS3 games like Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dead Space, and Silent Hill.
I'm about to buy a new TV because we're buying a new house, but I'm not just buying a new HDTV,
I'm also buying a new 5.1 Surround because I think it's just as important, which was my choice in the poll.
So the 7.1 will go with my current TV in the new Game Room, while the 5.1 will go with the new TV
in the Living Room.
Peace,
Mexigun
Its very important to me but (and I still dont know why I let this pass) but I watch netflix all the time and its only stereo (I do more netflix hd viewing that dvd/bd). You would think that I would be unable to stand the stereo audio but it doesn't bother me on netflix. I do still want them to do 5.1 asap but I don't avoid netflix streaming because of it.
I'm the same way in that it annoys me that Netflix is only stereo, but I don't avoid it because of it.
Here's the thing, doesn't your AVR just run it through Dolby ProLogic II Cinema mode, and give you some 5.1 effects? I find that for most movies, it does a good enough job to at least give you a little bit of surround effect.
Again, it's a trade-off but the convenience of Netflix streaming is well worth it.
Same here. I consider Netflix streaming a last ditch option too because of the lack of surround. Based on the content I usually watch via Netflix (often TV series), I probably shouldn't look at it this way but I do. If I can get it on disc with discreet surround I am willing to wait. Just like with HD content, with a good sound system you become spoiled and its hard to be satisfied with plain old stereo.
If I do stream Netflix I might engage Pro Logic II or Neo 6 but its still just not the same as a kick ass TrueHD or DTS-HD mix.
I just realized I did spend more on my speakers and receiver ($2100 Aperion speakers and $700 Onkyo setup) than I did on my TV ($2100 Sony Bravia) but its not because I think sound is more important. They are equally important to me.
Its just that speakers are a longer term investment in my opinion so its worth spending a bit more. I'll keep these for 15 years or more. The TV might get replaced or rotated out to another room in 5 to 10 years.
Semi-important. When watching a BD or similar, I'd much rather have it, but if it's not there, well, I can sortof do without. For most TV shows (which, here in the UK, are stereo) I can do without it. Just.
Surround sound audio is one of the many reasons why streaming Netflix is a joke and is only for the "good enough" crowd. Any serious home theater enthusiast will never trust a streaming service because of the multiple points of failure: the provider for not having the licenses to good content (Netflix), the ISP for messing with the connection they paid for (Comcast), or the movie studios for wanting to delay rentals/streaming of any kind to artifically boost DVD/Blu-ray sales (Hollywood).
Wow. Arrogant much? A "serious" home theatre enthusiast? I just love the arbitrary thresholds that people throw around for what makes a "serious" or "true" home theatre enthusiast just because such conditions are not up to their personal standards. {add upper-class sniff here}
I had some VHS tapes that provided *amazing* surround sound using just Dolby Surround and Pro Logic, which -- horrors! -- comes from TWO audio channels. In fact, Dolby's own web site states that these formats encode "up to five channel program material within the digital domain. Left total/Right total output (Lt/Rt) is used for two-channel analog or digital applications including television broadcasts, HD Radio™ broadcast, video games, and VHS tapes."
And, frankly, Netflix over Verizon FiOS is smooth as glass. I would have no problems with a Netflix stream if it had a beautifully-mixed Dolby Pro Logic audio track.
What's next? "You're not a serious home theatre enthusiast unless you have 120-inch projection, a $5,000 decoder, at least $10,000 worth of speakers! And don't you even DARE consider yourself to be a serious enthusiast if you think that a properly mixed 5.1 DD soundtrack sounds as good as Dolby TrueHD! Oh, pshaw!!"
My surround system cost about 2x what the hdtv costs, which I think makes me in the audiophile group. But I sincerely believe surround should cost AT LEAST as much as the TV. If your TV was a 500$ walmart special, then get a 500$ HTIB.
I refuse to watch movies at other peoples houses because their sound sucks, which takes me out of the movie (unless we are watching cheezy stuff to make fun of it).
I can't even go to the theater anymore because even though the screen is bigger, my home theater sounds better than even the "11,000 watt" system at the local Imax. (I have actually verified this by watching a trailer right before seeing a movie there, then seeing the trailer in the theater. Mine sounds better. BTW, I only spent 2,000$ on my surround system, which is fairly cheap in my opinion)
"I won't watch TV or play games without it, more important than PQ to me"
I'm a huge music fan so audio is slightly more important than picture for me. I would invest more in my audio setup simply because it will get more use than the tv alone. I'm not wealthy yet so I piece together my systems with the best parts I can get for the money (i'm always about "bang 4 the buck"). current systems:
room1:
Sharp LC-46D82, H/K AVR, Athena AS-F1's (front), AS-B1's (rear), AS-C1 (center), JBL PB12 (sub)
room2:
Samsung HL-S6187, H/K AVR, JBL ND-310II's (front), N-24's (rear), N-Center, E-250 (sub)
Still have miles to go before I get the kind of systems I truly want, but I'm content for now.
Many, if not most, of the readers of this blog can't make an informed judgement of sound quality vs video quality, because they haven't heard an audio system better than what's available at big box retailers. The highest quality audio system purchased from the Magnolia Section of Best Buy is considered Mid-Fi by the standards of equipment reviewed in A/V magazines.
I can take or leave surround sound; i just want sound with a good range. Besides my apartment isn't surround sound friendly, so I went with the Yamaha YAS-71. The only thing I don't like about it is it doesn't have video throughput.
Well...while my surround sound only cost 3x more than my t.v. literally (42" Panny plasma), I got all of my equipment while working at Circuit City so I purchased all of my audio equipment at least half off....which means I really spent around 6x I guess.
I don't even consider myself and audiophile... I only listen to mp3 music (320kbps...but still mp3)...no Flac or Obb vorbis or god forbid wave....
Furthermore I don't have LP's or tube amps with dedicated 2.0 monitors (I mean the big ones too, not studio monitors)...
So while I love music....movies and games are where it is for me, and event though I spent way more on audio, it doesn't mean that you even then are an audiophile imo
I think its very important. I feel that if I'm not getting surround sound, then i'd better be getting lossless stereo.
I'm not the kind of audiophile that has LPs and tube amps either. I'm the kind that has floor standing horn tweeter equipped speakers, an HDMI reciever capable of DTS-HD master and Dolby TruHD, a Hsu sub and a buttkicker. Call it a new age audiophile.
I don't do flac either, but if the mp3s aren't 320, they better be VBR in the 220-256 range.
I think theres a good difference between the classic audiophile snob and the next generation snob.
We replaced a perfectly good 5.1 system late last year with a YAS-71 soundbar (subwoofer hiding behind a curtain in the bay window) and haven't looked back. On rare occasions, I do miss surround, but my wife and I much prefer the more grown-up look to the living room where speakers aren't oddly placed. If I should ever redo the basement into a true theater, which might happen, it would get top-of-the-line sound treatment. For the living room, a decent sounding soundbar is more than adequate for us. Gave it all to my dad, and within a week my mother was calling me to complain about the "crap" all over their living room! lol. (This week's Star Trek Blu-Ray will be one of those times when I miss surround sound).
I'll stick with my 2 channel Anthem running a pair of Paradigm Studio 100s over some Yamaha, Polk,Bose, box store surround stuff!
Amen. I'll take a good stereo setup over a mediocre surround sound rig any day of the week.
It's good to see I'm not alone. I've always been of the opinion that for the $ you spend on a surround system, you could spend the same $ and get a better stereo experience, regardless of what your price range is.
I find surround sound to be distracting. I realize I am in the minority, but I don't really like it. I usually turn off my rear speakers.
I have a 3.0 setup. The room isn't the easiest to wire the surrounds, with an open back wall into the kitchen, but I consider the center channel to be very important for the dialog in TV shows and movies.
Count me in the camp that is "not impressed." I've heard a pretty high end "7.1" system as well as several expensive/high end public theaters and several systems throughout the years and it just has never done much for me in any setting and hasn't since I first experimented with extremely basic surround in the early 90s.
A great two-channel (+ or - a sub as appropriate) system is preferable to me. Right now I'm running a Harman/Kardon receiver driving vintage (but excellent) Infiniti three-way speakers and a Velodyne CT-120 sub located under the flat panel. In January ESS Labs are producing limited edition Air-Motion Transfer reproductions (AMT-1) so I'll be buying a pair of those. The Air-Motion Transformer produces the most detailed, realistic sound I've heard in my life. It can literally stop people in their tracks. I'll be using the HK as a preamp pushing a vintage Carver 250 watt/channel high current amp to drive them. And I'll be replacing my old Velodyne with one or two (haven't decided) "fast" and "musical" subwoofers.
Current TV is a Samsung LN52B630 -- matte screen, which after recent tweaks looks absolutely creamy and luscious displaying FiOS.
As important as input and equipment are room design and acoustics. Hard floors just don't cut it. I have a thick, shaggy frieze over a thick carpet pad, a black shag carpet hung from the wall behind the panel/sub/speakers, and two comfy fabric couches flanking a chaise recliner. It's pretty good as far as sound absorption although I'm considering some type of acoustical ceiling tile as well.
I have a surround sound system, but I'm not committed to the concept. If I didn't prewire my home theater room for surrounds (because I built it), I probably wouldn't bother with surrounds. My computer system will probably never have surrounds. However, I have decent speakers and receiver. Probably not much that would get an audiophile interested, I'm not out to make that kind of person happy anyways, it's my system, not theirs.
For me surround sound is very important. I miss it when its not present, especially in OTA HD football games. A good DD & DTS 5.1 mix is like icing on the cake when watching a decent movie and essential for concerts.
I've been running a 5.1 Surround setup for many years now. I now have a Onkyo 806 and Klipsch speakers for my current 5.1 setup. I don't have the room for the other 2 speakers or I'd be setup with 7.1. Great surround sound is just as Important as a great Picture. One without the other is almost a waste. From hearing the crowd around you while watching football, to the bullets whizzing by you watching a movie like 'Saving Private Ryan'. It gets you more into what your watching.
Walking around in the real world, do you wear ear plugs so most everything you here is muted? MONO, can't tell where any sound is coming from, just that you hear something? Of course not. Why would you want that when watching a movie??? You can buy a OK surround sound setup for not a whole lot of money. It's far better then just stock stereo speaker setup. Soundbars are OK, but have their Limitations. Again, better then stock HDTV speakers, so that there is a Improvement, but can't come close to even a cheap 5.1 Surround setup.
I don't mind stereo. I watch netflex content all the time. Still 90% plus the stuff I watch is in Surround, including my Gaming. In games it's quite Important. To here the things going on AROUND YOU!!! You don't need HUGE speakers, and hiding wires isn't generally to hard. Many ways to go depending on your room. Once it's done, you may not have to worry about it ever again for years.
"Walking around in the real world, do you wear ear plugs so most everything you here is muted? MONO, can't tell where any sound is coming from, just that you hear something? Of course not. Why would you want that when watching a movie???"
I really enjoyed that part of your comment. Its true and it drives me nuts that people are so disconnected from surround sound or ever good sounding stereo setups. I think that it is a product of the time we living and I attribute most of the blame to apple and those crappy ear buds that everyone is listening to. No wonder you don't hear the difference between mp3 and uncompressed audio.
I sell home audio so I think I am a little bias on this topic. That being said some HTIB are decent and the rest are total crap. Plastic speakers boxes, hidden paper speakers behind their non removable grill. Terribly shrill tweeters. I saw one the other day advertising 10% THD.
Most of you said it is just as important as an HDTV (60%), you're wrong its more important.
Do you think you actually see the detail of your 1080p 42'' flat screen from 10 feet away? Wrong, but you pay for the technology that will be out of date and replaced by the next best thing in a year.
Speakers on the other hand are a solid purchase and investment. They are crafted with wooden cabinets and contain a technology that is consistent and reliable. They hold they're value fairly well and even if none of that were true, they would still be a worthwhile purchase for the relaxation and enjoyment that you get out of them use after use (after use).
Thats my rant for now, but I could go on for pages....
@JBDragon:
"Walking around in the real world, do you wear ear plugs so most everything you here is muted? MONO, can't tell where any sound is coming from, just that you hear something? Of course not. Why would you want that when watching a movie??? You can buy a OK surround sound setup for not a whole lot of money. It's far better then just stock stereo speaker setup."
What are you talking about? We hear in STEREO because we have two ears. Two ears enable us to pinpoint sounds in space. And the world often surrounds us. When I'm listening to music or watching a film or show, I'm looking straight AHEAD. When I turn to the side there's nothing there! Therefore it is perfectly natural to have the sounds originate from the front. Having said that, high quality audio can articulate a dramatically wide, textured, and defined soundstage.
Audio is tremendously important. When I'm done I will have spent five or six times as much on my sound as on my video, in the process creating a system I think will drop jaws and bring great enjoyment. I just have no desire for surround sound.
scyber said it was distracting, and I'll agree with that. And blackacex2 said the speakers and wires can look tacky, and I agree with this too in some cases I've seen. Two beautiful large front stereo speakers and one or two subwoofers at one end are cleaner than hanging speakers all around the room.
Maybe when VIDEO is surround too, then surround SOUND will be more impressive and useful and less gimmicky...
@Kevin. Hearing the world in through two ears and reproducing the sounds of the world through two speakers are totally different things.
In one situation the sound sources are originating from all around us. There is ambience, reflected sound, reverberation, etc. In the other you have an attempt to communicate this multi-source sound using just two sources. Quality 2 channel systems have a more accurate soundstage than cheaper systems, but there will always be a limit to the width and depth of this illusion (not to mention its always directional which real life is not). 2 speakers simply can not reproduce the emersion a well crafted surround mix can provide.
@ minimalist: I understand your point about hearing vs. reproduction. We
only have two ears so we hear in stereo.
I guess the thing of it for me is that we essentially have MONO visuals.
They're straight ahead and they're two-dimensional. Barring some
esoteric VR game with a 360 degree view and a head-tracking unit, film,
games, football, comedy, etc. all takes place right in front of you. To
me it's a strange conceit that with this flat, relatively small angle of
view, two-dimensional, straight ahead, stationary image that we're
presented with 99% of the time, that we're somehow "missing" something
if we don't have sound that comes from behind us. What the heck is
behind us? What does that mean, really?
In film many different camera angles are used -- some are first-person
cameras, some are third-person views, etc. Does the surround audio shift
every time a new camera angle is used? How odd. How does this create a
sense of realism? And when I turn my own head to the side or behind me,
the screen simply goes away.
One place I can see octaphonic sound or whatever being useful/logical
would be in a first-person shooter. I still can't turn my head but I can
rapidly turn my character, and the surround image will shift, and
because of what a first-person shooter is trying to approximate, it
makes sense that sounds are coming from the side, from behind, etc. That
makes sense. Maybe a film presented start to finish in 100% first-person
view, where the camera lens represents the character's eyeball and
therefore the orientation of his head (and ears) would also be a logical
application of surround.
One of the coolest MP3s I have is of a BINAURAL recording (hit up
Google). It only works wearing hi-fidelity headphones, but when it does
it presents an enormous sense of immersion from only two reproduction
channels (but with 100% perfect stereo separation -- no crosstalk). The
best movie theater on earth or the best 7.1 home system would be
WOEFULLY inadequate to try to present the same type of realism as an
extremely simple Binaural recording done with two microphones and two
speakers with perfect stereo separation. It's fantastic, but again it's
only appropriate for first-person scenes where you're supposed to be
INSIDE the scene, where you're closing your eyes and imagining the
scene, etc. Watching a moving picture on a wall over there as a
third-person observer and having Binaural sound to accompany it is just
plain bizarre.
Somebody mentioned watching football in surround. Why? The action is in
front, Troy and Joe are in front, why would I want to hear some extra
crowd noise?
Despite all this, I've always wanted to do the four car Zaireeka thing
but have never gotten around to it. I wonder if anyone knows what that
is.
@Kevin White. I know Zairika well. Other than 4 CD boom boxes I got together once in the late 90's with friends, however, I've never really heard it as its supposed to be performed (although I've merged the individual mp3's for convenience which kind of defeats the purpose and, obviously, the fun :-P).
I do not however think that directional sound is meaningless jut because a TV screen is only in front of us. We are still ultimately spectators and much of the emotional impact of movies comes from their ability to make us to forget that distance. Surround sound ads a visceral element that helps in just that. Specifically locating all sounds usually isn't nearly as important as just being immersed. Erecting more barriers to being drawn in seems odd when the point watching a movie (or reading a book, etc) is to forget the text on the page or the pictures on the screen and just sink into the story. If the 2 dimensionality of the picture plane tends to pull us out of the moment, why multiply shortcomings by demanding the same level of artifice from the sound?
Look at horror. Well made horror films are all about what we hear and don't see. Sound design is critical to pulling you in and making you scared. And I promise you that even a movie like The Others or Pan's Labyrinth benefit immensely from good sound design. Pan's Labyrinth is in fact one of my top reference discs for showing off my system and none of it has top do with bullets whizzing by or huge explosions. Its all about creating mood and emotional impact.
@minimalist: You make good points. I appreciate that.
I have always been much more of an audio guy than a video guy. I can tolerate a small TV much more than I can tolerate a cheap audio system. I can't do movies without surround sound. My audio system cost twice what my Plasma TV cost. I do stream Netflix but usually just TV shows or documentaries that sound fine in Pro Logic II.
I chose "other" because sound is VERY important to me, but I'd prefer a great stereo set-up to an average surround-sound setup. Most digital TV broadcasts, even when encoded in dolby digital, make little use of the surround channels. I just moved into a new house and haven't set up my surround yet so I'm just listening in stereo. You know what? I don't really miss the surround yet while I watch TV or listen to music (blu-ray concerts/cds/). I do miss it for video games but it's not the end of the world.
Awesome stereo > mediocre surround.
Awesome surround > awesome stereo
Stereo = Good enough most the time. Most people with surround setups allow all the speakers and wires to make the room look tacky and ugly. I've had everything from 7.1 to 2.0. Sure I'll get around to wiring up the rest of my speakers (I have B&W 800 series all around). For now, 2.0 is great.
Compressed HD, 480i/p content, and poorly mastered blu-ray and streaming video is MUCH more annoying than not having surround sound.
I'll put it this way: I bought my plasma about 3 years ago, surround sound within a week, and bluray last Christmas. I don't think HD is worth it unless you've got the sound to back it up. Now I don't have support for the HD audio, but that'll be a future upgrade.
When I used to work for an audio/video specialty retailer, they used to say around the office "a good picture without sound is just surveillance."
Well right now I have a 6.1 Surround sound system in my living room and the blueprints are in the making of a designated Home Theatre room for my house and it will be a full 7.1 Klipsh Theatric experience. In my opinion once you have heard a movie the way it is supposed to sound your hooked for live. I know when I watch sports or anything else in standard definiton after viewing it in HD It is definately not the same! and the same goes for the sound.
There is no theatrical soundtrack that is in 7.1 ALL theatrical soundtrack is 5.1 with the 6th channel being matrixed. 7.1 is only re-mixed for home use, thus is nothing other than gimmickry.
I must admit that I put PQ ahead of sound but I am making efforst the second Blu-ray player that should be arriving today has speakers with it HTIB
sorry efforts
While I'm nowhere near any sort of audiophile, I totally appreciate great surround audio and I feel it is vital to a good home theater experience. Do I have an expensive, audiophile-grade surround audio system? No, I have a cheapie HTIB. Even so, I find it so much better than relying on TV speakers, especially those in a flat-panel TV.
A HTIB is absolutely going to be miles better than the absurd little tin cups they call speakers in flat televisions. I've never even heard the speakers in my television and as far as I'm concerned all TV makers could stop including speakers and it would be just fine.
When I say I'm not much for surround that isn't to say I'm not much for audio quality -- quite the contrary.
Even worse is any sort of "simulated surround" or "two channel surround" processing. Invariably it makes all audio sound distant, indistinct, and garbled, and it murders all stereo/3D pinpointing and soundstaging.
I voted for the "just as important as a good HDTV". My quick story is when I was young and dumb I was sucked in by the Bose Accoustimass speakers and took out a loan for the $1500 price tag. I liked them just fine with my cheap Sony Dolby Digital receiver. I wanted to make the sound even better so I spent $1000 on an Onkyo receiver (don't remember the model) and to my surprise I didn't hear any difference in sound quality. After researching online it turns out the Bose are crap. So I returned the receiver. A couple of years later I saved up cash (no loan this time) and bought a full setup of Aperions, new towers for the fronts and then refurbished Center, refurbed bookshelves for rear and a refurbed 8" sub. All for the same price as the Bose. All I can say is wow. I don't consider myself hardcore but I prefer to movie nights at my house versus my friends because it is a much better experience.
This post tells a me a lot more... Steve Kim is NOT coming back... When other people are doing audio post, it means the end of Mr. Kim. Richard is really Steve's replacement.
Depend what you watch most the item, if you just watch television program, then you don't need to spend too much in speaker, since most tv network use pretty weak audio unless you had tons of movie channel which sound matter more, but those daily program most use stereo or 5.1 but isn't that effectice. gamer or dvd/blu-ray movie watcher, sound matter.
Now if they'd just start mixing films in binaural THAT would be something.
Now if they'd start recording/mixing films in binaural THAT would be something.
My problem with all surround sound systems I have used is that they all tend to be loud. I need to be able to hear people talking in the movie without waking up half the neighborhood.
I have tried some of the newer sound bars and I like where they are heading. Not as good as a surround system for surround sound, but pretty good sound that handles vocals well.
The cost of your system is not an indicator of anything, only that you're willing to pay that for it. Paying 2x, 3x etc for your audio vs video or vice versa is like saying that you're a better Giants fan if you pay for better seats. You are an audiophile if you evaluate sound quality of purchases up front (or during a trial period, thanks Outlaw) and make an informed decision based on your personal preferences and performance, not numbers. Moreover, if you're at all discerning about your sound (as with your video), you'll spend countless hours calibrating and/or tweaking, tweaking, tweaking, until you squeeze every available ounce of quality out of it. To me, THAT makes you an audiophile, much more than the perceived quality or value of your equipment.
If surround sound isn't important to you, you're not going to spend the scratch on it, or spend time worrying about it. For me, the tweaking never stops, but that's because I enjoy the journey as much as the destination.