 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Most Home Theater set-ups I've seen produce for me a common sense of disappointment. The experience feels somewhat ridiculous.In a nutshell, the video displays are nowhere near as impressive as the sound systems with which they are paired. I'm not talking about those "Audio Video Interiors" type set-ups, seen in homes of the rich, who can afford to house huge screens and theater seating. I'm talking about the typical pairing of equipment seen in the vast majority of AV stores. The type of system being sold to most people as Home Theater.
In virtually every set-up, especially those involving CRTs and surround sound, the quality and size of the image seems ludicrous compared to the full-scale assault available from the surround system.
The image from most TVs is still pretty unimpressive, and it doesn't help when watching "The Mummy" letter boxed to oblivion on these screens. What you get is the sound of a huge army thundering in wonderful clarity through the sound system, while you strain to make out these miniature figures on the TV. I find it difficult to connect the sonic experience with the visual one. It just comes off as sort of ludicrous.I should also say that, although surround can be kinda neat and immersive in of itself, it also tends to sound disconnected from the flat image in front of me, often pulling me "away" from the screen.
In a nutshell, in all but the most expensive set-ups, the visual side of the HT equation just isn't the equal of the sonic side, in either clarity, resolution or scale. Video displays have to catch up to what is possible in sound reproduction.
Anyone agree/disagree?
Rich H.
(BTW, don't take this as a diss against letterbox/original aspect ratios, which I fully support).
Follow Ups:
I heard/seen interviews with film composers like Danny Elfman and also with Foley guys. They all say the same thing: If you are aware of the music or stop to think of the sound - we've failed.Consequently, I believe that if you set up an HT system and put disproportionate amount of time money and $'s in to sound versuis the image you are barking up the wrong tree. If you intend it predominately for music it is not strictly speaking an HT system. So it pays (interms of enjoyment not just cost) to be sure ahead of time just what you aim is.
For 30 years I have considered picture quality to be the first consideration when buying a TV. Many people don't. Even magazine reviews often focus on other issues like number of features or serviceability or price, without really telling you which model has the best picture. And you can't see the picture in a magazine!Salesmen in stores almost never mention picture quality, except to talk about some new buzz-word like "flat screen" or "black-screen" or "super-pixel saturation" or some other term that is meant to impress upon the buyer that this set is better than others. I'm always amazed to see people walking out with a set that I wouldn't bother to turn on because I wouldn't want to watch a whole half-hour on it.
That's why I still listen to my TV in stereo. The 27" CRT doesn't justify a surround system.
Agreed Ted.I purchased my Panasonic Tau 27" tv over seven years ago, based on it's excellent picture quality. I still get a better picture on that thing than most of the displays I've seen in stores and it's hard to replace it with anything meaningfully better (except, darn it, a plasma).
Two things in my TV's favor: 1. I have tweaked the best picture out of it, whereas the dumbasses in most stores can't seem to be bothered to actually take five minutes and adjust their display models to look decent.
2. Many of the larger CRTs costing mega bucks are using internal processing (line doubling etc) to try to reduce scan lines and artifacts. I find myself quite aware of the unnatural artifacts that this processing produces. Whereas, my Panasonic does not screw with the picture info with processing, and at 27" from most viewing distances the scan lines are invisable. The result is an absolutely amazing little jewel of a picture - wonderful clarity, no distracting artifacts. It simply looks better than what I see in most show rooms.It's funny. I was recentlyl in a high-end AV store standing beside a father and son who were being shown some 32" (I think) Sony tvs. Both sets were showing "Bug's Life." One Sony set was the "basic" model, while the other was a couple thousand dollars more, owing to it's internal line doubling/processing which reduced scan lines.
The salesman was going on his oratory, aimed at convincing these two guys why the more expensive picture looks better, sharper, truer, richer. But anyone could see the "basic" model had a subjectively clearer, punchier picture (despite slightly visable scan lines). The Father and Son pointing at the basic model both said: "But that one looks better." Causing the salesman to cast a look as if these bumpkins just couldn't appreciate quality. But the customers were right on the ball. Good for them for using their own eyes.Rich.
The proof is in the pudding . I reckon when buying a TV ,picture quality is the first option. I still get amazed by some rather expensive TV's producing terrible flicker when playing DVDs , and yeah sometimes cheaper sets can produce better pictures as well (unless the store is run by idiots who use the RF connectors to show off the picture quality).
I had an integrated hifi/HT when I lived in the states.Somehow moving to France did 2 things: (1) made me value having separate systems, and (2) helped me see more clearly that HT wasn't so easy.
Keeeeeerist. The wires... The wires...
I've got sattellite, VCR, and DVD, not to mention a silly antenna on the roof. The stuff is all multi-system multi-voltage, and can play anything but non-zone 2 DVDs released by Columbia. I've got SCARTs and coax and RCA dangling all over the place. After weeks of sorcery, I finally got the mess to work ("Honey, stop breathing. You're screwing up the reception.") And y'know what? I use the speakers in the TV. That's right. I don't even have a separate audio (even though I have another system or two in the attic.
Why?
1. I'm a dinosaur.
2. I'm lazy.
3. I seem to prefer "watching TV" to the whole neurotic HT experience.
4. Actually, I don't seem to like watching TV much at all.....
"I'm talking about the typical pairing of equipment seen in the vast majority of AV stores. The type of system being sold to most people as Home Theater."That's not the fault of video in general, it's the fault of the people setting up the systems. What if you setup a $30K Runco projector, a 120-inch Stewart screen and matched that with a $700 "complete" home theater sound system? Then you have state-of-the art, big screen quality image with lousy sound.
NO ONE is forcing people to take home small video displays. Most people will compromise on the video because they're used to looking at standard network (broadcast) or analog cable images (250-line horizontal resolution) on small TV screens (under 50-inches) - and they think that's how video should look. Also, the majority of people buying HT systems don't want to shell out the $$ needed for a high-quality video display. The stores are setting up what the majority of their customers are buying.
Unfortunately, it's easier to get acceptable quality sound at a lower price than it is to get good video. You cannot begin to get into a quality video display system for much under $5K. Viewing distance is also an issue. I would suggest that you go look at a 72-inch Pioneer Elite (720) setup correctly. View it from a distance of not over 12-feet, and you will have a display in the $6-7K neighborhood that's about as good as it gets until you step up into the $15K front projector area - either way will visually match all but the most expensive sound systems.
Until the people are willing to invest MORE money in a video display -you will have small 3:4 format video displays paired with an audio system - and the sales people **will** call it "home theater."
A Pioneer Elite 720 is actually a 64 inch screen. I own a 710 and they are great TV sets, setup however is quite important. Good component video cables, quality progressive scan DVD player, and a dark room are needed to get really good picture quality.
Everytime I got to see a major release at the local cineplex, I come away convinced that a home theater is THE way to go.Sure, my video display can't compete, but I also don't have to deal with people yacking. Why do couples think it's ok to bring their little ones to movies like Starship Troopers, and let them cry throughout the movie when they get scared? And later they wonder why Johnny grew up to be an ax murderer.)
John C's system.
I noticed that too. I've seen it in a diplay set up to demo a multi-thousand buck high-end set of speakers. Cost nearly as much as my car. There at "center stage" was a 27" CRT. I assumed that the the pupose was to sell the speakers and the dealer didn't want you to pay too much attentioin to the video.At the same time, I get the impression sometimes that some folks whose interest come from the audiophile orientation aren't big film fans and really don't get into the film itself. That is the story. They can't cope with classic films that are B&W and mono. Bogart, Dietrich, Wells, Lombard, Hitchcock, Grant mean nothing to them. Phillitines!
really poor images. Several salesmen have told me that DVD is BETTER than the movies. I used to tell them they were blind. Now I have matured and tell them that my Dad said the same thing until he had his catracts removed and maybe they should go in and have theirs done as well. ;-)The reality is that TV is still not at the same level as a good 35 or 70 mm film.
Sometimes DVDs are better than the movies you can actually have a chance to see if the've been restored (digits don't fade and get scrtached) or had the sound remastered (original tracks were sometimes 2 or 3 channel but never reached the theaters): Citizen Kane, Singin' in the Rain, The Third Man ...
While it is true DVDs don't fail in the same way that film does, have you ever been able to play a badly scratched DVD? Film is not perfect and certainly not enough effort is made to protect the old films that are now starting to fall apart. But DVDs are not perfect either and they lack the resolution of good film print.
nt
... having gone down this path myself I do think that top surround sound (not easy or cheap to attain) adds immensely to the enjoyment. Of course, the bigger the screen the better but budgets, room size etc prescribe what is possible.And, on another hobby horse, I argue against the idea one cannot have good audio for 2 Ch as well as HT. To this feeble mind it is a complete waste of dollars to have 2 systems IF (and that is a big if) thy
e living room allows for both. Also, with SACD + DVD-A MC coming into reality, the combined system makes even more sense.We have done it. Take a geek at
http://www.audioasylum.com/upload/johnc/john.html
John
Peace at AA
oh but Rich, you haven't even touched the surface of the true horror of Home Theater:cables!
screw the screen, just take a look behind the furnature...
the horror!
the horror!
No wonder Bose sells so many of those table radios for $15,000 a pop. I'd pay ten times that to be rid of that den of snakes behind the gear!
and another thing, does anyone, anywhere, know why component video on THREE wires is exactly the same as component video on FIVE wires which is exactly the same as component video on ONE wire (15 pin d-sub VGA)?
Who is behind this? Kenny Starr? Richard Mellon Scafie?
and what is all this talk about "fire wire" ???
(all my wires are likely to burn my house down, in fact...I smell PVC burning right now!)
Although scale is an issue on my system, the image is stunning! I have spent much money and effort to tweak my system with every tweak known to humans! Although the image is still relatively small relative to the sound.... i much rather have a 36" image look as sharp as possible than a 50"+ image that does not match the sound system... by sharp i am refering to: detail, color/hue, contrast, brightness, and black-level.In addition, i have heard many times that you can either have a great HT setup or a great music setup, but never the two shall meet. I guess i have never heard what the ultimate system can do in either case, but from the HT stand-point my system sounds better than any movie theater i have been to. From the music standpoint i have a very wide and deep and EVEN soundstage wide fairly flat response from low to high that allows me to forget sometimes that i am listening to a stereo and just enjoy that music someone came to personally play in my living room....
My system sounds this good (to me of course) because of the ridiculous amount of time and effort i have put into just about every detail surrounding it..... power, cabling, isolation, positioning, room treatments, etc.... I really do think you CAN have your cake and eat it too! when it comes to HT vs Music!
bring on the flames!
-Sam
Sam,I agree, that with time and care we can create a really good experience in our listening/HT rooms. I have a room where magic happens, although as Sam said it has taken plenty of effort. I only have a 36" direct view as well, but it is quite good after careful adjustment.
I can put on the James Taylor DVD Live at the Beacon Theater in Boston and really think I'm there (soundwise for sure), I was.
There are no absolutes about what is or isn't but I like what I got.
bstan
So true. People will spend $10K plus on the sound and less than $2K for the picture.
When the HT only guys do a setup, they usually have a giant RP TV, some receiver and HT geared speakers, dirt cheap DVD player, and one giant sub.I have to admit, watching DVDs have no connecting experience with the real world, which is what true music reproduction is trying to achieve. Every time you see a flyover/driveover of a plane/helecopter or car, we are to assume that it went offscreen and into the rear. But is the image real enough to let us believe that is actually what happening. Also in movies, with the quick short cuts in a scene, along with the audio track that follows each cut to a tee, no matter how short, it does nothing but confuse the person watching. There is no real world correlation to the way the sound is produced.
I think IMAX might be the only situation where one is actually immersed into the visual part for us to believe we are actually there. It is not just due to the size of the screen and resolution, but the way it is filmed.
The epurpose of DD/DTS 5.1 was to increase sales first and anything else a distant second. Most movies that take full advantage of the 5.1 channels are some stupid action flicks. I would always put more money into the main speakers than bother with surround (center channel may be, depends on the room).Regarding displays, I think there is only one way to go and that it DLP/LCD front projectors.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
