Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

audiophiles and home theaters (really worth it?)

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 7:40:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on buying
high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers for
that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but always
in the 2 channel criteria?
I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
explosions are always explosions...
My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on a
high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
system?

Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the home
theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???

What can you suggest me? Thank you!
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 5:23:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Faive" <faive@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfaq8k0nub@news4.newsguy.com...
> Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
> enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
> wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
> Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on buying
> high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
> I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
> helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
> nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
> will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers for
> that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
> theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but always
> in the 2 channel criteria?
> I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
> seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
> sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
> explosions are always explosions...
> My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
> DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on a
> high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
> remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
> system?
>
> Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
> reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the home
> theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???
>
> What can you suggest me? Thank you!

If DD or DTS is well recorded and mastered, music reproduction certainly
benefits from good speakers. Clearly, not as good as standard PCM or the
new high-rez formats, but good nonetheless. However, the main benefit of a
really good multichannel system is what it allows in the way of musical
enjoyment via DVD-A and SACD.

I'd say if your main interest is video and musical videos, stay with the
separate system (although you might want to invest in something better than
a box system). If you really enjoy music and spend a lot of time listening,
then upgrading the main stereo is definitely the way to go. My opinion, of
course. But I did choose the latter course, and urged my sister/brother in
law to follow the former...and we both are happy.
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 5:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I would recommend doing as I do and just plop your video monitor
(whether it be a 32" TV or a 100" projection screen) between the two
speakers and connect a DVD at the front end. That will give you great
sound for movies and film. If you want to have surround sound (it is
not necessary to fully enjoy a good movie), then you can add-on or get
a separate smaller system as you suggest. Many of our customers prefer
to keep the two systems separate for a variety of reasons. You may
identify reasons other than sound also.
If space is limited or you just can't see spending a load on a HT rig,
then my fist suggestion is best. If you want both and have the funds
and space, then you can set them up wherever and enjoy.
I think most people would agree that good sound is good sound, whether
it is from a musical program or from a film soundtrack. A good system
will make both more enjoyable. No one else can decide for you how much
of an investment is required to satisfy yourself with good sound. If
you are really curious about what a surround sound system will do for
a film, I would suggest visiting a nice specialty audio shop in your
area and have a demo. You can then judge for yourself what difference
a surround system might make to you and what level of quality is
appropriate for that.
As far as music reproduction goes, whether it is a CD or a concert
DVD, I think that your current system will be just as nice. It is
sometimes interesting to hear how good or how bad recordings/mixes are
of multi-channel music, but I regularly find it to be a novelty rather
than a "must have" type of experience.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250


"Faive" <faive@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfaq8k0nub@news4.newsguy.com...
> Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
> enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
> wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
> Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on
buying
> high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
> I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
> helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
> nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
> will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers
for
> that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
> theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but
always
> in the 2 channel criteria?
> I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a
lot
> seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
> sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
> explosions are always explosions...
> My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
> DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on
a
> high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
> remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
> system?
>
> Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
> reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the
home
> theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???
>
> What can you suggest me? Thank you!
Related resources
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 5:25:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Faive <faive@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
> enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
> wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
> Home Theater capable system?

*Necessary*? No, unless you want to listen to multichannel mixes.

> Is it really worth it to invest on buying
> high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?

I find it so. They needn't be 'high end' in the TAS/Stereophile
sense of the word, though.

> I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
> helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations.

Some multichannel mixes and processing produce very active surround
channels; others (e.e., most multichannel versions of orchestral
and classical music) simply provide a sense of greater 'ambient
sound'. There's no general statement for all.

> I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
> seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
> sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
> explosions are always explosions...

Well, I have some of Morton Subotnick's 'experimental'
music on DVD-Audio, and to hear that properly you have to have
a surround sound setup. So no, for me it's not always
'bullets and explosions'.

> My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
> DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on a
> high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn?t
> remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
> system?

No, some of them sound quite nice. THe recent Led Zeppelin DVD is
brilliant in surround (and all the instruments stay in front of you).

> Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
> reproduce regular music just as well

Yes. You can always set it to play in two-channel if you like.


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 5:26:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cfaq8k0nub@news4.newsguy.com>, Faive <faive@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
>enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
>wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
>Home Theater capable system?

Much a movie's emotional impact comes from the musical score. If you want
that along with loud deep-bass, accomodation for off-axis listeners, and/or
surround sound then adding channels is a fine idea.

Given just one reasonable sized room for your toys it's possible to achieve a
reasonable compromise (an ideal multi-channel room is less reverberant than
an ideal 2-channel setup; an ideal home theater is pitch black while something
lighter is preferable for critical listening) for movies and music.

For example I want to be at the apex of an equilateral triangle for my
speakers, to meet minimum distances (2' to side walls, 4' to front wall,
8' from the speakers), and have a 36 degree subtended field of vision.

So I sit 11' from the 13' wide front wall which has an 87x49" screen.
The speakers are 4' off the front wall, 8' apart.

I use a Lexicon processor for home-theater and have used a separate
analog preamp for critical listening with a simple switch box on the
left+right active cross-over.

You also definately want to use some sort of flat screen - getting rid
of the direct view CRT between my speakers was the best thing I did for my
2-channel sound stage.

>Is it really worth it to invest on buying
>high end rear speakers,

No. The surrounds are mostly used for ambient noises and aren't critical.

>a subwoofer

Yes. You can't get enough clean low bass output (115dB) from even the
biggest full-range speakers and home theater processors usually only
provide peak limiting for the sub-woofer output.

>a center speaker?

Maybe. If you sit close enough to the middle it's not needed, and without
an acoustic screen + identical speaker positioned at the same height you'll
probably get better performance with a phantom image from your mains.

Farther off axis or closer you'll want a center channel which sounds like your
main speakers. A lot of the musical score ends up in the center channel
so you definately want to get it right.

>I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
>seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
>sound department?

You're much better off with a single pair of decent speakers than a six pack
of junk. Cheap HTIBs give actors and singlers get chest colds, the
droning one-note bass is anoying, dialog intelligibility isn't there at low
volumes, and the dynamics don't compare to a decent 2-channel setup.

>Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
>reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the home
>theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???

The least expensive solution would be an A/V receiver with pre-outs
and a switch box between it and your preferred 2-channel front-end. For
more money, try a used Lexicon DC-2 or MC-1 and separate power amp with
the same switch box.


--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 3:09:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Drew Eckhardt <drew@revolt.poohsticks.org> wrote:
> an ideal home theater is pitch black while something
> lighter is preferable for critical listening)

I don't imagine it makes any difference for critical listening. Why do you
think so?

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 3:19:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

faive@hotmail.com (Faive) wrote in message news:<cfaq8k0nub@news4.newsguy.com>...
> Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
> enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
> wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
> Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on buying
> high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
> I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
> helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
> nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
> will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers for
> that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
> theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but always
> in the 2 channel criteria?
> I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
> seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
> sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
> explosions are always explosions...
> My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
> DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on a
> high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
> remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
> system?
>
> Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
> reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the home
> theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???
>
> What can you suggest me? Thank you!
Like Uptown audio mentioned, just buy a DVD player and plonk a tv into
the middle of your existing setup. Listen to that for a while. This is
exactly my setup now. I only feel the urge to upgrade to a medium size
HDTV now. Surround still hasn't beome the essential upgrade for me. If
you feel you need more, you continue to up the ante and go for
surround.

CD
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 3:25:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Faive wrote:
> Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
> enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
> wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
> Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on buying
> high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
> I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
> helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
> nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
> will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers for
> that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
> theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but always
> in the 2 channel criteria?

Try this at home - tune to the radio on your good stereo and bring
a small clock radio in and place it in the same room at the rear
on the same channel. Make the sound levels roughly the same.

Good is good, and poor is poor. Mixing the two just annoys
you because the poor quality sticks out every time you use it.
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 2:22:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Yep, I do the same and would not change a thing in terms of sound. I
will be looking into replacing the TV with a flat panel at some point
however. They look so much nicer and would give us a couple more feet
of space in the room as well.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250


"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cfgttk02rbt@news2.newsguy.com...
> faive@hotmail.com (Faive) wrote in message
news:<cfaq8k0nub@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
> > enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
> > wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to
a
> > Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on
buying
> > high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
> > I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
> > helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is
very
> > nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
> > will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers
for
> > that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
> > theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but
always
> > in the 2 channel criteria?
> > I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a
lot
> > seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
> > sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
> > explosions are always explosions...
> > My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and
concert
> > DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those
on a
> > high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
> > remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
> > system?
> >
> > Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
> > reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the
home
> > theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???
> >
> > What can you suggest me? Thank you!
> Like Uptown audio mentioned, just buy a DVD player and plonk a tv
into
> the middle of your existing setup. Listen to that for a while. This
is
> exactly my setup now. I only feel the urge to upgrade to a medium
size
> HDTV now. Surround still hasn't beome the essential upgrade for me.
If
> you feel you need more, you continue to up the ante and go for
> surround.
>
> CD
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 2:23:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I don't accept your contention that special effects and conversations
either sound the same on high or low end equipment or that there's no
qualitative difference. A friend of mine does sound for the movies and I
have heard "bullet whacks" played back on very good speakers indeed,
straight from the analog take taken on a Nagra inside the wooden shack
where the bullet whacks were recorded. They were very convincing - and
yes, I have heard real bullet whacks in person. They are not near so
convincing on "lesser" equipment.

That issue aside, move sound is not all about, and not even MOSTLY about
special effects. There have been, and are, excellent composers working
for the movies. Some people even say that the movies are to modern
composers as court or church patronage was to the (what are now)
classical composers. I suggest upgrading the whole system. You can do
the Magnepan home theater speakers with REL subwoofer for around 4K, not
counting amps, but you already a stereo amp. Three more channels for the
center and surround shouldn't break the bank.

-- Bob T.

Faive wrote:

>Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
>enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
>wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
>Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on buying
>high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
>I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
>helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
>nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
>will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers for
>that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
>theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but always
>in the 2 channel criteria?
>I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
>seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
>sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
>explosions are always explosions...
>My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
>DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on a
>high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
>remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
>system?
>
>Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
>reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the home
>theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???
>
>What can you suggest me? Thank you!
>
>
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 8:16:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cfjf0b019cm@news1.newsguy.com...
> I don't accept your contention that special effects and conversations
> either sound the same on high or low end equipment or that there's no
> qualitative difference. A friend of mine does sound for the movies and I
> have heard "bullet whacks" played back on very good speakers indeed,
> straight from the analog take taken on a Nagra inside the wooden shack
> where the bullet whacks were recorded. They were very convincing - and
> yes, I have heard real bullet whacks in person. They are not near so
> convincing on "lesser" equipment.
>
A great way to ruin your hearing; as soon as I see a pistol coming out of a
holster I search for the mute button on one of my remotes. Doesn't everyone
put wear hearing protection devices on a firearm range?
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 11:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Uptown Audio" <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote in message
news:cfjeum019ad@news1.newsguy.com...
> Yep, I do the same and would not change a thing in terms of sound. I
> will be looking into replacing the TV with a flat panel at some point
> however. They look so much nicer and would give us a couple more feet
> of space in the room as well.
>

It sorta offends me if another entertainment device (powered up or not)
would be placed between my Maggies (which have shrine status) even should it
not effect the sonics. I just wouldn't look at them (or upon them) in the
same manner. OTOH a large screen TV of any type must be placed between HT
speakers (hung up on walls) in order to lend any degree of dignity to the
sound, regardless of the quality or manufacture of the speakers.
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 1:30:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Two channel is great. But I've found that at least one of the modes
in surround sound provides more of the concert hall experience in
terms of depth and space. when I got my first Yamaha receiver about
10 years ago, amazingly, it rivalled the local concert hall (which was
visited by the London Symphony Orchestra every two years). It was
the only thing that did so, regardless of price. And you can always
turn off the surround options.




On 10 Aug 2004 15:40:04 GMT, faive@hotmail.com (Faive) wrote:

>Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
>enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
>wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
>Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on buying
>high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
>I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
>helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
>nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
>will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers for
>that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
>theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but always
>in the 2 channel criteria?
>I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
>seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
>sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
>explosions are always explosions...
>My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
>DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on a
>high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
>remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
>system?
>
>Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
>reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the home
>theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???
>
>What can you suggest me? Thank you!
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 10:21:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

That's a tad severe even by my audio standards! I no longer have a
shrine to any planar speakers (my wife leaps with joy) as I prefer
dynamics. There are trade-offs in both designs and I understand your
sentiment so no lengthy debate is necessary, I have just become more
comfortable with quality dynamic speaker systems. I just watched one
of the first "talkies" from 1932, featuring Faye Wray. "The Most
Dangerous Game", using the set for the hit "King Kong" is a fun even
if a relatively weak portrayal of the popular short story. No great
sound system is required for that as there was no great sound. A lot
of people like to keep their music-audio and audio-video systems
separate, but there is really no reason why they cannot be merged if
you have the budget and planning for it. In your case, you might be
able to better enjoy both if you had some artwork to cover the screen
when not in use. Talk about sighted listening bias! No need for more
than a pair of speakers flanking the screen, even if they are
planars...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote in message
news:cflnop0civ@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Uptown Audio" <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote in message
> news:cfjeum019ad@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Yep, I do the same and would not change a thing in terms of sound.
I
> > will be looking into replacing the TV with a flat panel at some
point
> > however. They look so much nicer and would give us a couple more
feet
> > of space in the room as well.
> >
>
> It sorta offends me if another entertainment device (powered up or
not)
> would be placed between my Maggies (which have shrine status) even
should it
> not effect the sonics. I just wouldn't look at them (or upon them)
in the
> same manner. OTOH a large screen TV of any type must be placed
between HT
> speakers (hung up on walls) in order to lend any degree of dignity
to the
> sound, regardless of the quality or manufacture of the speakers.
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 7:57:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I have two separate systems in two separate rooms. The reason? I don't
want the kids or wife messing with my audio equipment.
In the family room is the a/v system. Modest by anyone's budget, but
very convincing when turned on. Also, the a/v system doubles as the kids
music system. They can basically jam CDR's and CD's into the player, and
I really don't care. Try that on my 'personal' stuff, and there will be
one unhappy dad. When I had the 'single' a/v system, I wound up with
kool-aid in my Counterpoint SA220 amp. Of course, no one told me. I
found out when I turned it on and there was smoke. Needless to say, a
new main board and output mosfets are not cheap. Especially when they
aren't made anymore. Hence, the separate room.
I have listened to a couple of DTS classicals and wasn't too impressed.
The 2 channel serves me well in a room setup for it. There is no "wife
factor", kids running through the room.... just me and the music.
Wonderful.
August 17, 2004 2:55:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Faive" <faive@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cfaq8k0nub@news4.newsguy.com...
> Is is really necessary for an audiophile (or at least someone who
> enjoys listening to music with high end equipment to obtain a
> wonderful sound) to UPGRADE its current 2 channel stereo system to a
> Home Theater capable system? Is it really worth it to invest on buying
> high end rear speakers, a subwoofer and a center speaker?
> I find useless to hear on high end speakers explosions, bullets,
> helicopters, cars, laser beams or conversations. I mean, it is very
> nice to watch a movie with that kind of surround effects, but what
> will be the point of investing a lot of money in high end speakers for
> that? Wouldn´t it be better to buy those US$500-600 home
> theaters-in-a-box for that and keep or upgrade your system but always
> in the 2 channel criteria?
> I am asking that because I have to make a decision. Will I miss a lot
> seeing/hearing a DTS 5.1. DVD with a home theater-in-a-box in the
> sound department? Or is just that bullets are always bullets,
> explosions are always explosions...
> My main concern is about musical DVDs. Music videos DVDs and concert
> DVDs that come in multichannel or DTS. Is is worth to hear those on a
> high end system or the sound that is provided on those DVDs isn´t
> remarkable at all and not worth it to have a 5.1 high end speaker
> system?
>
> Do you think that a a/v receiver with DTS and all that stuff will
> reproduce regular music just as well or do you suggest buying the home
> theater in-a-box and a high end 2 stereo system or what???
>
> What can you suggest me? Thank you!


I would look as change form a 2 channel system to a multi-channel
one as a down grade ... keep your 2 channel, audio only system, separate
from the video system if you can ....
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 2:56:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"TonyP" <arpierre@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cfpbbq09f0@news3.newsguy.com...
> I have two separate systems in two separate rooms. The reason? I don't
> want the kids or wife messing with my audio equipment.
> In the family room is the a/v system. Modest by anyone's budget, but
> very convincing when turned on. Also, the a/v system doubles as the kids
> music system. They can basically jam CDR's and CD's into the player, and
> I really don't care. Try that on my 'personal' stuff, and there will be
> one unhappy dad. When I had the 'single' a/v system, I wound up with
> kool-aid in my Counterpoint SA220 amp. Of course, no one told me. I
> found out when I turned it on and there was smoke. Needless to say, a
> new main board and output mosfets are not cheap. Especially when they
> aren't made anymore. Hence, the separate room.
> I have listened to a couple of DTS classicals and wasn't too impressed.
> The 2 channel serves me well in a room setup for it. There is no "wife
> factor", kids running through the room.... just me and the music.
> Wonderful.

The closest I came to a wipeout was when my <2 yr old son played with the
volume control of my preamp and then threw the system on at top volume when
the remainder of the family was having a holiday dinner. Needless to say I
set a record time for the ten-yard dash to the preamp from my seat at the
dining room table.

However, raising three kids with a good system was remarkably trouble free.
My wives helped keep the "under two's" away from the equipment, from two to
about eight I emphasized that this was very good equipment that only Daddy
should use and that I promised to show them how when they were older - and
also played their music for them on it when the mood struck them (although
they also had their own boomboxes after age six). Then about age 8-9 I
showed them how/what to do (and equally important what not to do) and they
used it some...but as teenagers turned to their own boomboxes. Then at age
18-19 I helped them all assemble their own inexpensive component systems
(virtually all used gear). Today I am blessed with kids who make music an
active part of their life...imagine my pleasure when the two oldest asked me
to pick out classical music for them as one of their Christmas gifts. And
the youngest likes jazz as well as rock and knew Janis Joplin's "Summertime"
before I even knew he knew who Janis was.

Since kids are very much into video, I'm not sure what I would do today.
Perhaps the separate A/V setup for the family makes the most sense at least
until the youngest of the kids has gotten to that 8-9 year old stage. But
of course, a separate TV in the family room may also suffice.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 3:37:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Some of us in our mis-spent youth didn't always wear hearing protection.
In any case, I was talking more about the quality of the sound than the
absolute volume. Even at the studio, the volume of the whack wasn't the
same as being two feet from the source. Interestingly enough by editing
the waveform of the bullet whack you can change the apparent direction -
that is, incoming or outgoing.

-- Bob T.

Norman Schwartz wrote:

>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:cfjf0b019cm@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>
>>I don't accept your contention that special effects and conversations
>>either sound the same on high or low end equipment or that there's no
>>qualitative difference. A friend of mine does sound for the movies and I
>>have heard "bullet whacks" played back on very good speakers indeed,
>>straight from the analog take taken on a Nagra inside the wooden shack
>>where the bullet whacks were recorded. They were very convincing - and
>>yes, I have heard real bullet whacks in person. They are not near so
>>convincing on "lesser" equipment.
>>
>>
>>
>A great way to ruin your hearing; as soon as I see a pistol coming out of a
>holster I search for the mute button on one of my remotes. Doesn't everyone
>put wear hearing protection devices on a firearm range?
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 3:51:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

When I get the rest of the remodeling done, the Maggie home theater
speakers will be wall-mounted, except for the center channel which will
either be over or under the Sony direct view 34".

This isn't rec.video, but if the moderators can stand a digression, I
just recently replaced our ancient 27" Sony Trinitron with the Sony WEGA
KV-34XBR910 HDTV (yes, there's a newer one - that's probably why the
price was pretty reasonable on this one).

WARNING WARNING WARNING - Video stuff ahead!

I spent a long time looking at plasmas, DLP, LCD, LCOS, direct and rear
projection, and direct view and ultimately it came down to resolution,
reliability/durability in my intended usage and black levels at a price
point. I'm not the only one who uses the TV - my kids play video games,
and my wife doesn't want to mess with a twelve-step process just to
watch TV. Neither do I, really.

PLASMA

If I'd wanted to spend 10K, I might very well have come home with the
Sony plasma (60", I think). Several things put me off - first was the
price, second was the reliablity and durability in my intended usage. As
I said, my kids play video games and I'm concerned about burn-in with a
plasma display. The last issue is that even though I could have lived
with the black levels and dynamic range (video), they're not as good as
a CRT.

DLP, LCD, LCOS FLAT PANEL and REAR PROJECTION

My major objection is that the absolute black level isn't there (though
it's pretty good in the higher price ranges), but more importantly the
"dynamic range" (or whatever the video term is - I forget) isn't there.
In something like "The Italian Job" during the tunnel scene with the
Cooper Minis, a characters face has essentially two states - visible and
dark. On a CRT there's much finer gradation. It's hard to overstate the
visual impact of having as broad a range as possible.

A secondary issue is that the newer large rear projections (and I
haven't looked seriously at one in years) look VERY good on high quality
sources like DVD, but, to my eyes, very BAD on lower quality sources
like ordinary CATV or VHS.

FRONT PROJECTION

Two things - if I went CRT it's too expensive AND I don't want to be
firing up the projector for Nicktoons. There's also the issue of rapidly
dropping price points and quickly maturing technology for non-CRT. I
don't want to buy one now and in a year see the price drop 40% for
higher quality. At some point I'll probably go front projection for
"movies only".

FINAL CHOICE

Having ruled out the other technologies, I looked at several CRTs. I
made the decision ultimately on a review in the Perfect Vision, apparent
picture quality to US and a bit on a very good experience with the last
Sony. (Yeah, I've read a lot of frightening information on EVERYBODY'S
reliability lately including Sony's. So far, so good ...)

For about $2200 bucks, including the stand (which my wife hates, but
works - now we have to buy a new entertainment center :=)) but not
counting tax, the Sony had everything I needed. Lots of inputs, decent
zoom modes (the wide zoom to fill the whole screen on 4:3 material
doesn't bother me 98% of the time), GREAT picture with the super fine
pitch and a very good remote, for the most part. (WHY they don't have
direct access to the video inputs is beyond me. Step, step, step to get
to the one you want. How silly.) The tuner is MUCH higher quality than
the cable box - I only got the cable box for the HDTV for another
$5/month. Eventually I may "bite the bullet" and go to digital cable.

I haven't had it professionally calibrated, but I have used the simple
THX calibration on "Pirates of the Caribbean" for "Movie" mode and it
did make a positive difference. I have the AVIA disc, but haven't had
time to use it on this TV yet. It certainly helped on the last one.

-- Bob T.

Norman Schwartz wrote:

>"Uptown Audio" <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote in message
>news:cfjeum019ad@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>
>>Yep, I do the same and would not change a thing in terms of sound. I
>>will be looking into replacing the TV with a flat panel at some point
>>however. They look so much nicer and would give us a couple more feet
>>of space in the room as well.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It sorta offends me if another entertainment device (powered up or not)
>would be placed between my Maggies (which have shrine status) even should it
>not effect the sonics. I just wouldn't look at them (or upon them) in the
>same manner. OTOH a large screen TV of any type must be placed between HT
>speakers (hung up on walls) in order to lend any degree of dignity to the
>sound, regardless of the quality or manufacture of the speakers.
>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 8:03:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 16 Aug 2004 22:55:31 GMT, "graham" <grahamiba@comcast.net> wrote:

>I would look as change form a 2 channel system to a multi-channel
>one as a down grade ...

You must be looking in a mirror.

> keep your 2 channel, audio only system, separate
>from the video system if you can ....

Yes, or upgrade your 2channel system to equivelently good MCH and
enjoy music DVDs, DVD-As and SACDs.

Kal
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 8:06:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8/16/04 7:51 PM, in article cfrhar029rk@news1.newsguy.com, "Robert
Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote:

> FINAL CHOICE
>
> Having ruled out the other technologies, I looked at several CRTs. I
> made the decision ultimately on a review in the Perfect Vision, apparent
> picture quality to US and a bit on a very good experience with the last
> Sony. (Yeah, I've read a lot of frightening information on EVERYBODY'S
> reliability lately including Sony's. So far, so good ...)

Dollar for dollar, CRT is the way to go - great contrast (no mucking about
with gamma needed), good viewing angle, long-ish life and good color
saturation.

Plasma screens have really scary short life, most rear projection has
limited viewing angle, and LCD has poor contrast.

IN 5 years the landscape may be different, but for now - the last hurrah of
CRT is upon us!!
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 2:54:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Robert Trosper wrote:

> My major objection is that the absolute black level isn't there (though
> it's pretty good in the higher price ranges), but more importantly the
> "dynamic range" (or whatever the video term is - I forget) isn't there.
> In something like "The Italian Job" during the tunnel scene with the
> Cooper Minis, a characters face has essentially two states - visible and
> dark. On a CRT there's much finer gradation. It's hard to overstate the
> visual impact of having as broad a range as possible.
>
> A secondary issue is that the newer large rear projections (and I
> haven't looked seriously at one in years) look VERY good on high quality
> sources like DVD, but, to my eyes, very BAD on lower quality sources
> like ordinary CATV or VHS.
>
> FRONT PROJECTION
>
> Two things - if I went CRT it's too expensive AND I don't want to be
> firing up the projector for Nicktoons. There's also the issue of rapidly
> dropping price points and quickly maturing technology for non-CRT. I
> don't want to buy one now and in a year see the price drop 40% for
> higher quality. At some point I'll probably go front projection for
> "movies only".

Actually, a good *analog* front-projection unit will hace none of the
problems you are afraid of and last at last ten years. The tradeoff
is that it is a large unit. Non-CRT still has a long long way to go
to get the color fidelity and contrast ratios, so enjoy the one you
have :) 
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 3:01:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:



>On 8/16/04 7:51 PM, in article cfrhar029rk@news1.newsguy.com, "Robert
>Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> FINAL CHOICE
>>
>> Having ruled out the other technologies, I looked at several CRTs. I
>> made the decision ultimately on a review in the Perfect Vision, apparent
>> picture quality to US and a bit on a very good experience with the last
>> Sony. (Yeah, I've read a lot of frightening information on EVERYBODY'S
>> reliability lately including Sony's. So far, so good ...)
>
>Dollar for dollar, CRT is the way to go - great contrast (no mucking about
>with gamma needed), good viewing angle, long-ish life and good color
>saturation.
>
>Plasma screens have really scary short life, most rear projection has
>limited viewing angle, and LCD has poor contrast.
>
>IN 5 years the landscape may be different, but for now - the last hurrah of
>CRT is upon us!!

I agree; CRT is over, in the same way that tubes and vinyl are over. The main
limitations are screen size and the size/weight of the set itself. Expect
prices to fall dramatically as the cost of alternative technology also fall
(roughly 25% annually.)

Currently DLP is my choice either in rear or front projection.
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 10:53:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Um - what about that price issue with analog CRT front projection? I
haven't seen an affordable unit ...

-- Bob T.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Robert Trosper wrote:
>
>> My major objection is that the absolute black level isn't there
>> (though it's pretty good in the higher price ranges), but more
>> importantly the "dynamic range" (or whatever the video term is - I
>> forget) isn't there. In something like "The Italian Job" during the
>> tunnel scene with the Cooper Minis, a characters face has essentially
>> two states - visible and dark. On a CRT there's much finer gradation.
>> It's hard to overstate the visual impact of having as broad a range
>> as possible.
>>
>> A secondary issue is that the newer large rear projections (and I
>> haven't looked seriously at one in years) look VERY good on high
>> quality sources like DVD, but, to my eyes, very BAD on lower quality
>> sources like ordinary CATV or VHS.
>>
>> FRONT PROJECTION
>>
>> Two things - if I went CRT it's too expensive AND I don't want to be
>> firing up the projector for Nicktoons. There's also the issue of
>> rapidly dropping price points and quickly maturing technology for
>> non-CRT. I don't want to buy one now and in a year see the price drop
>> 40% for higher quality. At some point I'll probably go front
>> projection for "movies only".
>
>
> Actually, a good *analog* front-projection unit will hace none of the
> problems you are afraid of and last at last ten years. The tradeoff
> is that it is a large unit. Non-CRT still has a long long way to go
> to get the color fidelity and contrast ratios, so enjoy the one you
> have :) 
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 4:59:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cg08il0b1f@news2.newsguy.com>,
Robert Trosper <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote:
>Um - what about that price issue with analog CRT front projection? I
>haven't seen an affordable unit ...

Used CRTs with good tubes (rebuilt, with new VDC glass, or new OEM) from
reputable sellers (Curt Palme, Etech Video, Hammerhead Tech, PSI) compete with
digitals priced $1K-$30K for both price and performance when combined with
moderate screen sizes.

At the low end you have projectors like the Sony 1251 or Barco Data 800
resolving 1068 x 600p on an 80x45" screen; at the top end a pair of stacked
G90s resolving 1920x1080p on a 144x80" screen.

Unlike digitals there are no visible projection artifacts at reasonable (
1.5 screen widths matching the THX suggestion for the last row in a commercial
theater) or even high subtended fields of vision (good anamorphic DVD scope
transfers look great at 1.25 screen widths) and blacks are as dark as your
room.

The real cost is size (my three eyed monster measures 40x30x15"), weight (225
pounds), and installation ease or cost.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
September 14, 2004 3:27:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 17 Aug 2004 04:06:19 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>IN 5 years the landscape may be different, but for now - the last hurrah of
>CRT is upon us!!

Such as, perhaps, the arrival of digital ink technology.
!