Frankly, I think home theater is the hype of the decade.
Here's why.
Presumably the criteria for audio reproduction with a stereo system is to recreate the sound of a live performance as accurately as possible.
It follows then that the criteria for home theater is to reproduce the experience enjoyed in the seat of a reasonably well equipped theater.
My home theater setup is as follows:
TV
VHS
Pre-amp
2 Satellites/2 Woofers bi-amped
Center channel is speaker in TV (L+R sum) and helpful because the included listening angle is about 80 degrees!
With the exception that I am missing some of the surround sound effects, which are of questionable value in the first place, I can't tell the difference between the presentation of the audio portion of my system and that of the theater's. In fact, in some respects my system is better.
With VHS, all you get is a stereo signal.
So, what exactly is gained with 5.1 channels of information from a DVD, processed by a complicated set of algorithms and shuttled through a multi-channel amplifier and five speakers?
I maintain that from conception, the advantage of home theater is solely for the profit of audio equipment manufactuers who needed to boost sagging sales - once the CD became firmly entrenched there was no encore in sight.
Home theater with it's equipment and attendant brohaha was a solution to a reproduction problem that didn't even exist.
I bought a DVD player a couple of years ago but never hooked it up so I'm going out on a limb here but I'll bet a dollar to a donut that a DVD will not sound as good as VHS on a regular stereo system - intentionally. I must try this someday.
To add insult to injury for the general population, the home theater systems that most people can work into their budget sound considerably worse than my system.
I'm not saying that the commercial offerings of home theater systems can be avoided. After all, we are being locked in. VHS is slowly disappearing from the shelves of stores and rental places so ultimately it's DVD or nothing.
I would be interested in your comments on this.
Here's why.
Presumably the criteria for audio reproduction with a stereo system is to recreate the sound of a live performance as accurately as possible.
It follows then that the criteria for home theater is to reproduce the experience enjoyed in the seat of a reasonably well equipped theater.
My home theater setup is as follows:
TV
VHS
Pre-amp
2 Satellites/2 Woofers bi-amped
Center channel is speaker in TV (L+R sum) and helpful because the included listening angle is about 80 degrees!
With the exception that I am missing some of the surround sound effects, which are of questionable value in the first place, I can't tell the difference between the presentation of the audio portion of my system and that of the theater's. In fact, in some respects my system is better.
With VHS, all you get is a stereo signal.
So, what exactly is gained with 5.1 channels of information from a DVD, processed by a complicated set of algorithms and shuttled through a multi-channel amplifier and five speakers?
I maintain that from conception, the advantage of home theater is solely for the profit of audio equipment manufactuers who needed to boost sagging sales - once the CD became firmly entrenched there was no encore in sight.
Home theater with it's equipment and attendant brohaha was a solution to a reproduction problem that didn't even exist.
I bought a DVD player a couple of years ago but never hooked it up so I'm going out on a limb here but I'll bet a dollar to a donut that a DVD will not sound as good as VHS on a regular stereo system - intentionally. I must try this someday.
To add insult to injury for the general population, the home theater systems that most people can work into their budget sound considerably worse than my system.
I'm not saying that the commercial offerings of home theater systems can be avoided. After all, we are being locked in. VHS is slowly disappearing from the shelves of stores and rental places so ultimately it's DVD or nothing.
I would be interested in your comments on this.
I use stereo for music and movies. There are some arguments for HT 5.1 (or 5.2, whatever it takes
) if you have the entire package, including a large enough room to get the full effect of the Enterprise coming from behind and passing over your head.
To integrate a stereo system for music into a HT 5.1 system without compromising the stereo system sound would a bit difficult and very expensive.
I’ll stick with stereo.
) if you have the entire package, including a large enough room to get the full effect of the Enterprise coming from behind and passing over your head.To integrate a stereo system for music into a HT 5.1 system without compromising the stereo system sound would a bit difficult and very expensive.
I’ll stick with stereo.
roddyama said:I use stereo for music and movies. There are some arguments for HT 5.1 (or 5.2, whatever it takes
To integrate a stereo system for music into a HT 5.1 system without compromising the stereo system sound would a bit difficult and very expensive.
I’ll stick with stereo.
That's why I have my 2 channel stereo separate with the HT 5.1 channls. Unless you have all mono block power amps, excellent pre-processor that can decode AC3 and DTS yet performs as good as your 2 channel preamp.
How many of us actually sit on stage with the performers when they are playing anyway? It can be rather disturbing with people who used to soundstage and three D type of stereo imaging.
Having said that, Bill I think you should hook up the DVD and get some DTS DVDs and compare it with the VHS. The way AC3 and DTS having their discrete channel recording is pretty impressive. But lets try not get into the DD and DTS and or digital and analog contest here.
Chris
millwood said:
I have had a problem with real centre channels... switch it in an the image collapses front-to-back. Much better with a virtual centre. Surrounds are nice for movies, they can be somewhat distracting for music, but a lot of the software is still at the "ping-pong" stage of development.
My front mains are wired so that they are independent of the HT except that for movie watching they accept input from the HT processor.
dave
If you already know about 5.1 standards, then skip to the section labelled "For the experienced..."
For movies, AC3 and DTS are now the standard for DVD because there is better separation of the surround channels vs. Prologic 5.1. And because the THX standards are so improved over past implementation, multi-channel SACD is now using roughly the same post DAC implementations and specifying 5 full range speakers instead of 2 full range and 3 satellite sizes. If we remember that SACD stereo is supposed to transduce 20-100Khz and at least 20-50Khz, that is a pretty stringent standard. (Yes, I believe the the standard is only 20-20KHz for 5.1 SACD, but cannot recall with certainty.)
Tomlinson Holman has been the guru of surround since Hafler in the 70's and Dolby in the 80's. His work AES related work has (so far) been the basis of most of the recent standards. You'll have to do some Googling, but it's all there.
http://www.tmhlabs.com/research/research.html
It should also be noted that 5.1 is completely unnecessary for listening to material recorded in stereo and can even destroy the presentation originally intended by the mixing engineer. With the right decoding, it is useful, but not needed for material that is stereo music with some surround encoding. There is a boatload of material on what matrix system is compatible with another so, sorry, yet more googling.
Finally, I think it is important to say that cheap 5.1 doesn't come close to even mid-fi stereo for soundstage, object placement and realism. It is fairly common for the quality of the analog stages to be the limiting factor in most consumer setups. And, they will continue to be until consumers get some discerning ears.
For the experienced,
nothing beats a high quality 5.1 decoder or processor. Most HT receivers at the US$750 level have decent processors, but don't have matching analog output until about the US$1500 price bracket. (IMO, as you can tell, it is not the processing, but the analog stages that need to be improved. Not A vs D but quality of both should match.)
Most pro-sumers make the mistake of getting a DVD player that has all sorts of features (DTS, 24/96, etc.) and then hooking it up to their HT receiver digitally. At that point, all those great specs are lost because the receiver is only 16/48 (or whatever) and has really noisy and distorted (pre)amps. They just bought this really expensive transport and they didn't know it. And, it probably doesn't have better jitter specs than the cheap DVD's. (Of course, the video is better, but that is not at issue here.)
This is why I bought the Sony NC-650V. It is an SACD/DVD/CD 5-disc changer. Since the analog output stages are shared, they have to be high enough quality for the SACD. They are not ES-series quality but way better than practically everything in the same price range up to about double the price. I not only get the wonderful analog outs, but 6-channels of analog output. With decent amplification and speakers, which is cheaper than any comparative HT set-up, I get HT at a mid-fi price. If I play a CD only the L/R mains give me sound. Too bad it is no longer in production. I think they still make the NC-700 series with 5.1 analog outputs.
Source: Sony NC-650V
L/R mains: Yorkville YSM1-p active studio monitors
L/R rear: Tannoy Proto-J studio monitors/Marantz 1530
Vol ctrl: Teac 2A 4-buss mixer
Finally, I think speaker placement is critical. In each SACD 5.1 case, there is usually a little diagram that shows the usual equilateral triangle with the addition of a circle. The ideal location of the rear surrounds is supposed to be at about 120deg relative to the centre channel with all speakers right on the circle for equal distance to your head. This ideal 5.1 set-up may not coincide with your ideal stereo set-up due to room reflections, bass boost, phase cancellations, etc. I believe this is the greatest problem when comparing an audiophile HT in both modes.
Dave: If you are having problems with your centre channel, it might be because you don't have the required delay for the surround channels. On any 2.0 matrix decoded to 5.1, there must be a delay of about 15ms total for rear channels. Without it, the brain is not fooled into thinking that the surround channels are behind. If the stage collapses relative to the LR mains, then you may require a digital delay (1 ms / foot) as a result of the distance from listener to speaker. I find that DVD requires a centre to locate dialogue properly at the screen. Even with my virtual centre there is a lag of about .25ms between the mouth movement and sound and I cannot compensate with my 1ms delay resolution.
Bill: In a nutshell, the advantage of 5.1 discrete over 2.0 matrix is the channel separation. And this is assuming that the quality of the recordings are the same, yielding the same low noise, and frequency range.
ensen.
PS: I try to be helpful and for me it is unhelpful to be incomplete. Thus, I tend to be pretty verbose so my apologies for any annoyances.
For movies, AC3 and DTS are now the standard for DVD because there is better separation of the surround channels vs. Prologic 5.1. And because the THX standards are so improved over past implementation, multi-channel SACD is now using roughly the same post DAC implementations and specifying 5 full range speakers instead of 2 full range and 3 satellite sizes. If we remember that SACD stereo is supposed to transduce 20-100Khz and at least 20-50Khz, that is a pretty stringent standard. (Yes, I believe the the standard is only 20-20KHz for 5.1 SACD, but cannot recall with certainty.)
Tomlinson Holman has been the guru of surround since Hafler in the 70's and Dolby in the 80's. His work AES related work has (so far) been the basis of most of the recent standards. You'll have to do some Googling, but it's all there.
http://www.tmhlabs.com/research/research.html
It should also be noted that 5.1 is completely unnecessary for listening to material recorded in stereo and can even destroy the presentation originally intended by the mixing engineer. With the right decoding, it is useful, but not needed for material that is stereo music with some surround encoding. There is a boatload of material on what matrix system is compatible with another so, sorry, yet more googling.
Finally, I think it is important to say that cheap 5.1 doesn't come close to even mid-fi stereo for soundstage, object placement and realism. It is fairly common for the quality of the analog stages to be the limiting factor in most consumer setups. And, they will continue to be until consumers get some discerning ears.
For the experienced,
nothing beats a high quality 5.1 decoder or processor. Most HT receivers at the US$750 level have decent processors, but don't have matching analog output until about the US$1500 price bracket. (IMO, as you can tell, it is not the processing, but the analog stages that need to be improved. Not A vs D but quality of both should match.)
Most pro-sumers make the mistake of getting a DVD player that has all sorts of features (DTS, 24/96, etc.) and then hooking it up to their HT receiver digitally. At that point, all those great specs are lost because the receiver is only 16/48 (or whatever) and has really noisy and distorted (pre)amps. They just bought this really expensive transport and they didn't know it. And, it probably doesn't have better jitter specs than the cheap DVD's. (Of course, the video is better, but that is not at issue here.)
This is why I bought the Sony NC-650V. It is an SACD/DVD/CD 5-disc changer. Since the analog output stages are shared, they have to be high enough quality for the SACD. They are not ES-series quality but way better than practically everything in the same price range up to about double the price. I not only get the wonderful analog outs, but 6-channels of analog output. With decent amplification and speakers, which is cheaper than any comparative HT set-up, I get HT at a mid-fi price. If I play a CD only the L/R mains give me sound. Too bad it is no longer in production. I think they still make the NC-700 series with 5.1 analog outputs.
Source: Sony NC-650V
L/R mains: Yorkville YSM1-p active studio monitors
L/R rear: Tannoy Proto-J studio monitors/Marantz 1530
Vol ctrl: Teac 2A 4-buss mixer
Finally, I think speaker placement is critical. In each SACD 5.1 case, there is usually a little diagram that shows the usual equilateral triangle with the addition of a circle. The ideal location of the rear surrounds is supposed to be at about 120deg relative to the centre channel with all speakers right on the circle for equal distance to your head. This ideal 5.1 set-up may not coincide with your ideal stereo set-up due to room reflections, bass boost, phase cancellations, etc. I believe this is the greatest problem when comparing an audiophile HT in both modes.
Dave: If you are having problems with your centre channel, it might be because you don't have the required delay for the surround channels. On any 2.0 matrix decoded to 5.1, there must be a delay of about 15ms total for rear channels. Without it, the brain is not fooled into thinking that the surround channels are behind. If the stage collapses relative to the LR mains, then you may require a digital delay (1 ms / foot) as a result of the distance from listener to speaker. I find that DVD requires a centre to locate dialogue properly at the screen. Even with my virtual centre there is a lag of about .25ms between the mouth movement and sound and I cannot compensate with my 1ms delay resolution.
Bill: In a nutshell, the advantage of 5.1 discrete over 2.0 matrix is the channel separation. And this is assuming that the quality of the recordings are the same, yielding the same low noise, and frequency range.
ensen.PS: I try to be helpful and for me it is unhelpful to be incomplete. Thus, I tend to be pretty verbose so my apologies for any annoyances.
Dave,
Does the CC have a LPF at about 7Khz? If not, higher freq which are highly directional all get heard down the middle, so it might really flatten the image.
I think that is also my problem. Since my DVD is full freq analog output, I think I need to put in the LPF in order to put in the CC.
ensen.
Does the CC have a LPF at about 7Khz? If not, higher freq which are highly directional all get heard down the middle, so it might really flatten the image.
I think that is also my problem. Since my DVD is full freq analog output, I think I need to put in the LPF in order to put in the CC.
ensen.
purplepeople:
You seem to know what you are talking about but I think you are missing my point.
If I, and everyone else, can get 98% of what the THX certified theater presents to the audience with a relatively modest VHS/stereo home system then what's the point? Note that the comparison I make with my home system is to the REAL DEAL, not a $5000+ home theater system.
The missing 2% are really just localization effects artificially created and implanted to wow the ever gullible consumer into parting with their hard earned cash. They appear in relatively few films and fail to have the importance of other more significant factors in the reproduction chain.
I stand my position, "they" are just trying to sock it to us.
Unfortunately they are going to succeed. They just got $1200 bucks from some friends of mine. What did my friends get? Well, the BEST part was a single 8" woofer! Imagine that, a whole 8".
You seem to know what you are talking about but I think you are missing my point.
If I, and everyone else, can get 98% of what the THX certified theater presents to the audience with a relatively modest VHS/stereo home system then what's the point? Note that the comparison I make with my home system is to the REAL DEAL, not a $5000+ home theater system.
The missing 2% are really just localization effects artificially created and implanted to wow the ever gullible consumer into parting with their hard earned cash. They appear in relatively few films and fail to have the importance of other more significant factors in the reproduction chain.
I stand my position, "they" are just trying to sock it to us.
Unfortunately they are going to succeed. They just got $1200 bucks from some friends of mine. What did my friends get? Well, the BEST part was a single 8" woofer! Imagine that, a whole 8".
THX is quite a stringent standard so I doubt that anybody gets to 98% at home, even with extra $5000, if they buy the usual set-ups. To do it right, you need to buy the equipment, modify the walls, ceiling. Get the delays set to fractions of millisec and level match all the speakers. The reason you may not notice better in the theatre is that the rest of the audience is also there, eating popcorn, whispering, screaming, etc. (Or, the theatre has messed with levels and should be reported to Lucasfilm.)
I won't be messing with the room, other than laying down a rug, but at least the gear will be good without the audiophile price.
Anyway, trying showing up to a film when there are very few people, like when the next blockbuster opens. See Matrix on the T3 weekend. I do this all the time, it prevents having to line up and I can usual get near perfect seats, which in theory is in line with about 1/3 screen height from top of screen. The digital delays are kind of set just right here and there is no unfortunate craning of neck.
All that said, I agree that the HT manufacturers are making a killing. But, really, they have to, in order to make back their R&D costs.
Warning: R&D rant (I'm in R&D)
Just look at the overall effort just for Peter Daniel to make his Amp-1 GC into a ready-to-market product. Let's say that it took only 1000 hours to design and prototype. Doesn't seem like much, even at $20/hour to pay Peter. But that's on the surface. Parts are negligle so we won't bother with them. The aluminum and plastic case prototyping. Let's estimate 50 hours of time on a CNC and add up.
$20,000 Design labour
$ 4,000 Prototype machine time
But that's not all. If you order now, you also get to pay for rent. But not residential, let's go with commercial real estate and cheap for $5 / sq. ft per year. So based on a shop of 200 sq.ft. and the minimum 1-year lease, that's another $1000. But now, budget in the 500 hours of consulting that everyone did at a cheap $50/hour, we get another $25,000.
Now imagine that you have outsource manufacture of the PCBs to a contract fab. You can't order just one... no, the minimum is 1000 boards at $10 each.
So now we are at $60K and we still don't have a sub-contract for the cases. Etc., etc., etc.....
End rant.
Where I take issue with the manufacturers is that they are not only selling stuff for lots of money and profit, but they are selling crap and marketing it as the great stuff. And it is all the fault of the consumer for buying into it for the past 20 years.
For another $15 in quality analog components, even basic HT could have decent SNR. Amps don't need to have all this distortion. Just look at all the guys who have swapped opamps for $10 and discovered a whole new sound of silence.
I'll happily pay the price of admission if the actual stuff we get even resembles the prototypes that come from R&D. With Peter Daniel, the R&D makes it to the dealership. No shortcuts. But the various electronics firms look for ways to cut the production cost. Miss a resistor, save a penny. Use a 741 instead of a 5532 and (almost) nobody will notice. Save another 20 cents.
That's what really burns me up, and I'm guessing that is the root of most of the frustration on this forum.
ensen.
I won't be messing with the room, other than laying down a rug, but at least the gear will be good without the audiophile price.
Anyway, trying showing up to a film when there are very few people, like when the next blockbuster opens. See Matrix on the T3 weekend. I do this all the time, it prevents having to line up and I can usual get near perfect seats, which in theory is in line with about 1/3 screen height from top of screen. The digital delays are kind of set just right here and there is no unfortunate craning of neck.
All that said, I agree that the HT manufacturers are making a killing. But, really, they have to, in order to make back their R&D costs.
Warning: R&D rant (I'm in R&D)
Just look at the overall effort just for Peter Daniel to make his Amp-1 GC into a ready-to-market product. Let's say that it took only 1000 hours to design and prototype. Doesn't seem like much, even at $20/hour to pay Peter. But that's on the surface. Parts are negligle so we won't bother with them. The aluminum and plastic case prototyping. Let's estimate 50 hours of time on a CNC and add up.
$20,000 Design labour
$ 4,000 Prototype machine time
But that's not all. If you order now, you also get to pay for rent. But not residential, let's go with commercial real estate and cheap for $5 / sq. ft per year. So based on a shop of 200 sq.ft. and the minimum 1-year lease, that's another $1000. But now, budget in the 500 hours of consulting that everyone did at a cheap $50/hour, we get another $25,000.
Now imagine that you have outsource manufacture of the PCBs to a contract fab. You can't order just one... no, the minimum is 1000 boards at $10 each.
So now we are at $60K and we still don't have a sub-contract for the cases. Etc., etc., etc.....
End rant.
Where I take issue with the manufacturers is that they are not only selling stuff for lots of money and profit, but they are selling crap and marketing it as the great stuff. And it is all the fault of the consumer for buying into it for the past 20 years.
For another $15 in quality analog components, even basic HT could have decent SNR. Amps don't need to have all this distortion. Just look at all the guys who have swapped opamps for $10 and discovered a whole new sound of silence.
I'll happily pay the price of admission if the actual stuff we get even resembles the prototypes that come from R&D. With Peter Daniel, the R&D makes it to the dealership. No shortcuts. But the various electronics firms look for ways to cut the production cost. Miss a resistor, save a penny. Use a 741 instead of a 5532 and (almost) nobody will notice. Save another 20 cents.
That's what really burns me up, and I'm guessing that is the root of most of the frustration on this forum.
ensen.Maybe I am just another one of those suckers, but I went into HT
knowing the costs and did so willingly. And the end result to me
and the numerous others that have been in the room was well
worth the price of admission. To say a VCR and 2Channel Rig can
compare? That's an insult to those with properly set up and
calibrated 5.1 + setups. You may be able to reproduce the front
sound field and even with a phantom center you may produce
a fairly decent front stage but those missing 2% rear effects mean
a great deal in the grand experiance.
I don't listen to 2Ch in 5.1 and I don't watch movies in 2.1. I listen
or watch everything in it's original format and my HT and 2Ch are
seperated for that reason.
Honestly talking money wise I didn't spend a fortune on my HT.
I have a $1050.00 Reciever and the matching seperate 2 channel
Power Amp that was another $400.00 (meant to add on for 7.1
but I instead use the Receiver as a Pre/Pro). I got deals on all of
the speakers not paying anywhere near retail and I also bought
the big TV when Monkey Wards went under and drove home with
a 3K monitor for less than $2K. So all in all it's not "that" expensive
but the joy it provides is priceless and it's better than every local
theater I have ever been in!
knowing the costs and did so willingly. And the end result to me
and the numerous others that have been in the room was well
worth the price of admission. To say a VCR and 2Channel Rig can
compare? That's an insult to those with properly set up and
calibrated 5.1 + setups. You may be able to reproduce the front
sound field and even with a phantom center you may produce
a fairly decent front stage but those missing 2% rear effects mean
a great deal in the grand experiance.
I don't listen to 2Ch in 5.1 and I don't watch movies in 2.1. I listen
or watch everything in it's original format and my HT and 2Ch are
seperated for that reason.
Honestly talking money wise I didn't spend a fortune on my HT.
I have a $1050.00 Reciever and the matching seperate 2 channel
Power Amp that was another $400.00 (meant to add on for 7.1
but I instead use the Receiver as a Pre/Pro). I got deals on all of
the speakers not paying anywhere near retail and I also bought
the big TV when Monkey Wards went under and drove home with
a 3K monitor for less than $2K. So all in all it's not "that" expensive
but the joy it provides is priceless and it's better than every local
theater I have ever been in!
Brett D. said:
Now we're getting somewhere.
So it seems to stack up like this . . . .
I've never really heard a good home theater system because:
a) nobody I know has one.
b) there isn't a decent HT dealer in my city (which explains a).
and
the presentation in my local theaters is way off target.
I can accept that and it would explain why I think that my VHS thru a stereo system sounds so good.
Hi Brett,
For me, the situation is horrible. You see, I live in a small city with about 10 THX certified theatres (in the metro area). It puts the non-rated theatres to shame, even within the same complex.
I won't even bother with the mom and pop neighbourhood theatre as the reflections can be heard when I clap my hands.
In fact, it's come to a point where I only watch the really big special effects blockbusters with cool sound effects and folies at the theatre because my own home is better than the non-THX rooms. And that's with a 20-inch FST.
In film, they teach you that sound is the trick that actually suspends disbelief (or else animation wouldn't be so huge). But, the directors get all press so the public doesn't stop to think that the sounds are what has made the subliminal impact. This was made very clear to me when I saw a film at a festival where they used non-corresponding sounds with specific images. Clapping when people were walking. Gulps when filling a gas tank. It was great to be able to decorrelate eyes from ears. The experience was so exclusively sensory that it became obvious that the plot was banal and formulaic.
ensen.
For me, the situation is horrible. You see, I live in a small city with about 10 THX certified theatres (in the metro area). It puts the non-rated theatres to shame, even within the same complex.
I won't even bother with the mom and pop neighbourhood theatre as the reflections can be heard when I clap my hands.
In fact, it's come to a point where I only watch the really big special effects blockbusters with cool sound effects and folies at the theatre because my own home is better than the non-THX rooms. And that's with a 20-inch FST.
In film, they teach you that sound is the trick that actually suspends disbelief (or else animation wouldn't be so huge). But, the directors get all press so the public doesn't stop to think that the sounds are what has made the subliminal impact. This was made very clear to me when I saw a film at a festival where they used non-corresponding sounds with specific images. Clapping when people were walking. Gulps when filling a gas tank. It was great to be able to decorrelate eyes from ears. The experience was so exclusively sensory that it became obvious that the plot was banal and formulaic.
ensen.Personally I think a well-done discrete 5.1 (or more) movie soundtrack is a dramatic step up from 2-channel audio or matrix surround. There are some movies (e.g. Tron) which are terribly mastered and would be better in stereo, but most benefit from multiple channels. I tend to run my surround speakers about -3dB relative to the front channels...this helps a lot in terms of irritating localization to the rear. (They are also raised slightly above the listening position)
I would never listen to music in 5.1 but I'm definitely a fan of discrete digital for HT.
I would never listen to music in 5.1 but I'm definitely a fan of discrete digital for HT.
purplepeople said:
At least 2... i rarely go to the cinema anymore... a DVD costs less & the popcorn is better at home.
I do hope someday we get to build an HD3D theatre.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
You can be sure the sound will be good.
dave
Bill,
I can understand your dilemma honestly. There really isn't much
around where I live short of going into Pittsburgh which is a 50
minute drive. Also the local theaters are of such low quality with
none of them being THX Certified.
I honestly can say the last time I was in a theater was umm let's
see..... Mission To Mars yep that's the last movie I watched in a
theater.
I have a fairly decent sized room that I have treated carefuly with
placement of wall hangings and such that reflections are very
well controlled. All channels are level matched with an SPL Meter
all speakers are carefuly aimed with a laser etc.
I get so much enjoyment out of the HT that even if we had a THX
Certified theater it's doubtful I would be "that" impressed.
Considering that I can acheive more than 116Db @ 12' in my
livingroom without any clipping or distorsion it's plenty loud ....
(I never listen that loud.. I do appreciate my hearing but head
room is a good thing)
As for VHS... I gave away all my bought VHS Tapes and my VCR is
just sitting in my rack unplugged. After watching DVD's on my 61"
which isn't even an HDTV I can't bear to watch a VHS... DVHS or
SVHS may be another story but I am not about to spend on the
order of $700.00 dollars for those players and then buying tapes
because the technology is practicaly dead since DVD has taken
over with consumers.
I can understand your dilemma honestly. There really isn't much
around where I live short of going into Pittsburgh which is a 50
minute drive. Also the local theaters are of such low quality with
none of them being THX Certified.
I honestly can say the last time I was in a theater was umm let's
see..... Mission To Mars yep that's the last movie I watched in a
theater.
I have a fairly decent sized room that I have treated carefuly with
placement of wall hangings and such that reflections are very
well controlled. All channels are level matched with an SPL Meter
all speakers are carefuly aimed with a laser etc.
I get so much enjoyment out of the HT that even if we had a THX
Certified theater it's doubtful I would be "that" impressed.
Considering that I can acheive more than 116Db @ 12' in my
livingroom without any clipping or distorsion it's plenty loud ....
(I never listen that loud.. I do appreciate my hearing but head
room is a good thing)
As for VHS... I gave away all my bought VHS Tapes and my VCR is
just sitting in my rack unplugged. After watching DVD's on my 61"
which isn't even an HDTV I can't bear to watch a VHS... DVHS or
SVHS may be another story but I am not about to spend on the
order of $700.00 dollars for those players and then buying tapes
because the technology is practicaly dead since DVD has taken
over with consumers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.