Home theater... who's got what?

[Sam_Stone]

First - Rik, your reasoning about having more expensive leading to buying more movies is equally false. There is no connection between what equipment you have and how many movies you own. I merely stated that I (having a limited budget) prefer to have a good, inexpensive setup, to have more money to spend on movies. Those that can afford both are lucky, but having a super-duper home theatre or a crappy one bears no relationship on how many movies one buys.

I agree with this completely. You don’t need a mega-setup to enjoy movies. Especially if your taste is more towards intellectual fare than just explosions and shootups.

Secondly, and more important. I’ve worked with sound for over 20 years. I can flatly state that most people will here little or no change with a CD/DVD being played on a setup costing $1000 or $2000.

Do you mean the sound on a $1000 setup will be as good as the sound on a $2000 setup? If so, I disagree. A $1000 setup means maybe $500 spent on speakers. If you are installing five speakers, that means you’re going to get pretty lousy quality.

A $2000 setup is pretty much the baseline for high end sound. With that much money, you can get a good quality low-end receiver, a progressive scan DVD player, And something like an entry-level Paradigm surround speaker package, which will sound excellent.

The curve really starts to flatten out after that. A good, well designed $2000 stereo can be hard to distinguish from haphazardly build $5000 stereo, and the difference is even smaller between $5,000 and $50,000. The ‘sweet spot’ for bang-for-the-buck is right around that $2,000 mark, in my opinion.

Even dedicated audiophiles have problems hearing the dif between speaker cables.

There is no evidence that they can hear ANY difference. High-end speaker cables are the biggest rip-off in the audio business.

It is my firm belief that most of the things are psychological. A lot of people spend a lot of money on expensive speakers and receivers, but do nothing with the room, where they place it all.

Absolutely! In terms of effect on sonic performance, the biggest factors, in order, are 1) the room, 2) the speakers, 3) The amplification, 4) improvements in the digital sources (better CD players, etc) and 5) cabling. And there’s almost an order of magnitude difference between all of them. The room is 10 times more important than the speakers. The speakers are 10 times more important than the amp, etc.

For those on a budget who have a current system, the best way to a quick improvement in quality is to improve your room and the speaker setup. Put the speakers where they belong, put some absorptive material at the first reflection point on your walls, get a sound level meter and balance out your channels, etc. Find out if your room is too dead or too reflective, and do something about it. Put some things to diffuse the sound at the back of the room. There are lots of web sites out there describing this stuff.

The same goes for improving your picture quality… TV’s are often shipped with the contrast and color controls cranked way up, so they look better in bright showrooms. The cheapest way to improve your picture quality is to go and get a DVD called “Video Essentials” or one of the other calibration DVDs on the market, sit down, and adjust your TV set properly.

Most modern DVDs and CDs are good at cranking out loud noices that sound impressive. A sub under the couch to rumble one’s behind while watching the latest Jerry Bruckheimer megaflick, is of course cool. But when we come to dynamics in sound, it’s simply not good enough.

I agree. When I listen to music, all that stuff gets turned off, and I listen to the front speakers only, with all the processing crap turned off.

That will change when I get into SACD or DVD-Audio. They are starting to record and remix a lot of music in this format, and it’s the best sonic reproduction method we’ve ever seen. An SACD or DVD-A recording will blow your 1/4" tape out of the water.

[RikWriter]

*Originally posted by The Gaspode *
**RikWriter and Number Six.

Sorry it took a while to get back to you.
**

You really didn’t have to, given the nature of your original reply.

**
First - Rik, your reasoning about having more expensive leading to buying more movies is equally false. There is no connection between what equipment you have and how many movies you own.
**

You’re totally wrong. I have been inspired to buy more DVD movies as I have purchased more high-quality equipment. Since I have just one example to counter your blanket statement, your statement is falsified. I know that in at least one case buying more expensive equipment HAS led to buying more DVDs.

**
I merely stated that I (having a limited budget) prefer to have a good, inexpensive setup, to have more money to spend on movies. Those that can afford both are lucky, but having a super-duper home theatre or a crappy one bears no relationship on how many movies one buys.
**

And of course you’re siezing on the least important part of your statement and my reply, ignoring your rude comments about people who choose to spend more money than you on equipment. Not that I blame you…I’m sure you somewhat embarrassed.

**
Secondly, and more important. I’ve worked with sound for over 20 years. I can flatly state that most people will here little or no change with a CD/DVD being played on a setup costing $1000 or $2000. Even dedicated audiophiles have problems hearing the dif between speaker cables. It is my firm belief that most of the things are psychological. A lot of people spend a lot of money on expensive speakers and receivers, but do nothing with the room, where they place it all. And even if a home theatres does enhance the experience of watching a DVD at home, the technology behind DTS, Dolby Surround and all that, is simply still inferior to good old HiFi and playing the music from a 1/4" tape at high speed. Most modern DVDs and CDs are good at cranking out loud noices that sound impressive. A sub under the couch to rumble one’s behind while watching the latest Jerry Bruckheimer megaflick, is of course cool. But when we come to dynamics in sound, it’s simply not good enough.

If you’re happy with what you have and don’t mind spending the money, who am I to argue. But as with arguing about Porsche over Ferraris and comparing to a Chevy truck, I still think it’s all more in the mind than in the ears (for sound). Each vehicle will take you where you want to go. No one really needs a Ferrari. It’s really a stupid car, from a logical POV. But some people just want to have them. It’s not just about getting you somewhere, it’s something else.
And in that, I think it’s the same with home theatre systems. For some people, it’s just not about the sound, it’s a hobby and a passion. **

I suppose I should trust your anonymous assurances rather than listen to experts in the field who have written quantified analyses of different sound systems. But your whole point is moot, as you’re debating against an argument I never made. I never said you should drop $2000 into a sound system. My own is around $1000 including the receiver.
YOUR point (which you’re doing your best to bury now) was that YOU decided to own a small TV and 4 speakers with no subwoofer and that anyone who bought more than that was wasting money and trying to win a dick-comparing contest.

Your exact words:
**I can’t help but get the impression that home theatres are the new way of comparing dick sizes **

If you don’t understand why people took offense, then I can’t help you. But you’re wrong on all counts and frankly I don’t believe that you’ve worked with contemporary sound equipment, because if you had you wouldn’t be making such inaccurate and inflammatory statements.

[Charlie_Tan]

You’re right, RikWriter, I haven’t worked with sound erquipment for a year. Last time was with ProTools on a Mac, and that was last July.

The English word ‘you’ can be misleading at times. In the second reply, I used it as ‘one’, meaning ‘it doesn’t follow that owning a more expensive system, leads one to buy more movies.’ If it has done that for you, that’s one thing, but your blanket statement in your second reply:

I personally have over 250 DVDs…so obviously having higher-end equipment ENCOURAGES you to buy more movies rather than the reverse

Then, for the comparing of dick size. I stand behind that statement. Most home theatre systems are sold pre-packaged, with lousy speakers and receivers with a lot of blinking led-lights. Trading up from the old compact stereo, and hooking up the sub will make most people who buy this crap really impressed. I doubt that there are many people who, blinfolded, will notice any difference between speakers from Polk, JBL, Cerwin-Vega or B&W.
However, as with cars on the driveway, golf clubs, tv’s or any other status symbols, we soon enter a realm where psychology factors more than the actual quality of the product. If it hadn’t been for a fantastic design, Bang&Olufsen would move many units. Their stuff looks great though, and for some people it’s more important how these things look, than how they sound.
And when you invite a neighbour or a buddy, showing off you great new system is part of it all.

You say I have a small tv - well, I traded up from a 20" to a 32", so I think it’s pretty big. At least it takes up a hell of a lot of room. I also made a decision what I want to spend my money on, and when I checked how much I could spend on toys this year, I made the decisions according to that.

I never did point out any single poster here, I just made an idle remark that most people will not notice the difference between something costing $1k or $2k. Maybe I didn’t pick the right figures. Read that as $2k and $4k. So why spend the money? My take on it is that it’s the same reason a person will spend more money on a bigger BBQ, a flashier car or fancier golf clubs, i.e. to gain respect and awe from peers, i.e. to compare dick size. It’s a common enough behaviour among men, and something I myself have gladly participated in from time to time.

Notice the low frequency of women posting in this thread? That should give you a clue.

You, RikWriter, on the other hand, have resorted to ad hominem against me. Maybe I ruffled some feathers?

[RikWriter]

*Originally posted by The Gaspode *
**Then, for the comparing of dick size. I stand behind that statement. **

Then you’re still a rude, belligerant know-it-all and I have nothing else to say to you and will read nothing more from you.