|   Disenchanted With Home Theater: the end is near | GreyMark
Jul 25, 2002 12:25 PM | | I shouldn't have done it.
Bored yet again with my HT setup, I decided to audition a run of the mill Parasound preamp/separates stereo set-up and...Oh...My...God!!!
Granted you don't buy HT receivers to listen to music, but the difference is really stark. For those of you that are wondering about my point of reference, I've used Onkyo 797 which was swapped for a Denon 4800, which was swapped for a 3802. I went back to a 3802 when I realized that all I needed was a proven performer with the basic features.
Plus, IMO there aren't too many movies out there that are worth seeing once, let alone a second and third time. And there's nothing on the horizon. It made no sense to keep upgrading my HT setup when I would probably only use it when a blockbuster movie was released, like "BlackHawk Down." (Awesome movie!)
On the other hand, there are songs that you could listen to a million times over, and for that, you want the best. Don't ask me how many times I've listened to my old Fleetwood Mac, Eagles and Dire Straits stuff, to say nothing of Miles, Bob James and EWF. Too many times, and I never get tired. Not only that, but good music springs eternal.
So with that, the death knell for HT has been sounded. Not even THX Ultra to the Nth degree will save it. Guys and gals, it's been real. |
| GreyMark old Buddy.... | nick4433
Jul 25, 2002 1:12 PM | | You should have never heard the Parasounds or never downgraded to the 3802 from a 4800. I recently bought a Proton pre/amp combo and sold my 4802 and believe me, the sound I get for 2 channel music and HT is way better than the 4802. Granted that the 4802 had more bells and whistles but I had not heard imaging this good in my living room before. Seperates just bring out all the details be it music or HT. Not only have I heard my CDs over and over again but also watched movies like Rock, JP, Pearl Harbor, etc. all over again.
I knew that I would be very impressed with 2 channel music but HT? Now that was a friggin bonus! Nowadays I just chuckle everytime I read a post about so and so receiver being good for HT and music. |
| Music and Home Theater on separates | kelsci
Jul 25, 2002 1:58 PM | | Nick; Although you do not see Proton Equipment commonly for sale, I do not doubt your word on the quality you hear from these separates vs the high price Denon. As far as movies in stereo sound, too bad they do not have laserdisc for your system. The closest laserdisc sound I heard on a DVD was the Dolby Surround track on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. About the best mixdown disc would IMO be THE MATRIX.
I believe that there are some HT receivers out there that do a good job on music. Three that I have heard are the Yammie 2095 and the Sherwoods 6090 and 6095 receivers. The Yammie images and sounds rather good in stereo. The above Sherwoods also sound quite good in stereo. The Sherwoods have a Hall 1 DSP that works well if you tone down the rear surrounds. This DSP allows the center channel to function without any "Dolbyized" type of sound. In essense the Sherwood gives you a great 3 channel frontal image.
If your Proton separates were sitting in my living room, they would be hooked up to my 5 channel passive Dynaquad system. Currently, my speakers are hooked up to a two channel NAD 7220 receiver. I have used this system since 1987. I think it is still quite good for certain media. If your Proton system per say was compliant with this set-up(not all receivers or integrated amps do so well on this, I must admit) it would sound ten times better than stereo. Dynaquad in its simplicity is not just a passive surround circuit, but in design resembles a turbo set-up on an automobile. |
| I believe that.... | nick4433
Jul 25, 2002 2:33 PM | | Anything made in 1987 by NAD would sound very good. I have no clue as to why so many flimsy products clog up the shelves all promising to deliver so many things but very few of them do. |
| GreyMark old Buddy.... | GreyMark
Jul 25, 2002 3:21 PM | | I'm still not completely out of the water, as every now and then I come across a Krell 7.1 or an Anthem AVM20. Of course at those prices, not only should they perform well in HT and music, but it better transport me to nirvana altogether. Am I asking for too much?
The sensible me is considering setting up a second system for music only. I'd only really need a preamp, tube amp, CD transport and a set of the sweetest sounding speakers known to man or beast. I'll let you know what I come up with. |
| WHAT IS HOME THEATER? | kelsci
Jul 25, 2002 1:22 PM | | Greymark; "Home Theater" IMO takes in many categories. My definition of IT is when any device carrying audio and/or video can now be viewed or listened to in one's home at one's convenience. Watching MODERN MARVELS on the History Channel recently showed the invention of the Edison Phonograph. It allowed people to listen to music in one's home. It also allowed us for the first time to control when it was convenient for one to play a recording. Today, we have this to a degree that makes the Edison Phonograph play like something from the Stone Age.
Today, we have the choice as to how far we want Home Theater to go in our homes. We all have the right to that choice being hardware and/or software. Taking the case of BLACKHAWK DOWN, I do not feel the film is worth owning because I personally see no "replay value" in this disc. Audiowise, it is a tremendous demonstration of 5.1 channel sound. I do not own too many DVDs. One or two I am sorry I bought when I should have rented. This out of only a dozen that I own. The rest have segments of "replay value" worth owning(an example is "the pod race" in THE PHANTOM MENACE.
I am glad we have the choice from the cheap to the ultra-expensive and in some cases the vintage to what is considered now, the "current" in hardware and various types of software. |
| WHAT IS HOME THEATER? | GreyMark
Jul 25, 2002 3:11 PM | | Agreed, there aren't too many dvd's out there worth owning. Thank goodness for netflix, qwikflix, rentmydvd, blockbuster and hollywood video. Oddly enough of the 7 dvd's that i do own, 4 are music-oriented (Sade Live, the Eagles, etc.).
While I'm appreciative of the advances in technology that can bring a very good movie theater environment to my studio apt., i'm not as impressed with the body of work being produced in Hollywood. Waiting a couple of years for a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars Episode doesn't seem to justify the expense of upgrading when most of the movies don't need to be viewed in dolby digital surround sound. I guess what I'm saying is that if the movie merits it, then by all means, let's turn up the volume and go for the complete theater experience.
But unfortunately most of the movies don't deserve going full-bore, and segmental viewing is IMO just our way of assuaging consumer's remorse (for the film's shortfalls). I find myself able to watch only the battle scenes in Gladiator for this very reason. The movie was solid, but not great through and through. If you ask me, the opening battle with the Germanic tribes should have been about 90 minutes long in itself. |
| "Segmental Viewing" | kelsci
Jul 26, 2002 2:40 AM | | I find it very rare that I will view a film in its entirety over again. Some of one's favorite films may have "replay value" in total. I have heard of stories of people who watched STAR WARS say "one hundred" times. I agree with your statement on GLADIATOR. I have read where people who own the disc end up viewing the Germanic battle scene and the two arena scenes. I do the same thing. I think it would be impossible to have made this film with a 90 minute Germanic battle scene. At some point, if it were possible, the film would become "boring". I would think of a movie as a "roller coaster" ride. The coaster must obtain height before it rolls down the track. There will be certain parts of the ride that will set you up for the "thrill" and then the part of the ride that gives you the "thrill".
Some years back, there was the film THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT. The idea was to show the best song and dance segments from a variety of MGM'S film library. Some of these segments were taken from films with whimsical or flimsy plots that would cause you and I to figit in our seat if we tried to watch the whole film.
There is only so much time in our lives to work and play. To me "segmental viewing" gives me the gratification I want from my home theater system according to my mood. |
| Totally understand......... I use my HT for HT and.... | troll_hunter
Jul 26, 2002 2:06 AM | | background music. When I want to really listen, I have a stereo system for that purpose. Often I use my cans. The HT is great for what it is, I also run a video projector, but it just doesn't cut it for critical listening...IMHO |
| Dead??? | yamdsp-a1
Jul 26, 2002 4:58 AM | | I totally disagree with the theory behind this thread.
The argument, as I read it, is that their aren't enough good movies out there to justify a really good home theater system, which in turn signals that HT is redundant or irrelevant.
I would argue the exact opposite. The advent of HT has, in my opinion, lead Hollywood to create a better product. Story quality while not necessarily improving, has at least been somewhat compensated for by much improved audio and video quality. This has led to better theater sound and projection systems, because why go to the theater when you can get the same expereience at home? Improved theater sound systems have allowed Hollywood to push the sonic envelope and improved HT sound systems and TV's have lead to the advent and proliferation of DVD.
How can this be the death of HT? It seems to me to be an ever evolving circle of improving products. Ultimately, that is good for the consumer with better selection, better product, at a better price.
And that doesn't even consider the advent of DVD audio, SACD, satellite, digital cable etc. which are also consumer driven in that consumers now have the technology at home to enjoy these formats and are creating a demand for them.
I don't see death, more like the rebirth of home audio.
My $.02 |
| Disenchanted With HT: the end occured this past weekend | sballs
Jul 26, 2002 7:17 AM | | Although I think the topic discussed on this thread has jumped tracks a bit, I for one have to disagree with the notion that there is not enough replay value or new material to warrent a home theatre system (but that's just my opinion as a movie fanatic).
One the other hand, and getting back to the original topic of this discussion, I don't feel that 5 (or 6/7) channels offers a better listening experience than 2 channel. I too, had been playing around with the idea of completely ditching my HT setup in favor of a 2 channel setup. Over the past year my interest in a better music experience has increased and I have realized the HT receiver was just not cutting it. The deal breaker occured over this past weekend when I view Akira Kurosawa's Ran and the German picture, Fitzcorraldo. I was really shocked by how well these movies sounded coming through just 2 main speakers. They had me wondering why I wasted $500 on a center channel... afterall, I was already aware that my mains imaged well enough to put a singers voice exactly where it should be... why shouldn't I expect the same for an actors? Due to that fact that I don't have the room for both setups, my HT receiver will soon be gone. |
| Nothing wrong with the gear here it's | pinetop
Jul 26, 2002 1:57 PM | | just the absolute crap that;s being played on our systems weather it be movies or cds.That's why we feel this way i for one would rather watch a good quality movie and i dont care if it's in black and white or mono so long it's a good movie. Will we ever get back the good stuff? bob d |
| re: Disenchanted With Home Theater: the end is near | Woochifer
Jul 26, 2002 5:23 PM | | Well, I look at HT as a necessary compromise. If not for discrete multichannel capabilities, I would never have made the jump to HT. Surround and Pro Logic never thrilled me and I stuck with normal stereo through that era. It was only when AC-3 (DD) first became available on Laserdisc players and high-end receivers that I began to explore the possibility of upgrading once prices started coming down.
Sure, for what I paid for my receiver (>$600), I could have probably gotten a setup more ideal for two-channel, but I would also lose the ability to listen to multichannel formats and some high res two-channel discs. When I upgraded, it was with the expressed intent to go 5.1 and I'm glad that I did. The discrete surround tracks add a lot to my movie viewing, and in some ways rival the experience I get in a movie theater. I can't imagine not hearing these movie soundtracks as they were intended to be heard.
And it's not just with loud action pic soundtracks where discrete surround makes a difference. In any genre, a good soundtrack immerses you in the movie more and IMO adds a level of involvement that's harder to get with mixed down two-channel.
I guess it all comes down to priorities. On the contrary, I think there are plenty of movies that are worth multiple viewings -- and many of them are due to come out before the end of the year (LOTR Extended Edition, Star Trek II and III director's cuts, Blade Runner 20th Anniversary, Pulp Fiction SE, Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, Amadeus, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Reservoir Dogs SE, Gene Kelly boxed set [On The Town, Singin' In The Rain, American In Paris SEs], Unforgiven SE, E.T., Spider-Man, Back To The Future trilogy, and who knows what else in the meantime). Yes, you don't need a multichannel setup to access the special features for the special edition discs, but considering how many of them now have remastered 5.1 soundtracks, I can't imagine sticking with two-channel when it was intended for multichannel playback. But, if movies or multichannel audio discs are not part of your everyday audio system usage, then it may not make sense to have a system optimized for that usage. I do agree that a HT receiver typically compromises the two-channel performance for sake of multichannel and digital capabilities, but it's a trade off that I think is worthwhile, at least for my habits. |
| |
