"Audiophilia and home theater should not mix" (was Re: DTS DOES suck!)
Kevin Connery
In article <19970123054...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<rande...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5c4esr$p...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Ker...@cris.com (Kevin
>Connery) writes:
>
>>You listen to specs, if you want. I'll listen to music
>You listen to music, audiophile and I'll listen to and watch movies.
>Audiophilia and home theater should not mix.
>-Rich
I'm curious if anyone else finds this somewhat biased. (In a face to
face conversation I'd probably have used "closed-minded" or "bigoted",
but it's possible Rich's comment was meant as sarcasm which I simply
overlooked.)
The best *impact* from a home theater system is when the viewer is
immersed in the film; the story, acting, picture, sound, etc., all
work together to draw the viewer in. Is there any way that 'audiophilia'
is at odds with this?
I readily admit that I enter the home theater 'arena' from the sound
standpoint; I only purchased a television set 4.5 months ago, and have
been listening to music at home for decades; does that make my opinion
on sound any less valid than someone who comes to it from the angle of
television+sound system (as opposed to music system+video)?
Comments, anyone?
--kdc
Jack_Lint
On 23 Jan 1997, Kevin Connery wrote:
> The best *impact* from a home theater system is when the viewer is
> immersed in the film; the story, acting, picture, sound, etc., all
> work together to draw the viewer in. Is there any way that 'audiophilia'
> is at odds with this?
>
> I readily admit that I enter the home theater 'arena' from the sound
> standpoint; I only purchased a television set 4.5 months ago, and have
> been listening to music at home for decades; does that make my opinion
> on sound any less valid than someone who comes to it from the angle of
> television+sound system (as opposed to music system+video)?
Oh come on. If Audiophilia and Home Theater shouldn't mix why would
invest in a LD player. Cause the VCR should do just fine for you.
__________________________________________ ___________
|| mor...@colorado.edu | Jack_Lint |
|| "We're all in this together" H. Tuttle '~~~~~~~~~~~'
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Jack_Lint wrote:
> Oh come on. If Audiophilia and Home Theater shouldn't mix why would
> invest in a LD player. Cause the VCR should do just fine for you.
I can't believe you wrote this!!!
LASER DISC PLAYERS KILL VCR's IN PICTURE QUALITY!!!! It has little to
do with audio quality, where VHS HiFi is about as good as the LD sound.
Zip
Matt Alt
In <32E876...@netrunner.net> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
<z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>I can't believe you wrote this!!!
>LASER DISC PLAYERS KILL VCR's IN PICTURE QUALITY!!!! It has little
>to do with audio quality, where VHS HiFi is about as good as the LD
>sound.
I havent found this to be the case at all, personally, (especially w/
rental tapes) and LD is not susceptible to the wear-and-tear breakdown
of sound quality that VHS is.
-Matt
Johnny Y Boey
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
>
> Jack_Lint wrote:
>
> > Oh come on. If Audiophilia and Home Theater shouldn't mix why would
> > invest in a LD player. Cause the VCR should do just fine for you.
>
> LASER DISC PLAYERS KILL VCR's IN PICTURE QUALITY!!!! It has little to
> do with audio quality, where VHS HiFi is about as good as the LD sound.
Zip, you got the Chiro AC3 unit in yet?
JB
Scott Turner
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>Jack_Lint wrote:
>> Oh come on. If Audiophilia and Home Theater shouldn't mix why would
>> invest in a LD player. Cause the VCR should do just fine for you.
>I can't believe you wrote this!!!
>LASER DISC PLAYERS KILL VCR's IN PICTURE QUALITY!!!! It has little to
>do with audio quality, where VHS HiFi is about as good as the LD sound.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And I can't believe you wrote *this* either. Wow.
Scott Turner sc...@lvld.hp.com
Arnold B. Krueger
Kevin Connery <Ker...@cris.com> wrote in article
<5c6v5k$e...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> In article <19970123054...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> <rande...@aol.com> wrote:
> >In article <5c4esr$p...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Ker...@cris.com
(Kevin
> >Connery) writes:
> >
> >>You listen to specs, if you want. I'll listen to music
>
> >You listen to music, audiophile and I'll listen to and watch movies.
> >Audiophilia and home theater should not mix.
> >-Rich
>
> I'm curious if anyone else finds this somewhat biased. (In a face to
> face conversation I'd probably have used "closed-minded" or "bigoted",
> but it's possible Rich's comment was meant as sarcasm which I simply
> overlooked.)
You betcha. Everybody has a right to an opinion, but statements like
"Audiophia and Home Theatre should not mix" is a general statement that the
writer seems to think we are all supposed to respect. I don't and I resent
the attempt to set down hard and fast rules like this.
> The best *impact* from a home theater system is when the viewer is
> immersed in the film; the story, acting, picture, sound, etc., all
> work together to draw the viewer in. Is there any way that 'audiophilia'
> is at odds with this?
I think we are back to an argument about realism. Last time I went to a
live concert I seem to recall enjoying the whole experience - the "audio",
the "video", the whole enchelada. Compared to live concerts, pure audio is
a glass that can never be more than half full - the sound might be close,
the the sights are not there.
> I readily admit that I enter the home theater 'arena' from the sound
> standpoint; I only purchased a television set 4.5 months ago, and have
> been listening to music at home for decades; does that make my opinion
> on sound any less valid than someone who comes to it from the angle of
> television+sound system (as opposed to music system+video)?
Its my opinion that anything that engages the listener more fully in the
performance is a good thing. Its also my opinion that anything that more
closely approximates the live experience is a good thing.
Its my experience that well done video is an enhancment to well done audio,
and scores on both counts: more fully engaging and more like the real
thing.
Jack_Lint
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> > "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I can't believe you wrote this!!!
> > >LASER DISC PLAYERS KILL VCR's IN PICTURE QUALITY!!!! It has little to
> > >do with audio quality, where VHS HiFi is about as good as the LD sound.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Hello Scott. Read it again, the capabilities of VHS-Hifi are very close
> to LD capabilities. The differences are MINISCULE COMPARED TO THE
> PICTURE DIFFERENCES.
Not a chance. I rented a THX certified anime VHS tape: "Tenchi the
Movie". I loved the movie but the bass was distorted and weak. The
surrounds were nice but not very clear. Then I bought the LD and woa and
behold: strong tight bass with and a somewhat agressive dolby-pro mix.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
>
> >> Oh come on. If Audiophilia and Home Theater shouldn't mix why would
> >> invest in a LD player. Cause the VCR should do just fine for you.
>
> >LASER DISC PLAYERS KILL VCR's IN PICTURE QUALITY!!!! It has little to
> >do with audio quality, where VHS HiFi is about as good as the LD sound.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hello Scott. Read it again, the capabilities of VHS-Hifi are very close
to LD capabilities. The differences are MINISCULE COMPARED TO THE
PICTURE DIFFERENCES.
Cheers
Zip
Johnny Y Boey
Jack_Lint wrote:
> > Hello Scott. Read it again, the capabilities of VHS-Hifi are very close
> > to LD capabilities. The differences are MINISCULE COMPARED TO THE
> > PICTURE DIFFERENCES.
>
> Not a chance. I rented a THX certified anime VHS tape: "Tenchi the
> Movie". I loved the movie but the bass was distorted and weak. The
> surrounds were nice but not very clear. Then I bought the LD and woa and
> behold: strong tight bass with and a somewhat agressive dolby-pro mix.
Like Zip said, the picture difference is much more profound.
JB
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Jack_Lint wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
>
> > > "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I can't believe you wrote this!!!
> > > >LASER DISC PLAYERS KILL VCR's IN PICTURE QUALITY!!!! It has little to
> > > >do with audio quality, where VHS HiFi is about as good as the LD sound.
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > to LD capabilities. The differences are MINISCULE COMPARED TO THE
> > PICTURE DIFFERENCES.
>
> Not a chance. I rented a THX certified anime VHS tape: "Tenchi the
> Movie". I loved the movie but the bass was distorted and weak. The
> surrounds were nice but not very clear. Then I bought the LD and woa and
> behold: strong tight bass with and a somewhat agressive dolby-pro mix.
>
> || mor...@colorado.edu | Jack_Lint |
> || "We're all in this together" H. Tuttle '~~~~~~~~~~~'
OK, here is what you do. Record a copy of the Laser Disc onto your VHS
hifi machine & You'll find them EXTREMELY CLOSE. Stop arguing with me &
being dense. Of course a Store bought tape sucks - that is NOT what
we're talking about.
Once & for all - store bought tapes are high speed mass produced pieces
of shit; just like they were when you used to buy pre-recorded audio
cassettes. When I made a copy of an LP on my Tandberg 64X, or on my Nak
Dragon, the copy was pretty close. When I listened to a store bought
pre recorded tape, the tape was shit. The same is true today. VHS
Hifi's capability is tremendous, when properly implemented.
Cheers
Zip
Joseph C. Ramon
This time, I agree with Zip. When properly recorded from laserdisc to
VHS, the sound quality is almost just as good. And I use cheap tapes.
With more expensive VHS tapes, the quality goes up another notch.
However, if played often, VHS does go down in quality, particularly in
its incisiveness and treble. But that takes a lot of playing ... So one
should not hesitate to get a good HiFi VCR to record rented laserdiscs,
saves money ... unless one wants a longer-lasting medium.
Craig Good
In article <5c6v5k$e...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Ker...@cris.com (Kevin
Connery) wrote:
:
: The best *impact* from a home theater system is when the viewer is
: immersed in the film; the story, acting, picture, sound, etc., all
: work together to draw the viewer in. Is there any way that 'audiophilia'
: is at odds with this?
I think you're on the right track. My system is set up for music first,
movies second, and does a darn fine job at both. The worst thing about
getting audiophile equipment in a home theatre is that it will remind you
occasionally that movie soundtracks are, in absolute terms, pretty crappy.
As movie soundtracks, many of them are sheer genius. But as purist audio
they're bound to be a let-down.
Having said that, remember that truly hi-fi gear is better than typical
home theatre gear, and so will probably do a better job with the movie
sound as well. It's just more revealing, too.
--
--Craig
go...@pixar.com
"It is error alone that needs government support; truth can
stand by itself." -- Thomas Jefferson
Kevin Connery
In article <19970126014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<rande...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5cdlft$2...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Ker...@cris.com (Kevin
>Connery) writes:
>>>Audiophile Speakers=Often limited bandwidth. HTS: Full Range
>>
>>Ha? My main speakers, over 10 years old, reproduce down to 35-40 Hz, and
>it's a bloody rare speaker which matches that. To help in the bottom octave,
>I've got a subwoofer, which I use for both music and HT. False claim again.
>(How may Home Theater systems are running subs-n-satellites?)
>
>But there again, most audiophiles don't have speakers with this kind of
>range because of the cost of hi-end, full range speakers. How many times
>do I have to make this point before you pick up on it's meaning? BTW,
>it's only since home theater came along that audiophiles started looking
>at subs again.
1. YOU are the <expletive> who claimed one was the province ot "The
Audiophile". Sweeping claims are trivial to debunk, expecially when they're
as far from reality as yours have been.
The speakers I'm using are available, used, for about $700--I see
them advertised on rec.audio.marketplace about once every other week.
And it's a 12+ year old design, which, *when new* cost me $1000 for the
pair. Look 'em up; Acoustat 1+1's.
Other speakers in that price range were available, and still are, which
fall into what everyone else in the world considers the/an 'audiophile'
category.
So far, you've dismissed Joseph, Gallo, and Dunlavy as being too expensive,
when most of these manufacturers have models in the $1500-2000 range
which are clear superiors of most 'home theater' speakers.
You included the Krell KRC-2 as one of three 'decent' stereo preamplifiers
you'd prefer for stereo over any pre-processor-pre-amp, but neglect to
mention that this 2-channel pre-amp costs $3500, which, if the speakers
I mentioned were out of the price range of most audiophiles, is further
out of reach.
I stand by my statements, and the data I've provided shows that your
sweeping claims aren't even close to true in the real world.
But now er get to the ridiculous:
>>>Audiophile Main Distraction=Tweaks. HTS: Bigger Power Amps.
>>
>>Bigger Power Amps? Larger than, say, a Krell, or Rowland Reference, or
>>the 600 WPC Audio Research monster? Bigger than the 1250 WPC VTL Wotan?
>
>Home theater enthusiasts don't busy themselves with ridiculous tweaks,
>like trying to
>"demagnetize-GOD!" aluminum in cd's. More powerful amps generally mean
>better sound, but audiophiles also lay out money for 8wpc tube amps.
And some 'home theater' systems run that 20" goldstar you mentioned. Does
that make it the norm? What *individuals* in a class of people do is not
inherently indicative of what that class of people do. You're mistaking
your clearly minute experience with music lovers into universals.
All I can say is that the customs of your tribe are not laws of nature.
>The only thing I can hope to contribute is based on what I've seen rather
>than what I've read.
Or heard, apparently.
Best wishes. I sounds, er, looks, like you need 'em.
--kdc
Scott Turner
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>Hello Scott. Read it again, the capabilities of VHS-Hifi are very close
>to LD capabilities. The differences are MINISCULE COMPARED TO THE
>PICTURE DIFFERENCES.
Hi Zip,
As someone else pointed out, the guy you were responding to *was*
being sarcastic. But no matter, I just can't agree with your response
in absolute terms. I agree that LD's main advantage is in picture. I
also agree that in an ideal situation, HiFi-VHS is surprisingly good.
But not as good. And the real world rarely offers ideal situations.
For example, if you're talking about buying VHS or LD (which is how
this whole thing got started) that means you're generally stuck with
tapes that come from someone else. Sure, I can record my LD's on tape
and make good quality tapes. That's option isn't going to be
available to someone without a player.
At any rate I rather expect, overall, that we're in violent
agreement :-)
Scott Turner sc...@lvld.hp.com
Scott Turner
Ker...@cris.com (Kevin Connery) wrote:
in reply to one of Rich's latest postings:
>Best wishes. I sounds, er, looks, like you need 'em.
Indeed, I think he does.
The only real fact I can glean from all of this is that I'd *hate* to
watch a movie at Rich's place. Video quality doesn't matter since
they all look the same, 'cause NTSC is so bad, accuracy doesn't matter
so long as you have "slam" and "edge", proper adjustment doesn't
matter, since you have to boost the center channel to make up for the
muddy sound in the center speaker, and on and on.
To each his/her own.
Scott Turner sc...@lvld.hp.com
Scott Turner
"Arnold B. Krueger" <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>You betcha. Everybody has a right to an opinion, but statements like
>"Audiophia and Home Theatre should not mix" is a general statement that the
>writer seems to think we are all supposed to respect. I don't and I resent
>the attempt to set down hard and fast rules like this.
Absolutely. We're all entitled to our personal preferences. I fully
respect Rich's, or anyone's *preference* to not mix HT and stereo.
That's his perogative. What I keep (over:-)reacting to is his
absolutism. "I don't, so no one should!" I've heard so many very
good HT systems that were also outstanding music systems that I almost
can't believe it when I see these kinds of statements.
Scott Turner sc...@lvld.hp.com
JJeff65418
I don't really favour one silly arguement over the other re. mixing HT and
Audio only sound. They are two different experiences and require different
'types' of equipment to extract the best sound from either medium. My
preference out of is to keep HT away from a Music only Hi-Fi because HT
sound videois generally inferior to the average CD! THX in my opinion is
an attempt to make HT into an Audiophile's 'GoldenEye' alternative at a
cost that exceeds the average persons ability to participate without
taking out a second mortgage. As a Brit living Stateside I also refuse to
invest in a megabuck sound/video system for HT where the video image is so
far back in the woods as compared to the European PAL sytem. What good is
it to invest in so called audiophile 'THX' HT - VHS or Laserdisc - where
the max. resolution of the picture falls short of the 'average' broadcast
quality TV picture in the U.K. When the pictures get better then I might
be persuaded to change my viewpoint about merging my audio/vdeo systems.
\
Keep the debate going, I am intereted to hear what the 'purists' think of
NTSC std vs. PAL. Ordinary gear vs. THX etc. etc.
jjeff...@aol.com
Arnold B. Krueger
JJeff65418 <jjeff...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970130025...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I don't really favour one silly arguement over the other re. mixing HT
and
> Audio only sound. They are two different experiences and require
different
> 'types' of equipment to extract the best sound from either medium. My
> preference out of is to keep HT away from a Music only Hi-Fi because HT
> sound videois generally inferior to the average CD!
Are you suggesting that HT program material requires inferior equipment to
sound its best? This seems illogical.
At worst, HT program material might require some frequency response shaping
to help conceal such audible flaws as it may have. Well known, old
technoloyg and
simple devices called equalizers seem up to doing this, and bypassing them
when they are not needed is pretty trivial.
JJeff65418
Arnold B. Krueger <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> writes in response to my
viewpoint ref. Audio/HT sound ...mixing....equipment...
Am I suggesting that HT program material requires inferior equipment...
No Arnold, on the contrary I am all for getting the best out of HT sound
and video. As once stated by Ivor Teifenbaum of Linn Products "Garbage
in, Garbage out". He was referring to the limits of vinyl records and
recording quality (C1970's) when Hi-Fi analogue recording equipment was in
its zenith and it was clear then, that better was needed. Enter the
'digital era'.
I think that HT (video and sound) is at that same step to-day and until we
see DVD and all digital satellite broadcasting et.al; there is little to
be gained by investing huge chunks of "green' in super equipment that will
do a first class job of reproducing the 'garbage' elements. I appreciate
your comment on freq. response shaping, it's a pity the flaws that
should'nt be there have to be concealed.
I hinted that Europe is ahead with developing the PAL system for DVD and
HDTV. My money stays in the bank until the industry over here delivers at
least equivalent quality to that available in Europe to-day.
Come now, let's bury the equalizer!!
John Jeff65418
jjeff...@aol.com