Anyone else not care about AV - a rebuttal

Okay, here is a visit from someone in the anti AV camp (actually, just a personal total lack of interest in the medium). Unless you live on an island or somewhere remote, I think the movie experience is much more enjoyable and better served by a visit to the cinema. Large screen, high resolution, atmosphere from the audience, etc. Given current home screen resolutions, the best AV system is but a poor facsimile of a cinema movie.

Nick

The sluggish web sent 2 copies of my last post
[ duplicate text removed ]

[This message was edited by Nick_S on Mon 10 January 2005 at 10:44.]

Nick - I will take the bait!

I don't agree that the local multiplex offers a better experience than is possible than the home. The screen is of course bigger but much of that is countered by the fact that you sit so far away - so the apparent scale with a home theatre projection system can be the same. With a modern projector such as the Screenplay 5700 I use the visual quality is stunning.

Sonically my home cinema system which uses my two channel Naim system as it's basis blows the local multiplex into the weeds for frequency response, clarity and all round impact.

Finally, your post doesn't take account of the fact that much viewing isn't of current blockbuster releases. The other night we watched 'Saturday Night Sunday morning' and 'A kind of loving' films which haven't been near the average cinema for thirty years and probably never will. So the comparison isn't really with the local cinema because many of the movies I might want to see are simply not being screened. Then there's the music DVD's which can provide fantastic entertainment and insight into favourite musicians.

I could go on, but perhaps the last point is the most important. If you are interested in the visual arts then you want to be able to enjoy great cinema at a time of your own choosing with a glass of wine in hand. With a home cinema installation I can now put on a Bond DVD and enjoy the film as it was meant to be seen and heard any night of the week.

Finally I don't agree that sitting next to a bunch of giggling 15 year olds trying to get inside each others pants and rustling popcorn greatly enhances the film experience! I do still visit the cinema because there are some films I'm not prepared to wait to see - indeed I actually went to see the last Bond film at its midnight premiere surrounded by other fans of her majesties finest secret agent. It was a great experience although let down by a poor second half.

It's an interesting point and maybe you just don't love film enough to make the investment. There's no crime in that, many would argue that spending £2000 on a CD player is insanity. I think though relying just on a television and loving film is like loving music but just listening to a portable radio and never owning CD's or a decent system.

The great thing about home cinema is that a good experience can be had for a relatively small investment.

Jonathan

John

I agree with a lot you said. I think the latest geenration "smart setup" A/V kit may have taken some of the neurosis out of getting a proper sound field in a room with particular furnishings and speaker placements. I don't have this facility and so have learnt by trial and error.

One thing I would say one thing I have learnt by trial and error is there is no substitute for a center channel. Bleeding off what should go there to the front main pair is variable in result due to different approaches to audio mix, particularly on music.

I do think how much the drama of a movie grabs you is an element in the succes of the overall HT experience. You can't make a lousy movie good regardless of how swish your audio visual kit is. I always used to know when I went to the cinema if the movie was crap, I noticed the sound of the air conditioning.

Certainly there are endless combinations of kit that DOES do good HT once you get past the "single box" mickey mouse solutions and it is even more personal than stereo. There is a danger in becoming eletist about HT. For example the Naim AV2 is not the only answer for quality audio in a surround sound system, nor is the ONLY good system one which has a complete set of expensive single make speakers all the way around. There are of course compromises in terms of absolute performance and the depth of your pocket but HT can be enjoyed without "going for broke" and buying an "ultimate" system.

Alex
Yes I used to do the pseudo 5.1 and I do admit that something quite reasonable can be got out of Pro Logic II / DTS Neo 6 BUT I use that only for TV programs now. It is just not right to my ears to brutalise a GOOD stereo CD by listening in anything other than straight 2 channel, at least with Naim kit.

Jonathan
IMO you said everything that needed to be said about the home viewing experience vs going to the cinema.

regards
GEOFF

"Just trying to make a NAIM for myself"

Jonathan

Entering into this discussion in the spirit of friendly debate, the limitation in home screens is the very small number of pixels possible, which is not comparable to film projection (a maximum of about 480 vertical lines for TV sets). As an example, last year we saw a 70mm viewing of Jacques Tati's film Playtime for the first time ever in Ireland and the quality of detail was incredible. The introduction was by a biographer of his who pointed that with so much going on in the scenes at one time, seeing it on a TV would lead to much subtle detail getting lost. I guess it is because I do love the medium of film that I prefer the big screen. My viewing experience is probably tinted by the range and quality of our local art-house cinema, but something like Sharktale or Shrek II can be fun in a multiplex with lots of younger folk in the audience. I agree that the sound is unlikely to match that of an audiophile home audio system.

Nick

Nick,

You're blesed if you've got a wonderful arthouse cinema nearby - I wish we did. I sincerely hope that such places are able to continue serving their market even in the face of the home theatre onslaught. The resolution of visuals in home cinema can considerably exceed the 480 possible on TV sets - my own projector offers 576 lines - the same as possible via DVD and many projectors are now available which can go to 720 high definition. It's my experience that much of the issue of pixellation is eliminated by going the DLP route and ensuring you adhere to recommended guidelines regarding viewing distance v screen size. I don't know how recently you have seen a decent home cinema projection system in action but if it isn't for a while I think you may be surprised by the abilities of recent projectors.

Having said that it's horses for courses. I don't see the two experiences as mutually exclusive.

That 70mm print must have been a great experience, my wife is from Cork - are you near there?

Geoff P - agree with everything you said except the centre channel point. I'm not absolutely sure I prefer having a center channel to not having one. There's an expansiveness to the soundstage without one that I rather like but then I haven't ever put a single SBL in the middle at the front to complement the two either side. I've tried center channel speakers but they've never managed to integrate properly with the SBL's. The rears are less critical I have found, indeed I'm a big advocate of dipoles.

Best,

Jonathan

Hi all

I started that original thread and didn't mean at all to come across as against AV or smugly old fashioned. Far from it. If people are really into their cinema I'm sure its a very exciting time.

My only point was that as someone who is into music but not films I don't feel catered for at all anymore when I visit hifi shops.

I also wonder if hifi companies will start using AV criteria for voicing their products in future rather than musical considerations.

Jonathan

Jonathan, I live in Dublin and we are lucky enough to have both the Irish Film Institute and the Screen cinemas, which both show arthouse type films. Cork is a lovely city, with a good Jazz festival each year.

I'm glad to hear that home screen/projector resolutions are improving (though the current DVD limit you mention of 576 lines still seems low compared to the analogue original film).


Nick

[This message was edited by Nick_S on Mon 10 January 2005 at 15:26.]

Morning All

It's great to see some healthy, informed and friendly debate on the subject. If perchance it is needed, I would apologise for my very tongue-in-cheek comments earlier in the piece - I tend to have a very dry, and ironic sense of wit, not something easily conveyed via text...

Nick_S said:

quote:

---

As an example, last year we saw a 70mm viewing of Jacques Tati's film Playtime for the first time ever in Ireland and the quality of detail was incredible.

---

Well, yes, goodness if you're talking 70mm, or say IMAX, then yes, I'll take film thank you.

But 70mm is sadly very rare these days, most multiplexes do 35mm prints only. If one sits close so as to have an all-encompassing view, then often the grain of the silver-halide becomes quite noticeable. Sitting further back resolves that issue, but then the impact of the large screen is diluted. Nonetheless I would agree that contrast levels/detail, and colour saturation/detail still have the edge re film for the time being.

However it is only a matter of time before the major film studios all go HD video - the ease of production and distribution will see to that, aside from any performance issues.

On the sound side of it, the main benefit of a movie theatre IMHO is the large space, and the resultant large soundfield.

Nonetheless one can approach this to some degree in the home, via: Use of high wall mounted dioples for surrounds; a very high resolution processor that reveals more of the space in the mix, and around the individual sounds, and thus has, well, more air and space in the sound generally (An AV2 v's say an mainstream receiver such as an Arcam etc), OR the use of proprietary DSP modes such as found in Yamaha, Sony, Harmon Kardon and Lexicon processors - Lexicon being widely regarded as the 'bees knees' in that regard.

On the picture side of it, with a large screen, and suitable viewing distance, one can easily approximate the impact of the large screen as seen at the cinema. Having seen HD-TV which thankfully we have here in OZ, and what the better DLP and LCD projectors have to offer, the picture quality is so close, if not better than cinema, it's a moot point IMV - in fact I'd say subjectively the impression is closer to what one sees via 70mm than the 35mm prints we're commonly served up these days at multiplexes.

Jonathon Gorse said:

quote:

---

Having said that it's horses for courses. I don't see the two experiences as mutually exclusive.

---

I agree totally. IMHO to say that I wouldn't want HT in the home because it can never fully replicate the Cinema experience is a bit like saying I'm going to sell off all my Naim Hi-Fi and buy several years worth of concert tickets, "cos there's no way a HiFi system can replicate teh concert hall experience of live music" Both very negative viewpoints, and unneccessarily so IMHO.

quote:

---

Geoff P - agree with everything you said except the centre channel point. I'm not absolutely sure I prefer having a center channel to not having one. There's an expansiveness to the soundstage without one that I rather like but then I haven't ever put a single SBL in the middle at the front to complement the two either side. I've tried center channel speakers but they've never managed to integrate properly with the SBL's. The rears are less critical I have found, indeed I'm a big advocate of dipoles.

---

Jonathon - have you tried an Access/Axent at all? What have you found to be the main advantage of dioples with the SBL's? - quite a contrast in engineering etc...

Shayman said:

quote:

---

I started that original thread and didn't mean at all to come across as against AV or smugly old fashioned. Far from it. If people are really into their cinema I'm sure its a very exciting time.

My only point was that as someone who is into music but not films I don't feel catered for at all anymore when I visit hifi shops.

I also wonder if hifi companies will start using AV criteria for voicing their products in future rather than musical considerations.

---

Well, actually, I quite understand your point of view, and no, I didn't think you were being old-fashioned or anything, but I couldn't resist being a bit wicked & naughty and taking the micky...

When I look at my investment in my Naim 2 channel system, now a few years off the pace as regards the revamped range (I'm still with 'olive' kit) the fact that two channel is rapidly becomming more and more a very expensive niche market in the greater scheme of things is a very worrying trend, for I could not really afford to start again, and would not wish to part with my Naim system anyway.

The answer for me, is to embrace what the technology has to offer, rather than turn away from it, and to add on to my existing 2 channel setup, such that rather than have it languishing, or on the other hand sticking to it and ignoring the potential for great movie enjoyment in the home, I actually increase it's potential and the enjoyment it gives me, and of course capitalise on my intial investment.

Geoff P said:

quote:

---

One thing I would say one thing I have learnt by trial and error is there is no substitute for a center channel. Bleeding off what should go there to the front main pair is variable in result due to different approaches to audio mix, particularly on music.

---

I agree. One can 'get away' with phantom, and I would suggest phantom is better than a mismatched center speaker IMHO, however there is no doubt that the downmixing involved re signal filtering in the processor, splitting the centre channel into two, has a deleterious effect upon the sound.

quote:

---

I do think how much the drama of a movie grabs you is an element in the succes of the overall HT experience. You can't make a lousy movie good regardless of how swish your audio visual kit is. I always used to know when I went to the cinema if the movie was crap, I noticed the sound of the air conditioning.

---

Again I agree, but would also opinion that the same very much applies to 2 channel music reproduction. You can't get good music from a crappy recording/performance even if one has an CD3..

quote:

---

Certainly there are endless combinations of kit that DOES do good HT once you get past the "single box" mickey mouse solutions and it is even more personal than stereo. There is a danger in becoming eletist about HT. For example the Naim AV2 is not the only answer for quality audio in a surround sound system, nor is the ONLY good system one which has a complete set of expensive single make speakers all the way around. There are of course compromises in terms of absolute performance and the depth of your pocket but HT can be enjoyed without "going for broke" and buying an "ultimate" system.

---

Heheh, Geoff you and I dance to the same tune - again I agree, but would point out that exactly the same applies to 2 channel music systems. People do become eletist about their HF. Some will brook none other than Naim. Others will insist only upon Nautilus 800's etc. Others will feel that a CD5i/Nait 5i/Arrivas could never possibly satisfy, and want/need the CD3,500, active DBL's etc, the whole kit and caboodle.

The sticky point here though, is are people REALLY being elitist in making such choices. No doubt some are. On the other hand, I'm sure many enthusiasts, some wealthy, and others by dint of much saving, equip themselves with the best they can afford, mainly because at each step up the ladder they become more aware of what can be achieved, and also I think that as ones tastes mature/grow, it tends to require a higher level of performance to satisfy in an ongoing manner.

I may be wrong, but certainly I've found that to be the case in the past with 'upgraditis' Certainly I'm very lucky, in that whilst my naim system is not the last word, it is of a high enough performance standard, that whilst aware of it's shortcomings, they don't intrude enough to spoil things, or have me planning to make expensive upgrades - I have if you will a plateau of excellence from whence I recognise the benefits of gear further up the ladder, but don't feel any pressing need to advance - well, as yet anyway!

On the HT side of it though, I don't quite feel I'm 'there' yet, and I have this uncomfortable (for my wallet) feeling that I may well not be so until I get around to the AV2 etc, and suitable matching speakers for the SBL's. Once one has a level of sound quality in 2 channel that one loves, I'm finding that everything else (in this case HT) sounds lesser, and well, that just nags me a little bit too much....

Hidef Bob said:

quote:

---

As for music, there are some wonderful concerts on DVD with DD5.1 and DTS sound as well as those that are broadcast in HDTV with DD5.1 sound give you the experience of being there that no 2 channel system could ever achieve. And to my ear the sound quality on a top quality A/V 5 channel system is as good as most top quality 2 channel systems.

---

yes, Yes, and YES!

If one considers that 2 channel, generally does two things re presentation; to create an impression of the performers being 'in the room' - relatively forward systems like Naim tend to have this sort of presentation, OR create the sense of an acoustic window, through which one 'sees' a much larger musical event, complete with hearing the left bassonist's flatulence, such as presented by most 'round earth' kit, then a surround sound presentation 'puts you there' in the concert hall, in a way that 2 channel technology does not. I am assuming here of course, that we're talking sensibly mixed recordings, not some hyped demo track with the first violins coming from over your left shoulder.

If you then add to that, the additional sensory impact of sight, aka visuals of the musicians playing, then 2 channel becomes a very poor facsimile of 'being there'. The one caveat to this, is that multi-channel music, plus picture, increases the sense of being there, and hence is more involving on that level, BUT one still needs good old fashioned PRaT etc to make it all hang together musically, just as with 2 channel.

Given equivalent standards of amps and speakers, there is no reason why a 5.1, or higher system should sound any less to an equivalent (amps and speakers) 2 channel setup. Arguably, it should sound better.

Cheers, and welcome to the new millenium... the future of HiFi is looking good

Best Regards

John...

This is my last upgrade.... after this my system will be finished...:-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
Geoff P - agree with everything you said except the centre channel point. I'm not absolutely sure I prefer having a center channel to not having one. There's an expansiveness to the soundstage without one that I rather like but then I haven't ever put a single SBL in the middle at the front to complement the two either side. I've tried center channel speakers but they've never managed to integrate properly with the SBL's. The rears are less critical I have found, indeed I'm a big advocate of dipoles.

---

Hi Johnathan

(Bear with me guys and please carry on. I don't wish to change the focus of the thread but I was quite interested in a couple of things Johnathan had to say about centre speakers.)

Your experience "might" be down to the Yamaha. I've found it quite critical to match not only speakers but also amplification to get that seemless front soundfield. I'm sure having that criteria met you'd certainly have a different impression of centre channels. Dare you "borrow" an AV2, Axcess and 175

As a matter of interest what centres did you try?

Using a projector is definitely the way to go with a SBL's and I've seen your Infocus in action a few times. It's an extremely good projector. I notice the price is coming down too!

Enjoy. Jay

Jay,

Interesting to read your comments and you may be right - perhaps Naim amplification for the front channel would be required! I haven't tried the Naim centre speakers because I doubt either of them would be as good as an SBL in terms of integration. Eventually when I've got the cash I will probably just buy a secondhand pair of SBL's and put one in place and sell the other to someone similarly minded or keep it as a spare! It would cost the same price as the cheaper Naim dedicated centre speaker too!

I have tried the old Pro-ac centre which shared the same tweeter as the SBL and also tried the ATC C2 centre and a Kef XQ5 centre. I concluded Naim speakers have a rather distinctive sound and are difficult to match with other brands at least across the front!

John's naim - I was interested in what you said about dipoles and totally agree. My experience is that the only way to get an authentic cinema experience in a normal sized domestic room is to use dipoles or bipoles for surround duties. Anything else just isn't enveloping enough if you're sitting proximate to them.

I use a set of Kef Q2DS and they are a superb creation. I think they work so well because they have a particularly unusual set of attributes:

Kef Uni-Q concentric so throw a very broad, diffuse, yet stable image (just what you want for surrounds.
Dipole so they provide a huge wall of sound
A lot of cone area for their size 2x160mm Uni Q's with 2x concentric 19mm alu domes, plus 1 130mm woofer per cabinet. The woofer fires down so they are domestically acceptable while also offering a good frequency response with plenty of low down grunt for bullets flying etc.

I was dubious whether the Kef would match tonally with the Naim fronts but surprisingly they do quite well. I'd love Naim to build something like this but so far they haven't and anyway I've been seriously impressed by the Kef's - they throw sound around like nothing else I've tried in my room. I have never been aware of any particular disparity in tone between the fronts and the rears and tend to think you can get away with a certain amount on effects channels which you can't with a mismatched centre.

What dipoles are you using??

Jonathan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
Interesting to read your comments and you may be right - perhaps Naim amplification for the front channel would be required!

---

Maybe not required exactly but you might find integration benefits with a Naim amplifier. I image that you're quite sensitive to how the front two channels work together (being a Naim and SBL user and all) and so it stands to reason that another amplifier, of a slightly different "tone", would appear not to integrate well.

I've a bit of experience with an all Naim amp/AV2/matched speaker system. With a little bit of work you can achieve huge and seamless "sound fields". It's amazing when it all clicks into focus.

quote:

---

I haven't tried the Naim centre speakers because I doubt either of them would be as good as an SBL in terms of integration.

---

Well the Naim centres are designed to do that specific job. So without experience I, personally, wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. Like you I'd experiment and go with which ever work for me, regardless of the theory, but don't discount them as an option. I can see benefits, in size and placement, which a Naim centre has over a single SBL.

quote:

---

Eventually when I've got the cash I will probably just buy a secondhand pair of SBL's and put one in place and sell the other to someone similarly minded or keep it as a spare! It would cost the same price as the cheaper Naim dedicated centre speaker too!

---

Another two pairs would give you 6.1

quote:

---

I have tried the old Pro-ac centre which shared the same tweeter as the SBL and also tried the ATC C2 centre and a Kef XQ5 centre. I concluded Naim speakers have a rather distinctive sound and are difficult to match with other brands at least across the front!

---

I would agree too. Even more reason to try one of those expensive centres!

Have fun!
Jay

Jonathon Gorse said:

quote:

---

I was dubious whether the Kef would match tonally with the Naim fronts but surprisingly they do quite well. I'd love Naim to build something like this but so far they haven't and anyway I've been seriously impressed by the Kef's - they throw sound around like nothing else I've tried in my room. I have never been aware of any particular disparity in tone between the fronts and the rears and tend to think you can get away with a certain amount on effects channels which you can't with a mismatched centre.

What dipoles are you using??

---

I'm not actually using dioples, as leasing rules out drilling holes and afixing brackets to walls, but have heard them many times and appreciate their benifits.

I agree that the centre is crucial, and that one can 'get away' with a certain amount on effects channels, albeit I still feel that exactly matched, or as near as one can get it, to the fronts gives the best overall results.

My 'hybrid' set up is a Sony 9000ES DVD, & TA-DA9000ES integrated all digital processor/amplifier with pre-outs to my 72/Hi-Cap/180/SBL's, and surrounds and back surrounds are 2 pairs of Tannoy mX2's driven by the TA-DA9000ES, and without sub or centre, thus it's a 6.0 configuration.. just to be difficult!

I've adhered where possible to ITU guidelines re speaker setup, the surrounds being at 110 degrees, and the back surrounds at approx 145 degrees. Of course from there, I've fine tuned by ear as regards angle (relative to the front centreline, and toe in etc).

In 'straight' DD, or DTS, one can hear the mismatched tonal quality to a degree between fronts and rears, and also being monopoles a bit too easily localised on some material. (both that and the tonal mismatch I would guess bringing aural attention to them)

Enter the proprietary DSP of the Sony to the rescue.

Digtal Cinema Sound is very clever, and consists of three elements: tonal shaping/equalisation & reverb on an individual channel basis, and delayed stereo between opposing channels, supposedly along the lines of the acoustic signatures of three of Sony's Hollywood dubbing studios.

Screen depth matching, which I assume adds time delay to the front speakers, hence increasing the sense of depth and space - supposedly to 'place' the speakers 'behind' the screen, as in a 'proper' theatre.

Lastly 'Virtual Multi Dimension', which 'adds/creates' 5 pairs of 'Virtual' speakers, overhead at an angle of 25 - 30 degrees - exactly how this is achieved electronically I am unsure - but one can easily hear the difference - again this DSP signal manipulation is designed to replicate the array of surround speakers as found in a 'real' theatre.

What I do know, is that with three 32 bit processors on board, the Sony processor/amp makes my windows computer look rather lame when it comes to CPU number crunching power, such that it all works exceptionally well in recreating the sense of space, that I've only ever heard otherwise with wall mounted diople arrays, OR almost, but not quite, with very high resolution/quality processors such as the AV2 and matching very high quality speakers.

Thus I conveniently have no need for dioples.

Nonetheless, it is interesting, as (going slightly off topic) it brings up a side question of the difference in approach to HT, as to whether one wishes to emulate as close as possible the live movie theatre experience, re a very large and enveloping acoustic space, seeminly much bigger than ones literal room, OR go for a 'purist' HiFi, smaller, more room sized acoustic approach, but with great precision/dynamics etc, which is perhaps more the sort of balance one gets with an AV2 etc.

To my mind both approaches are equally valid; and both are not as clear cut/contrasted as might seem the case; the Av2 is capable of a very large and enveloping soundfield when set up properly, and the Sony in turn, also capable of very impressive precision and dynamics.

As regards the center channel issue, I would agree with Jay, and would've thought that an Access/Accent would be the natural partner as a match to SBL's.

As I understand it the tweeter is identical, or if not, merely a slightly lesser featured version, and the drivers Naims own, AND in their own compartments complete with PAR bass loading just like the SBL, plus with the vibration isolating plate for the tweeter.

Certainly, as my own HT system is evolving, the ONLY center speaker I would consider for my SBL's would be the Naim one.

Continuing off topic... the funny thing about HT sound, is that whilst the picture takes up most of ones senses, and one can 'get away' thus with slightly 'lesser' sound as compared to say 2 channel re satisfaction, the sound of Naim kit, or rather it's emotional involvement is very compelling, and tends to apply to movies as well - not so much on a cursory listen, but as one allows oneself to relax into things, and let the magic slowly come across as it were.

My options for 'finishing' the HT side of it, include separating the Sony AV/HT kit right out from the Naim, and simply purchasing a set of matching speakers for it; so far I've auditioned Tannoy Senys, B&W 600 & 700 series.

However, I found the Tannoys to 'slow', the 600 series very good and excellent VFM, but not overly refined, and the 700 series a lot better, but here in OZ very pricey, as is the case with all UK sourced kit, given shipping/air freight costs, and the exchange rate etc.

The other approach, is to leave as is, but add the Access centre channel to the SBL's, then say the N-sub, or perhaps one of top B&W models, then change the rears for either second hand SBL's, or more likely new Allaes, and eventually when Blue-ray etc, and the new HT audio codecs are settled, the Sony for Naim processor and amps etc.

I've done a lot of reading and theorising, and changed my mind several times, but the ears don't lie, and even hearing the 700 series B&W setup, the sound was airer and more spacious than the SBL's at the front granted, but for tonal balance, detail, accuracy, and bass, the sound I currently have far exceeded it (with the exlcusion of course of not having a centre channel or sub).

Heh, it's quite humbling to listen to many thousands of dollars worth of speakers, and realise what you have at home is heaps better, and that to spend that amount of money would merely result in one going sideways, not forward.

Hence, at this stage, i would rather go the cheaper option of say 600 series B&W, OR simply bite the $$ bullet, and build up/finish the HT as circumstances allow re the Naim route, as I cannot but help feel this would provide the greatest satisfaction overall, and particularly over the long term.

Anyway, sorry to digress,,, back to the topic, and over to you....

Best Regards

John...

This is my last upgrade.... after this my system will be finished...:-)

Alex -

At least that explains some of your warped posts..too much of the 'E' and the 'H'.

Anyne who doesn't care about home DVD picture quality has never seen a good projector image.

I saw a video of Tina Turner performing live in front of a vast crowd. This was being shown on a projector at a local AV show. I suppose the image was about 8 feet across and I was a similar distance away.

The picture on the screen of the audience beyond Tina's jiggling micro-dress was so realistic that I was shocked into instant shyness. It really felt in that moment as if I was standing behind her on the stage. I suddenly felt incredibly exposed. And in complete awe of her ability to perform under such concentrated attention.

I have seen HDTV on 42-45" plasma and again the seeing-through-an-open-window quality leaves ordinary plasma quality in your local TV dealer for dead. But it is not the same effect as a projector and screen even if you sit very close.

But then again, I am easily captured by my own 27" square Philips TV and enter completely into the enjoyment of DVD films and TV without effort. Just as I did as a child with early B&W (more like cream and grey) 14" TV sets. So anything better than that must be gilding the lily for home use.

Lastly, I simply cannot imagine anyone enjoying HT without a really good subwoofer. It brings so much to the experience of TV/film watching. Deep bass is often used to add tension in the slow build-up towards a big scene. Some films (like "Sneakers") have a deep beat throughout the film which adds enormously to the sense of unease while the images you are seeing can remain perfectly innocent. Sneaky eh?

Unless you've really heard the incredible very low frequency roar of the flapping wings of the wraith's dragons on LOTR at 110dB you have simply no idea of the forboding and terror the sound track brings to these scenes.
If you haven't sat half-terrified as everything in the house shakes to the arrival of the rescue ship at the end of "Matrix Reloaded" you haven't a clue what is really going on. Or what the director really intended.

Nime

Nime said:

quote:

---

Lastly, I simply cannot imagine anyone enjoying HT without a really good subwoofer. It brings so much to the experience of TV/film watching. Deep bass is often used to add tension in the slow build-up towards a big scene. Some films (like "Sneakers") have a deep beat throughout the film which adds enormously to the sense of unease while the images you are seeing can remain perfectly innocent. Sneaky eh? Big Grin

Unless you've really heard the incredible very low frequency roar of the flapping wings of the wraith's dragons on LOTR at 110dB you have simply no idea of the forboding and terror the sound track brings to these scenes.
If you haven't sat half-terrified as everything in the house shakes to the arrival of the rescue ship at the end of "Matrix Reloaded" you haven't a clue what is really going on. Or what the director really intended. Smile

Nime

---

Ooh, yes, totally agree. I had a demo a while back of a mates system with Sony AV pre-power with Proac speakers all round and a 15" Velodyne sub.

On the final battle scene near the end of the movie 'defending the bridge' in 'Saving Private Ryan' where the Panzer tanks are rolling into the village, one can visually see the ground shaking with the vibration from the tanks tracks etc, ON SCREEN. With the Velodyne sub, not only could one hear the low bass of the diesel tank engines resonating at a level lower than the proac towers could reproduce, one could also FEEL the vibration in the room, to match what was depicted on screen as regards the ground shaking with the progress of the massive tanks over the stony ground.

Now THATS 'proper' Home Cinema!

Cheers

Best Regards

John...