Anyone else not care about AV?

A good point. Where I grew up (in Worthing) we had two cinemas. Both were dingy (whoever coined the phrase "flea pit" must have been to The Dome!) and now long since gone. Neither gave the sort of experience that 'fun' and I never got into the habit of regular visits to see films.

Cinemas these days are much better but I rarely go, I can't remember the last time I went to see a film that wasn't for the kids.

I rarely have two hours to sit and watch a film. I couldn't tell you what the last DVD was that I watched either. No AV systems are not important to me!

I've been asked several times to offer opinions on and recommendations for AV kit - on the basis that I own decent hi-fi therefore I should know (anyone whose read my ramblings here know that not to be the case!)

Several people I am currently working with are ditching what dedicated hi-fi they have and are moving to hard disk based systems played through the 5.1 surround sound systems and raving about the sound quality.

We, the flat earthers are in a small minority anyway, I suspect that there will remain a small niche market (well vinyl died in the 80s didn't it? How many here still have a turntable, I know I do!). If you look at the main Naim site at the serial numbers you will see an increase in sales year on year so they must be doing something right.

I'm with you, Shayman - AV doesn't interest me and I HATE that thunderous bloody Dolby surround supercompressed rumbling booming garbage that's so popular today. It's just like a bad Hi-Fi - sounds impressive for a few minutes and then irritates the hell out of you!

Not for me. I've got an ordinary TV for watching the news and an occasional film, and a lovely Hi-Fi for listening to proper music.

Alex

Well I'm another old fart who doesn't see the point in all this AV nonsense.
It seems that DVD's have taken over from socks and garish ties as the easy-option present (surely people don't buy those awful Hollywood action thrillers for themselves!). Maybe this christmas I'll get round to watching the ones I got last year, or then again I might lock myself in the music room and play some totally un-seasonal music, grumpy old git that I am

Mike

Why anyone feels the need for AV I don't know. It's perfectly possible to upgrade the sound of a TV by the simple expedient of placing it between the hi-fi speakers and running the sound through the amp. Still that doesn't cost £XXXX's and won't impress friends and neighbours will it? In the final analysis it's aimed at people who watch "movies" instead of "films"...

Mole Man

Me too.

OK; I want crisp, clean sound from my TV - and I get it with a £90 Denon amp from Mr Richer and a cheap pair of JM Lab floorstanders.

As others have commented, the 'benefits' of an AV surround sound, full monty system only seem to be utilised with what I refer to as 'Flash Bang Wallop' films, which are of no interest to me.

I really don't feel the need for it with dialogue and a bit of background music, which is what most intelligent TV and films consist of.

John.

We like a bit of AV because we watch a lot of films. But it's the two channel stuff that we spend the big money on and the two will never be mixed. I think it's too easy to go over the top with AV. we prefer music to sound effects. But good luck to anyone who wants it. Free country and all that.

Cheers

Harry

I am interested in picture quality and have a very nice Grundig crt TV with built in dvb tuner. I also have a satellite box for watching sport but that's about it.

I have no interest at all in "home theatre" and certainly wouldn't waste hours watching dopey movies. Can't see the attraction there at all.

I've only watched one DVD in my life and that was five episodes of Bottom my son bought me for a birthday present.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HTK:
We like a bit of AV because we watch a lot of films. But it's the two channel stuff that we spend the big money on and the two will never be mixed. I think it's too easy to go over the top with AV. we prefer music to sound effects. But good luck to anyone who wants it. Free country and all that.

---

That's pretty much my position. The majority of components in my 2-channel system are each worth as much as the entire audio-rig in my home theatre system. Since movies are visual, the TV is the focal point. In my case, I've got a 65" RPTV, which suits me just fine. As for those 'Flash Bang Wallop' films, I think they're good fun. Who cares if they're "deep" or artistically worthy?

Alternatively, what's artistically worthwhile about a football/soccer match? Those silly events bore the pants off of me. It's all a matter of choice.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Hanson:

Alternatively, what's artistically worthwhile about a football/soccer match? Those silly events bore the pants off of me. It's all a matter of choice.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

---

Yeah. We've never seen the point of being able to get the news or a soap (not that we watch any) in high resolution feel-around. Probably our loss but we can live with that

Harry

I got rid of my TV years ago, what a total waste of time. I get news and current affairs from shortwave radio broadcasts (usually BBC World Service). We have the Irish Film Institute near us, which is where I watch movies.

In my view, DVDs are convenient, but not comparable to cinema projection (image quality, scale, involvement, atmosphere etc.)

Nick

Couldn't agree with you more folks. AV seems to start with an assumption that cinema surround somehow equates with realistic (which it does not) and that therefore recreation of cinema surround in one's home is therefore worth striving for (which it is not twice over). There's also the need to suspend belief. Hi-fi is surely about the exact opposite.

Mike

Wow - a thread where everyone agrees!

A friend of mine just bought a $300 Yamaha 5.1 receiver/speakers system; the (non-sub) speakers seem to have no high end at all on music playback. In fact, music generally sucked through this mass-market AV system. Dark days loom ahead, as this low-priced area is the growing area of the market.

I just play the 2-channel output from my DVD player through the "av" input on the 5i; coming through my M12.2s, I reckon I'm getting better AV performance than most!

"Wow - a thread where everyone agrees!"

Yeah, but maybe a different set of responses would occur if this thread was placed in the Home Theatre part of the site!

Nick

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhazen:
Wow - a thread where everyone agrees!

---

Perhaps I should clarify my position. Although my HT's audio gear doesn't compare to my 2-channel system, it's a full 5.1 surround system, with a dedicated PC, etc. It's probably better than 95% of all the HT's out there. It's not as important to me as my 2-channel system, but that doesn't mean it's not important at all.

[rant]Personally, I think you guys are acting like a bunch of sad luddites, bemoaning the fact that HT is becoming more popular than your preferred medium. Two-channel playback is history, just like vinyl, 78's, Victrolas, etc. Live in the past, if you must, while whinging about the world passing you by. It won't change reality one iota![/rant]

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Seagull

You'll be pleased to know that Worthing Dome is still open, and is currently being refurbished. You may be interested in its website www.wothingdome.com. I grew up in Worthing and visit my dad there quite often.

I watch films on our 28" panasonic widescreen and feel no need for anything better, but I have recently substituted the freebie scarts for QED performance sqart leads between the freeview box and DVD and the TV, and the improvement to picture and sound were very worthwhile. Has anyone else tried these?

Nigel

Mike

I enjoyed your "rant". It's not so much about being a luddite (e.g., my enjoyment of listening to shortwave radio to listen about world affairs), but in my case its about keeping home life pleasantly simple, investing funds in things I really value (like stereo hifi) and not chasing the latest technological trend that I don't need or want.

Nick

I like films but want to see good ones at the cinema or old ones on the TV. I have a DVD player (cheap&small) patched into my 82 on aux1 and the cable box plugged into aux2 so I get good sound. But I seriously don't think I'll ever go to an AV sistem. Tho I do believe that a decade from now they'll be integrated. I'm sure my naim system will last for many years to come.

Life is analogue, enjoy it while you can.

quote:

---

[rant]Personally, I think you guys are acting like a bunch of sad luddites, bemoaning the fact that HT is becoming more popular than your preferred medium. Two-channel playback is history, just like vinyl, 78's, Victrolas, etc. Live in the past, if you must, while whinging about the world passing you by. It won't change reality one iota![/rant]

---

Mike, have you been taking Mick lessons?

Seriously, if this AV crap sounded as good as my 2-channel, and it cost about the same, I'd buy it. Problem is it doesn't -- by a long shot.

Same is true of vinyl vs. cd, which is why I don't own a cdp anymore. (I was an early cd adopter, btw -- hardly a luddite). I finally realized it was best to admit the medium was a failure and cut my losses. Hope you don't find yourself in a similar situation after all that money....

This AV bashing fest has little to do with Luddism. It has a lot to do with personal preference. Fortunately that still leaves each of you in a minority of one.

My wife and I enjoy films at home. The problem is we don't want to see them twice. Not without at least a good couple of years in between to forget the plot a little.

Music doesn't so easily wear out the listening experience. As it is a largely passive pastime. If you like the stuff it washes over you making you feel all warm and happy. If you don't like the stuff you change it for something you do like.

Films demand more of a reaction. A need to respond to the story and the events being recreated. To empathise with the characters, to hate them or even to fear them.
The story draws you in and makes you work on your own attitudes and feelings about this crazy world. The "what if that happened to me?" syndrome.
Few films fail to draw some moral from the morass of images that flit across your vision and the expensively produced sounds effects that rattle your senses.

Of course the average AV enthusiast is often interested in the Flash, Bang, Wallop sort of action film. The bass from the LFE effects are important to the feel and reality of the film watching experience. The sense of menace is incredible with a decent bass sound track and a subwoofer that can manage it effortlessly.
Those of you decrying the boomy AV bass simply haven't heard a decent subwoofer properly calibrated for level with decent speakers. There are surprisingly few subwoofers about actually worth listening to! No suprise there, but often completely forgotten by the hifi purists. I hate the endless, identikit boomy crashes at AV shows too!

Recently I bought an AV 5.1 receiver. In comparison with my Naim stereo system there was no contest. The receiver went back next day. The sheer sense of reality of the stereo Naim kit on DVD film dialogue and everyday sound effects was startling. But at a near 10-1 cost ratio the Naim amps should have been bloody good.

I heartily recommend you try sticking your TV between your speakers and listen to TV plays and films fed from a digital satellite receiver through your Naim stereo. It might blow you away! As long as you aren't using Kans without a subwoofer!

So, lets at least compare oranges with lemons. Not with tins of baked beans.

Nime

Sound from my HT system is nowhere near as good as it is from my 2-channel setup. However, it's just as good as it is at the theater, which is good enough for me. When I'm watching movies, I want to be immersed in the experience, and surround sound helps to produce that effect. Of course, this is most relevent with "action" films and the like. If the movie is 2-channel, then it doesn't really make any difference.

IOW, I don't need my HT to sound as good as my 2-channel system, since sound is not the primary focus. It merely has to sound "good enough" to support the material being watched.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Nime mentioned what puts me off AV and that is that I can't think of more than a few movies I'd like to see again and only two or three, perhaps, that I'd watch more than than twice. So that's a lot of money to spend on a system that I just have to keep buying or renting software for to enjoy.

On the other hand, I listen to albums over and over.

But then, on my third hand I'd have to say that I love movies at the cinema but hate sitting just in front of people who talk and having to turn around and glare at them and I REALLY hate noisy cellophane wrapping.

Deane

Why should wanting to watch a movie repeatedly be a criterion for gauging the merit of home theater? Why wrong with renting DVDs and watching them only once?

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Hanson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhazen:
Wow - a thread where everyone agrees!

---

[rant]Personally, I think you guys are acting like a bunch of sad luddites, bemoaning the fact that HT is becoming more popular than your preferred medium. Two-channel playback is history, just like vinyl, 78's, Victrolas, etc. Live in the past, if you must, while whinging about the world passing you by. It won't change reality one iota![/rant]

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

---

I agree Mike; I am a Luddite I suppose. Though perhaps what I'm really bothered by is people turning away from listening to music vs. watching the tube; but then again, perhaps it's always been that way for most. I'm always a little surprised when I visit someone's home and I see a dozen or two CDs next to a Best Buy-bought "shelf system" or boombox, then a huge TV/VCR/DVD setup. It's a personal bias, I think music is more important; I guess I shouldn't suppose everyone else needs to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhazen:
Though perhaps what I'm really bothered by is people turning away from listening to music vs. watching the tube; but then again, perhaps it's always been that way for most. I'm always a little surprised when I visit someone's home and I see a dozen or two CDs next to a Best Buy-bought "shelf system" or boombox, then a huge TV/VCR/DVD setup. It's a personal bias, I think music is more important; I guess I shouldn't suppose everyone else needs to.

---

Hey, music is rabidly important to me too, but I'm not suprised that the majority of people seem to prefer schlocky movies and reality-shows on TV. If they preferred music like I do, then pop-radio stations wouldn't be as prevalent as they are. However, I'm in the minority, and I fully understand and accept that.

Curiously, when it comes to movies, I'm just as happy to watch the latest, bang-crash-boom blockbuster, as I am to watch some obscure art-house flick. I suppose this makes me inconsistently elitist, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. When I do watch those Hollywood gems, I sure enjoy my HT setup!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Hanson:
Why should wanting to watch a movie repeatedly be a criterion for gauging the merit of home theater? Why wrong with renting DVDs and watching them only once?

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

---

That's a point. Which made me wonder what it is I like about going to the cinema and I guess it's the sense of occasion I get from it. I doubt that I could recreate that no matter how much money I spent.

And if I had the money to set up a REALLY big screen I'd probably just buy my own cinema so that I could watch the newest releases.

Deane