Did anyone here dump HT?

[ChrisK]

Great thread. HT is way overrated imho. You can only listen to rockets taking off, bullets whizzing by, cars driving behind you or helicopters flying overhead so much before the thrill wears off. Not to mention, multi-channel music sounds weird to me. I disassembled my HT about 3 years ago and have since moved to a smaller home. We chose to get a piano for my son instead of putting the HT back together. Good choice. Tubes, vinyl and SACD have put music back into our home. Besides, listening to music has one great advantage over HT. You don't have to sit on your arse while listening.

Regards,

Chris

PS Anyone looking for a good deal on a HT receiver? I have a Sherwood-Newcastle R-845(?) and a Marantz SR8000(?) gathering dust in my garage. Actually they are covered and boxed.

[ygmn]

I like my HT.,....but I watch about 3-4 movies a week.....

nothing like being immersed in a good story with good visual and audio.....

[j-malotky]

I love my Heritage HT. I and my family love to watch movies. I also love some of my DTS music disks and would never give up the multi channel sound.

I also love to listen to my 2 CH music listening as well.

It does take tweeking, but so does 2CH. Are we ever completely happy? There is always that one more tweek, and so on, and so on.

All part of the game.

JM

[Allan Songer]

HT? Never once thought about setting one up. And you might think that strange coming from someone who owes just about EVERYTHING to the film industry which has been very, very good to me over past couple of decades. I love movies and I watch quite a bit of TV as well--I'm glued to HBO every Sunday now that "The Sopranos" is back and I have been a NetFlix subscriber from just about day one. But I watch all of this on a simple 32" Sony and a cheap-o DVD player. I guess I just don't give a DAMN about the audio track of film and TV--as long as I can hear what's going on clearly I'm happy. I'd love to get a nice 50" Plasma to replace the Sony and I might just do that when the price drops under 5 grand for the really good ones, but even then I wouldn't opt for the full "HT" set up. I just do not care.

PS--I watch TV with the lights on too.

[JBryan]

Good point Artto. When I listen to stereo, I want as realistic an image as possible. My goal is to have John Coltrane blowin' his sax in the room. With HT and movies in general, I don't expect the same level of reproduction and I'm guessing but I don't think that is the intention or goal of most movie sound engineers. They try for more of an enhanced sound to stimulate and excite the audience.

I remember back when Stereo was a new thing, there was a plethora of records which sole purpose was to demonstrate the "Magic of Stereo". With airplanes flying distinctly between the speakers, cannons going off, someone walking across the stage - lots of fades and mixing going on so we could oh and ah at the effect. Now these tracks sound so manufactured and enhanced they don't approach what we now consider real. I think movies are for the most part, firmly planted in the "Oh...Ah" camp of sound. How many times have I seen a scene in which a big space ship lumbers by and the subwoofers are pumping out the utlra-low Hz of a cruise ship's engine. In reality of course, space is a vacuum and therefore - no sound waves - nothing. Aside from, Mr Kubrick's 2001, very few films acknowledge this level of realism. Just a thought - Bryan

[gullahisland]

I was an early adopter of HT. Spent big bucks on state of the art equipment, only to have the format replaced within a matter of months.

Dolby Pro Logic -- THX -- Dolby Digital -- 5.1 -- 6.1 -- 7.1

Super VHS -- Laser Disc -- DVD

CRT Direct View Television -- Rear Projection -- Widescreen -- High Definition -- Plasma -- LCD -- LCD Projection -- DLP -- And various combinations thereof

This is just an example of the rapid format changes that have taken place in a very short time.

I agree with many of you about adorning a room with gawdy speakers and ridiculously huge televisions. To me, it just looks tacky. I suppose if I were wealthy and could afford to have a completely separate media room that was only used for watching movies, I could justify it.

Nowadays, I just have a 32" TV with a little NAD receiver and a pair of PSB Alphas that can all be concealed (tv included) in a built-in bookcase. My stereo is COMPLETELY separate from the television. It resides in the formal living room where I can retreat and listen to music while my wife watches her "shows".

To me, separating the television from the stereo was the best thing I could have ever done. Home Theater is just a distraction. After all...it was the music that got me into this hobby in the first place.

[ygmn]

I will say this...

If you have never watched Football or the MASTERS in HDTV with the DD5.1 sound....it is unreal....you feel like you are there in the crowd....

Hey at least we all like the same brand of speakers hehehe

[artto]

----------------

On 4/14/2004 8:59:42 AM hwatkins wrote:

----------------

On 4/14/2004 8:47:18 AM artto wrote:

While the audio part has gotten even more three-dimensional, the visual aspect is still like looking at a reflection in a mirror.

----------------

Way off topic here, but something I find interesting...

Folks at Cambridge have done some interesting mirror studies. It seems that most folks brains take a twist when looking at a mirror - we turn it into a 3 dimensional representation. The most telling part of the experiment was that folks that were near-sighted had the same level of vision degredation on objects that were 'far away' in the mirror (let's say you have a sign that is 30 yards behind you in the mirror, our brain seems to know this and our blurred vision applies to that sign in the mirror even though the mirror is a mere 5 feet away). The same researchers noted that this didn't happen with television.

Enough useless information for one day...

----------------

Yes, that is interesting. Thats why I also referred to a "moving photograph". Mirrors today are smooth enough & have enough resolution to 'fool you'. But there is always something lost (distorted) when capturing a real world three-dimensional image, storing it, & then translating it to a two-dimensional surface.

It's intersting to note (for me at least), that my dog for instance, seems to have trouble interpreting a 'mirror image', & seems to make absolutely no sense of a TV or photo image, although he has very good spatial cognition. My previous dog seemed to be able to interprete reflections, & even photo images at times, however his real world spatial cognition was extremely poor. The squirrels in our yard seem to be able 'see right through' the mirror-like relfections on the patio doors, whereas my dog seems to have trouble with this.

Sorry, more useless information.

[maxg]

Artto,

Your post reminded me of one of the "rides" at Disney World in Florida way back (1980 I think).

It was a cinema with screens all around you - very disorientating but it really did put you into the middle of things. Wasnt much of a show as I remember - in fact the only part of it I do remember was a walk though St Peters Square in Rome. Quite cool as Pigeons flew past but I imagine it would be difficult to make a movie this way - too much equipment and too many technicians to hide.

The best surround sound systems I have come across (with matching ceiling mounted projectors with 3 lenses - Barco(?)) are indeed impressive. We watched Savign Private Ryan on one - but it gave me such a headache and I got tired of cowering behind the sofa for the first 30 minutes of the movie - there are only so many loud explosions I need in my life.

[whell]

The common thread in these responses is that individual preference is the ultimate variable. Its really not about whether home HT is "good" or "bad", its what each person finds that they enjoy, and then choose to maximazde their investment in gear accordingly.

I'm have been searching for the holy grail of a "do all" system - one that I am comfortable listening to both music with, and watching movies with. That system truly is a set of compromises:

- the room isn't perfect for HT

- the room is just OK for music

- the equipment leans toward multi channel reproduction, but I'm using an external amp and leaving the processor on "source direct" when I listen to stereo music

- the RF-7's have the capability of doing both movies and music well, and I am saving my hard earned ducats for a Dean G crossover mod later this year

- my system has the capability for mutli channel music, though I've found little multi channel source material that reproduces music that I enjoy listening to

For my dedicated 2 channel system, I'm going to be using a "modded" Sansui 9090 and a pair of RF-3's in the basement. The mods on the Sansui include updating and removing capacitors with quality Black Gates, including those in the phono section, tweaking the FM, etc. Should sound like new and give modern stuff a run for the money.

I'll probably end up listening to my 2 channel system as much as my HT system for music, but the HT system will handle almost all of the video/HT duties.

In any case, I'm sticking with 5.1 for the foreseeable future.

I must say, though, that the tweaking of a 5.1 system - speaker placement, level settings, etc., can be maddening enough. I can't imagine the additional heartache that a 7.1 system would bring!

[fini]

Hey, do I understand that some of you are actually dumping your HT gear? Which landfill? Any consoles?

[avman]

well, i am a home theater design specialist, and my ht room as well as one i installed for a customer has been published in a magazine

when i listen to cd's,i use my KLF-30's(L,R) and RSW-15. 2-ch. SACD's use the KLF-30's only,and multi-ch. SACD's use all the speakers. my preference for music is still 2-ch.+sub,BUT watching dvd concerts(REALLY puts me AT THE CONCERT) has opened my mind to multi-channel music,and i do occasionally enjoy 5-ch.'stereo',although my sony ES ht room receiver does NOT offer that option('live house'on the sony is my favorite 'music-surround' mode, though RARELY used).

as far as sound for movies goes, i have heard 2-ch. rigs sound really good,creating a believable phantom center AND phantom SURROUNDS...but i wouldn't trade my ht room movie experience for ANY 2-ch. setup i've heard yet.i actually prefer to 'experience' a movie in my ht room vs. the movie house.

in my living room,i was just going to have a pair of'85 heresy 2's,BUT i got a great deal on a pair of '82 cornwalls, and a great deal on a new '04 heresy 2 as a center channel, so i have two surround systems in my house.

avman.

[Rudy81]

Very interesting thread. I am fortunate enough to have a deidcated HT/Listening room. My family and I get tremendous enjoyment from the many movies we watch at home. I loved watching the Masters in 5.1 in HDTV.

I also enjoy using just the 2 channel on my 7.1 system and listening to just the Belles.

I am on my third generation of HT gear, and can say that the quality of the gear makes all the differance. From the speakers to the electronics, the source material and of course the room.

I cannot imagine going back to strictly 2 channel for multi-channel material.

[TBrennan]

You know fellas, it was the pictures that got me interested in hi-fi in the first place; the 70mm roadshow pictures of the late 50s and early 60s. Those pictures had excellent sound, multi-track magnetic sound.

Anyway in 19and59 my Dad and I went downtown to see Ben-Hur. I'll never forget the opening blasts of the picture's overture music, never. It was amazing. And I was off on my interest in sound.

As far as HT vs stereo; I find that surround sound is no big deal anymore, it's no longer novel and is ususally simply bombastic nonsense. HI-FIDELITY is the main thing; wide-range, low distortion and robust dynamics. Given those qualities I'd be happy watching movies in mono.

But I like the basic sound of my Denon and so I use it.

[tubelover]

When I watch a movie, it is generally in a theater. I do not have hours of free time, nor would I care to sit and watch movies at home. Maybe the harsh winter weather in some areas of the country induces some into the HT realm? I prefer the great outdoors myself, weather permittiing. Just give me a nice 2-Channel rig and I am happy as a clam. If I feel the urge to watch a movie, stereo will be sufficient for me. JMO

[formica]

----------------

On 4/14/2004 8:59:42 AM hwatkins wrote:

Folks at Cambridge have done some interesting mirror studies. It seems that most folks brains take a twist when looking at a mirror - we turn it into a 3 dimensional representation. The most telling part of the experiment was that folks that were near-sighted had the same level of vision degredation on objects that were 'far away' in the mirror (let's say you have a sign that is 30 yards behind you in the mirror, our brain seems to know this and our blurred vision applies to that sign in the mirror even though the mirror is a mere 5 feet away). The same researchers noted that this didn't happen with television.

----------------

And a little off topic.... Ummm... but someone at Cambridge got paid for that?? That effect (amongst others) is actually due to well understood theories of wave physics. Without out going into a textbook explanation, a mirror's *reflection* is very different from an photographic or cinematic *image*. An *image* is a 2D reproduction of the 3D world... where the camera's optics create an artificial depth by focus and "depth of field" (as well as superimposition, shadows, etc...). The lens replaces the eye's optics for focus and interpretation of depth... and the eye only focuses on the reproduction. On the other hand, a mirror does not reproduce anything... instead it simply reflects light (photons) from the 3d object to our eyes. Therefore if you stand 5ft from a mirror which is reflecting an object 30ft from it... your eyes must focus the 35ft optical distance.

Rob

[IndyKlipschFan]

I could almost title this "Trends" in HT vs Stereo.

While I am not a rich mega millionaire, I do have a friend in FL who builds custom homes for them in the say low end of 5k sq. feet up to some monsters 15-30k sq. feet. You can imagine homes of this size have anything and everything the customers want. Very large garages for 6-12 cars or motorcoaches... These homes are on golf courses or estate lots, come with everything. Dream big!

When HT came into reality in say the late 80's and took hold in the mid to late 90's with Dolby Digital, DTS, and THX ( I know THX is a standard, not a format, but you know what I mean) IMO. All are great, when set up properly for movies. The fact that an average guy can buy a HT in a box at Wal-Mart was the curse for custom HT guys even if you certainly can't compare a 200 dollar system with a 19" color TV in your family room to a fully dedicated room with incredible sound, a HDTV, Theater seats etc., etc.

That said.. People are starting to build "Music Rooms." By this, I mean, one to two chair only rooms to escape the day and enjoy vinyl, or CD's for audio only. Most are looking to go back to a place so they can (in a very carefully designed room) control the room surroundings, reflections, seats, atmosphere and every piece of the audio chain too. I think this is cool and wonderful. My only draw back as these rooms are so designed for one or two people max. And in that we also lose out of the community of sharing music with others too. It would be a shame IMO if your music room became an oversized closet.....with say one magnificent painting on the wall...a glass of wine ... and unbelievable system to just have an "eargasm."

Wait, it might be a great escape room, too, from everyone and everything else! LOL

[whell]

----------------

On 4/14/2004 12:24:59 PM IndyKlipschFan wrote:

My only draw back as these rooms are so designed for one two people max. And in that we also lose out of the community of sharing music with others too. It would be a shame IMO if your music room became an oversized closet.....with say one magnificent painting on the wall...a glass of wine... and unbelieveable system to just have an "eargasm".

----------------

An "eargasm"? That's a good one!

[ssh]

Mark,

I understand why you (& others) would bail from HT.It sounds like you tried to get interested in HT, without really being interested in movies. Maybe you thought it would add interest enough to movies to persue, but it didn't. For others, the equipment doesn't add enough to the experience to make the venture worthwhile, although the movie experience is. And for some, the enhancement of an external two channel amp is more than sufficient. After all, why expend the effort for 1-2 movies a month, or when the twin 4x9s in the set or the addition of a two channel amp sounds fine.

I haven't bailed from HT, because as unrealistic as it is to hear music in the background of the action in a movie, or from multiple points around me while listening to jazz or rock, I love the sensation of that spatial accoustic envelope. I've persued tweeks & improvements that put me there about 25% of the time I have my system on. That includes movie & multi-channel time. To me, it is worth being a bit of a hobby.

SSH

[mark1101]

I have a Sony HT in a box setup (5.1) that I use for TV. My equipment listed below is for dedicated audio listening. I have had great luck and it has been a neat listening experience using the HT for all the TV and DVD and VHS listening. It is very configurable and sounds respectable. The Klipsch systems I have absolutely blow it away, but what else would you expect?

I also have my DVD player plugged into my Scott 299 system. This way I can choose to use the 2 CH. system if I want. Like for the concert DVDs that might sound better in 2 Ch. The HT in 2 Ch. mode is basically useless.

But I would not get rid of the HT. Another type of listening experience that we enjoy very much.

Good thread.