| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Home theatre with hifi recommendations sought
I want to buy a home theatre with a as good hifi sound as possible. My
budget is 5000 USD max and I would appreciate some advice. My friend ( there's always one isn't there .. ) says that Denon or Onkyo DVD player / amps are good options. But what about speakers? Should I try to go for used stuff and buy separates or buy something new in a box? I only need DVD/CD player and TV size should be perhaps up to 54inch. Is plasma really worth the extra? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"suthep" wrote in message
... I want to buy a home theatre with a as good hifi sound as possible. My budget is 5000 USD max and I would appreciate some advice. My friend ( there's always one isn't there .. ) says that Denon or Onkyo DVD player / amps are good options. But what about speakers? Should I try to go for used stuff and buy separates or buy something new in a box? I only need DVD/CD player and TV size should be perhaps up to 54inch. Is plasma really worth the extra? Read the latest Consumer Reports which has an extensive discussion of the various types of displays and their pluses and minuses. For example, plasma TVs may not be a good choice if you live at altitudes above 2500 feet. I'd buy new stuff - used can be a crap shoot. A system of separates if properly put together is going to outperform HTIB but will likely cost more too. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some simple things as well. They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine whether or not they met a specification, both are equal. A Craftsman wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a Snap-On, it's as simple as that. Consumer testing organizations deal with a lowest common denominator mentality. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com... Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some simple things as well. So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV an appliance? How is "serious audio" defined? They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine whether or not they met a specification, both are equal. Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items to the same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In addition, products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with the same performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was in reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in question and determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles" poo-poo CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally test the boutique components that audiophiles drool over. A Craftsman wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a Snap-On, it's as simple as that. I suppose Snap-On wrenches are "serious" tools. I get the distibct impression that "serious" to you is determined by the price tag. Consumer testing organizations deal with a lowest common denominator mentality. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some simple things as well. So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV an appliance? How is "serious audio" defined? If I were a serious washing machine buff-I'm sure they exist-I wouldn't like CU's washing machine tests either. There are many subtleties in washing machines, or there were during the time when I was familiar with them. A Maytag was more durable than a Kenmore/Whirlpool in the sense failures were rarer, but the Kenmore was cheaper to fix. The belt was a bitch to change on the Kenmore, but did act as a safety link against tearing up the transmission. Only appliance technicians would know these things, or a obsessed washing machine buff. CU didn't cover these kind of things. CU was probably okay as a general guide weeding out the mostpoorly built machines and directing people to the better ones in general, but it didn't have time or inclination to communicate all the subtleties. And because most people didn't really give a ****, that was a fair deal. This group is composed of the audio equivalent of serious washing machine buffs. They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine whether or not they met a specification, both are equal. Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items to the same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In addition, products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with the same performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was in reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in question and determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles" poo-poo CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally test the boutique components that audiophiles drool over. A Craftsman wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a Snap-On, it's as simple as that. I suppose Snap-On wrenches are "serious" tools. I get the distibct impression that "serious" to you is determined by the price tag. You can get a pretty complete set of Craftsman hand tools for mechanical work in 1/4, 3/8 and 1/2 inch drive and the equivalent sized combination wrenches, et al, for three or four hundred dollars if you wait until they are on sale. That same collection in Snap-On is probably five grand. If you can wangle 'industrial' pricing or you buy the whole enchilada at once from a truck vendor and you catch him at an opportune moment, you might get a ten percent price break-period. The price is the same whether you buy one wrench or the whole catalog, theoretically. That's considered a plus, in their market. The Craftsman tools will work but they are heavier, thicker, and will not take the abuse the Snap-ons will, and the Snap-Ons will clean up easier, and are just generally nicer to work with. Also, and this is the real difference, Snap-On tools are vended to their target customers off a truck-you are paying for convenience and for their credit policies. Their industrial business is strictlyu a side-car to their auto business. But cost aside-their tools are a lot better. If all you do is change your oil, you don't need Snap-On. But if you want the best tool you can get, there they are. That's what "high-end" means. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
this is all a pile of use to me seeking recommendations of a system ......zzzz/// |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"suthep" wrote in message
... this is all a pile of use to me seeking recommendations of a system .....zzzz/// I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer Reports and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will be by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its pros and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high definition now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need to consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers might be. There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all channels driven. Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance speakers which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and that can cause problems for some receivers. Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in mind that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be required to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the low frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good value ones. I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds. Decent DVD players are pretty cheap these days. You can even get "universal" players with DVD-A and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of interest but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the individual analog cables those formats use. If you have a turntable requiring phono inputs, make sure you have them on your receiver - many don't anymore. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
" I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer Reports and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will be by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its pros and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high definition now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need to consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers might be. There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all channels driven. Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance speakers which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and that can cause problems for some receivers. Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in mind that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be required to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the low frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good value ones. I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds. Decent DVD players are pretty cheap these days. You can even get "universal" players with DVD-A and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of interest but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the individual analog cables those formats use. If you have a turntable requiring phono inputs, make sure you have them on your receiver - many don't anymore. Thx , this is what I am looking for , some basic advice. One question. Since I will want to listen to music perhaps even more than watching movies, are there any further pointers you would like to give me? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"suthep" wrote in message
... " I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer Reports and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will be by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its pros and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high definition now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need to consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers might be. There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all channels driven. Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance speakers which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and that can cause problems for some receivers. Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in mind that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be required to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the low frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good value ones. I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds. Decent DVD players are pretty cheap these days. You can even get "universal" players with DVD-A and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of interest but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the individual analog cables those formats use. If you have a turntable requiring phono inputs, make sure you have them on your receiver - many don't anymore. Thx , this is what I am looking for , some basic advice. One question. Since I will want to listen to music perhaps even more than watching movies, are there any further pointers you would like to give me? That's kind of the boat I'm in too. I think the typical advice is to get full range front speakers assuming your music sources are CD, turntable or cassette played back in normal stereo. These will tend to be large and will have a lower SAF (Spousal Approval Factor) than an entire system of small satellites. I went the satellite route myself and am happy with that but you may want to go with full range fronts. When I say full range, I don't mean they have to have huge woofer elements to get down to 30 Hz or below - that's what your sub will be for. A lot of front speakers are in a slim tower design which eliminates the need for stands of any kind - it's best to have mid and high range drivers at the same height as your ears while listening. Even with music, you'll appreciate a good sub with capabilities down to 25 Hz or less (Bach organ music especially). You'll want adjustability in crossover some of which may be handled by the sub electronics and some handled by the receiver. There is also an art to sub placement relative to the listener; much depends on the room itself. Also the size and nature of the room as well as your own tastes (loudness levels) will influence your audio choices. If you're into music, you may as I did want to dabble with the new formats - DVD-Audio and SACD. These provide superb high quality musical sound in a surround format. Some people consider them gimmicky, you have to have a special DVD player to play them in optimum format, the titles available are fewer, and they're a bit more expensive than standard CDs. Still, I like the surround sound - stems from my youthful desire for a Quadraphonic system way back in the 1970's, I guess. Crutchfield has some general info too http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/le...RmlqNori/home/ These are just some random thoughts I have on the subject. I'm still learning too. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote: That's kind of the boat I'm in too. I think the typical advice is to get full range front speakers assuming your music sources are CD, turntable or cassette played back in normal stereo. These will tend to be large and will have a lower SAF (Spousal Approval Factor) than an entire system of small satellites. This is rubbish. Often, the stands are even *more* ugly than a nice, thin tower. http://www.tannoy.com/Eyris2 Note the beautiful real wood veneer and a thin profile. I've found that the mounts/stands for most speakers are often uglier than a good small tower or wall-mounted surround. Show this to your spouse. Then, as most women have better hearing than men by middle-age, let her hear them  Tannoystopped making their Revolution, which is a shame, but they also are great sounding without being a behemoth. I went the satellite route myself and am happy with that but you may want to go with full range fronts. When I say full range, I don't mean they have to have huge woofer elements to get down to 30 Hz or below - that's what your sub will be for. A lot of front speakers are in a slim tower design which eliminates the need for stands of any kind - it's best to have mid and high range drivers at the same height as your ears while listening. 35-40hz is the optimal range, as it will go down to 30hz, though at less db. This gives it some overlap with the subwoofer, so the sub isn't doing it all, but instead, is providing reinforcement as it should be. The difference between subwoofer reinforcement and it taking over everything at the low-end is quite audible. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ian S" wrote in message news:uBOTd.118175$0u.89693@fed1read04... wrote in message oups.com... Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some simple things as well. So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV an appliance? How is "serious audio" defined? They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine whether or not they met a specification, both are equal. Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items to the same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In addition, products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with the same performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was in reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in question and determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles" poo-poo CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally test the boutique components that audiophiles drool over. A Craftsman wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a Snap-On, it's as simple as that. I've used both Craftsman and Snap-On wrenches. Although the Snap-On wrench is prettier, I don't see that it's better in any meaningful way, and it certainly doesn't have a better warranty. Norm Strong |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ink.net... Ian S wrote: That's kind of the boat I'm in too. I think the typical advice is to get full range front speakers assuming your music sources are CD, turntable or cassette played back in normal stereo. These will tend to be large and will have a lower SAF (Spousal Approval Factor) than an entire system of small satellites. This is rubbish. Often, the stands What stands? I didn't mention stands. Small satellites are easily and inexpensively mounted on the wall. And they can be quite unobtrusive. That said, if you do go with satellites, it may be useful to use some cheap adjustable stands initially to have the ability to move the speakers around before settling on the best location for each speaker in your room. Once you have the optimum location pattern, some or all of the satellites can be wall-mounted. For someone on a tight budget and wanting to go with slim tower front speakers, Fry's Electronics (at least here in Phoenix and probably other places as well) has Polk R50's on for $160 a pair. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some more thoughts:
Some of the new receivers with 6.1 or 7.1 capability are quite large. Make sure you have room in any cabinet you want to put them in and that there is good ventillation otherwise you run the risk of the amps shutting down due to overheating. Also realize that you will need quite a bit of room behind the receiver to deal with the large number of cables you'll be connecting. Also, unless you plan to purchase a sophisticated remote, make sure you can live with the one that comes with the receiver. There is an surprising variability in the quality of the ergonomics in this often overlooked component. When you get your selection of components narrowed down, then search the internet for user reviews which will often mention such small but ultimately significant details. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... I've used both Craftsman and Snap-On wrenches. Although the Snap-On wrench is prettier, I don't see that it's better in any meaningful way, and it certainly doesn't have a better warranty. Norm Strong It's been many years since I used any Snap-on tools and they were certainly the highest quality. Of course, they were far more expensive than just about anything else but included in the price had to be the cost of all those guys driving around to sell and deliver to all those mechanics. As you say, the warranties are lifetime but the Snap-on replacement comes to you while you have to go get the Craftsman. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote: What stands? I didn't mention stands. Small satellites are easily and inexpensively mounted on the wall. Oh, you mean those rear-ported speakers? And mount them on what? Velcro? Most wall mounts are also ugly in the extreme, especially if you have off-white walls or wallpaper. wall-mounted. For someone on a tight budget and wanting to go with slim tower front speakers, Fry's Electronics (at least here in Phoenix and probably other places as well) has Polk R50's on for $160 a pair. Ecch. Polk are rubbish at the low-end. Truly. I'd take a pair of Athenas over them, and a pair of Mirage or Paradigm would make it way up my list of budget choices. True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200 a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category of fine furniture. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net... Ian S wrote: What stands? I didn't mention stands. Small satellites are easily and inexpensively mounted on the wall. Oh, you mean those rear-ported speakers? And mount them on what? Velcro? Most wall mounts are also ugly in the extreme, Most wall-mounts are virtually invisible behind the speaker. especially if you have off-white walls or wallpaper. Wallpaper? Yeah, I think my senile aunt has some of that.. wall-mounted. For someone on a tight budget and wanting to go with slim tower front speakers, Fry's Electronics (at least here in Phoenix and probably other places as well) has Polk R50's on for $160 a pair. Ecch. Polk are rubbish at the low-end. Truly. I'd take a pair of Athenas over them, and a pair of Mirage or Paradigm would make it way up my list of budget choices. Obviously your budget isn't as tight as your ass. True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200 a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category of fine furniture. Which is it speakers or "fine furniture"? |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net... True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200 a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category of fine furniture. If they're made anything like British cars, no thank you. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some simple things as well. So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV an appliance? How is "serious audio" defined? They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine whether or not they met a specification, both are equal. Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items to the same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In addition, products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with the same performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was in reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in question and determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles" poo-poo CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally test the boutique components that audiophiles drool over. My guess (and it is a guess) is that they have tested some high-end gear and found most of it to not be all that exceptional. I think that some high-end stuff (certain speakers and certainly certain surround processors) are easily a cut above the Best Buy mainstream. A Craftsman wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a Snap-On, it's as simple as that. I suppose Snap-On wrenches are "serious" tools. I get the distibct impression that "serious" to you is determined by the price tag. OK, just what do you use such tools for that would make it imperative for you that they work all that much better than the Sears versions? The only people I can see needing such killer-durable would be professional automobile or motorcycle mechanics or professional machinists. Sure, it may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling good about something does not make for a rational reason for ownership. The average tool user can get as much mileage out of a set of Sears tools as he can get out of a set of Snap-On versions. I have a 240 square foot shop out back and have it populated by maybe eight grand worth of bench and hand power tools and non-powered hand tools. I can do a lot of stuff out there (mostly involving woodworking, but also involving some metalworking and machine-tool stuff), but I do not kid myself and tell people that I am a professional woodworker or machinist who must have top-tier hardware. That said, I am more than satisfied with owning mostly mid-level tools, although some are professional grade. Howard Ferstler |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote:
I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer Reports and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will be by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its pros and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high definition now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need to consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers might be. Actually, I agree with you. There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer, Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all channels driven. I have stated this in numerous product reviews and commentary articles in The Sensible Sound, and also in my two AV books. My floor is 100 wpc, however, at least with the three channels up front. Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance speakers which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and that can cause problems for some receivers. I agree. This is why it pays to go as upscale as possible with receivers. Either that, or stick with speakers that are spec rated at 6 - 8 ohms. Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in mind that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be required to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the low frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good value ones. Yes they do. SVS is in that same category. I own three Hsu subs, one SVS, and two Velodyne servo jobs. Love them all, and have reviewed all of them for The Sensible Sound. I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds. I reviewed the Ventriloquist package in issue 101 (Sept/Oct, 2004) of The Sensible Sound. Included the STF-1 sub. Very nice little group of speakers. Decent DVD players are pretty cheap these days. Yep. I'd stick with something that costs at least a hundred bucks, however. You can even get "universal" players with DVD-A and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of interest but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the individual analog cables those formats use. The issue here is bass management and distance compensation. This puts SACD and DVD-A at a disadvantage if the system has smallish satellites, for sure. Frankly, with DVD-A you can play the DD or DTS alternate tracks on the discs and get bass management and distance compensation. That makes those tracks probably better sounding in most cases than the DVD-A tracks. Actually, I have compared DVD-A to DD on a number of occasions (easy to do if a distributor sends you multiple copies and you have multiple players hooked into the same system) and find that subjectively the latter sounds just as good, period. I have also compared SACD to some of the CD versions (a lengthy report series will be in an upcoming review of The Sensible Sound) and found that if good DSP ambiance synthesis is applied to the two-channel CD versions they will sound as good as the SACD surround versions, and sometimes better. SACD and DVD-A are both overrated when it comes to per-channel performance, in my opinion, but of course they also offer surround. However, in some systems that technology goes to waste, because of the bass management and distance compensation issues. Howard Ferstler |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote:
If you're into music, you may as I did want to dabble with the new formats - DVD-Audio and SACD. These provide superb high quality musical sound in a surround format. Some people consider them gimmicky, you have to have a special DVD player to play them in optimum format, the titles available are fewer, and they're a bit more expensive than standard CDs. Still, I like the surround sound - stems from my youthful desire for a Quadraphonic system way back in the 1970's, I guess. Remember those bass-management and distance-compensation issues, however. Most 5.1 analog input sections in receivers will not have those circuits. This can make typical sub/sat systems (even those with largish left and right main speakers) run into problems. Howard Ferstler |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
No one ever said High End audio was rational. It's obsessive
compulsive behavior! It's a relatively harmless outlet for OCD, as opposed to some others. Mid-fi is more rational which is why it sells more- a reasonable approximation at a reasonable price. You buy it, hook it up, it sounds okay. Not super great, okay. The same with a hobbyist owning Snap-On wrenches, or HP/Agilent or Tek test equipment, or a Hasselblad camera...no, you don't need it. That's the point. About any old speakers hooked to about any old amplifier in about any room will sound about okay, to the average person on the street. If you have a little money and tme and want the sound to be more realistic, more, well, more...and you like well made things for their own sake...high end audio might be a good hobby. Maybe you have money and no time, just call the high end saloon on lunch break-even dope defense lawyers and brain surgeons have to eat-and have them deliver what they think is best. Have some time and curiosity and energy and not so much cash? Building your own speakers and amps has to beat watching stupid TV shows. Nothing in the world like flipping the switch and watching filaments light up...even in 2005. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Sure, it may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling good about something does not make for a rational reason for ownership. That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to other people feeling good. Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard, a guy who builds a WE91 clone (or two) for a few hundred
bucks, just how nuts is he? If it blows goats (and I think it does...) he's out a few hundred bucks, or he can put it on ebay and get his parts cost out of it. (Or use it for a guitar amp.) What has he lost? The time spent building it? Amusement, cheaper than going to a ball game. You are lumping the DIY building hobbyist with the guy who goes to the saloon and buys all the latest fad stuff new at list. And power conditioners are no nuttier for high end audio than in the racks of touring musicians, almost all of them have one now. I have stated my ideas on cost effective power improvement elsewhere and while I believe them better than some commercial practices that doesn't change the fact something needs to be done given power utility practices today. What about photography? Esthetically superior photos are often the result of simpler optics and it's widely acknowledged that Japanese optics which measure higher in sharpness are less desireable than German (and overpriced) Zeiss and Leitz optics. Indeed a friend of mine has had several published art nudes with his "secret weapon", a $2 Polaroid rollfilm camera lens put on a cut down extension tube he uses with a 67 Pentax. Is the notion that a tube amplifier with a pair of 1940s tubes could be BETTER SOUNDING than a modern one so nutty in comparison? The insistence of Objectivoids that it can't be so just doesn't stand up to repeated listening, it is no different than if they insisted that ABX testing proved soybean sandwiches were better tasting than a Whataburger. Insist though they may, it will fall on deaf ears. No pun intended. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Sure, it may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling good about something does not make for a rational reason for ownership. That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to other people feeling good. Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede. True. When tweako idiots feel good about moronic issues, I do indeed start to squirm. If I can get some of you to wake up and realize that your exotic wires and overpriced amps are nothing special that will make my day. If you break down in tears as the mysteriousness of the hobby fades, too bad. Still, you do not get the full point. I believe that you pinheads are really, really making high-end (I mean REAL high end, and not the subjective baloney-related version you embrace) audio into a joke. I don't like that. Howard Ferstler |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com No one ever said High End audio was rational. It's obsessive compulsive behavior! Thanks Cal for admitting that in your view, high end audio and its advocates, as well as the magazines devoted to it are nuts. It's a relatively harmless outlet for OCD, as opposed to some others. Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house and was hanging out around town, looking for me with a rifle - that was relatively harmless. When Scott Wheeler sued me in California Superior Court, that was relatively harmless, too. And, when Marc reported me to my local police as a pedophile and Tom Yutz recommended that others do the same, that was just harmless fun. Well, you're right Cal, both Scott Wheeler and Marc Philips turned out to be total and complete putz's, and it all came to nothing. yes, they're represenative fo the relatively harmless nature of HighEnd Audio. Mid-fi is more rational which is why it sells more- a reasonable approximation at a reasonable price. You buy it, hook it up, it sounds okay. Not super great, okay. In many cases nobody, not even the review staff of Sterephile it seems, can hear the difference. So what about that, Cal? The same with a hobbyist owning Snap-On wrenches, Huh? Can't a person do useful work with Snap-On wrenches? or HP/Agilent or Tek test equipment, I resemble that - and it get some useful work with it, as well. or a Hasselblad camera...no, you don't need it. That's the point. Tell the astranauts - they didn't need that Hasselblad at all. About any old speakers hooked to about any old amplifier in about any room will sound about okay, to the average person on the street. Really? If you have a little money and tme and want the sound to be more realistic, more, well, more...and you like well made things for their own sake...high end audio might be a good hobby. Maybe. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Sometimes you don't. With an iffy situation like this, why rely on a magazine that is basically a joke book? Maybe you have money and no time, just call the high end saloon on lunch break-even dope defense lawyers and brain surgeons have to eat-and have them deliver what they think is best. Good advice for people with more money than sense. I'd guess this would be part of the natural high end ragazine marketplace as well. Have some time and curiosity and energy and not so much cash? Building your own speakers and amps has to beat watching stupid TV shows. Other than building subwoofers, this is probably as bad advice as any. Nothing in the world like flipping the switch and watching filaments light up...even in 2005. Now Cal's advice is as big of a joke as those high end ragazines and web site. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Sure, it may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling good about something does not make for a rational reason for ownership. That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to other people feeling good. Yeah people like high end salesmen and the proprietors of high end publications. They feel good - they think its a joke when people follow their advice and trash big segments of CD collections by following their advice. Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede. Tain't no such word. In fact what Art is talking about Schadenfreude, where high end salesmen and ragazine staffs drive pleasure by giving bogus advice that destroys the enjoyment of reeader's music collections with off-the-wall recommendations like treat your CDs with Armor-All. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message oups.com It's a relatively harmless outlet for OCD, as opposed to some others. Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house and was hanging out around town, looking for me with a rifle - that was relatively harmless. Man, these guys are loony. When Scott Wheeler sued me in California Superior Court, that was relatively harmless, too. Yep, loony. And, when Marc reported me to my local police as a pedophile and Tom Yutz recommended that others do the same, that was just harmless fun. Loony, for sure. Well, you're right Cal, both Scott Wheeler and Marc Philips turned out to be total and complete putz's, and it all came to nothing. Spineless loonies? My God, how far the noble have fallen! yes, they're represenative fo the relatively harmless nature of HighEnd Audio. That the hobby attracts such people is one reason I am for "cleaning house." It motivates me. Well, the money I am paid motivates, too. Howard Ferstler |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
And I don't really care about it. Like I said before, my most expensive component cost me $1,900. My system has a cost of approximately $6,000. I have walked out of high end stores laughing, that I was more pleased with my system than their $100,000 system. I feel good about that, but if somebody else wants to go the route of a $100,000 system, I really couldn't care less. Your lack of compassion for suckers is noted. Howard Ferstler |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Sure, it may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling good about something does not make for a rational reason for ownership. That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to other people feeling good. Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede. True. When tweako idiots feel good about moronic issues, I do indeed start to squirm. If I can get some of you to wake up and realize that your exotic wires and overpriced amps are nothing special that will make my day. If you break down in tears as the mysteriousness of the hobby fades, too bad. Still, you do not get the full point. I believe that you pinheads are really, really making high-end (I mean REAL high end, and not the subjective baloney-related version you embrace) audio into a joke. I don't like that. And I don't really care about it. Like I said before, my most expensive component cost me $1,900. My system has a cost of approximately $6,000. I have walked out of high end stores laughing, that I was more pleased with my system than their $100,000 system. I feel good about that, but if somebody else wants to go the route of a $100,000 system, I really couldn't care less. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede. Tain't no such word. In fact what Art is talking about Schadenfreude, where high end salesmen and ragazine staffs drive pleasure by giving bogus advice that destroys the enjoyment of reeader's music collections with off-the-wall recommendations like treat your CDs with Armor-All. Your previous post of 7:04 PM, in the same thread, contained the following five errors: represenative fo astranauts Sterephile tme ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: And I don't really care about it. Like I said before, my most expensive component cost me $1,900. My system has a cost of approximately $6,000. I have walked out of high end stores laughing, that I was more pleased with my system than their $100,000 system. I feel good about that, but if somebody else wants to go the route of a $100,000 system, I really couldn't care less. Your lack of compassion for suckers is noted. I'm not the taste police. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote: True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200 a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category of fine furniture. Which is it speakers or "fine furniture"? Considering that "Spouse Approval Factor" was brought up, if you can get both goals met, why not spend a little more? |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian S wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message nk.net... True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200 a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category of fine furniture. If they're made anything like British cars, no thank you. Heh. Thankfully, speakers are one of the few areas that the British actually excel at. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The issue here is bass management and distance compensation. This puts SACD and DVD-A at a disadvantage if the system has smallish satellites, for sure. Frankly, with DVD-A you can play the DD or DTS alternate tracks on the discs and get bass management and distance compensation. That makes those tracks probably better sounding in most cases than the DVD-A tracks. Actually, I have compared DVD-A to DD on a number of occasions (easy to do if a distributor sends you multiple copies and you have multiple players hooked into the same system) and find that subjectively the latter sounds just as good, period. I have also compared SACD to some of the CD versions (a lengthy report series will be in an upcoming review of The Sensible Sound) and found that if good DSP ambiance synthesis is applied to the two-channel CD versions they will sound as good as the SACD surround versions, and sometimes better. SACD and DVD-A are both overrated when it comes to per-channel performance, in my opinion, but of course they also offer surround. However, in some systems that technology goes to waste, because of the bass management and distance compensation issues. Howard Ferstler These are excellent points - thank you for making them. I wonder if we're stuck with analog from the player for these formats. I'm just dabbling in them out of curiosity more than anything. One DVD-A I bought has Bach's Toccata & Fugue in d minor with video closeup of the keyboard as the organist plays. It's a large baroque organ that Bach himself reportedly played. I really enjoyed that! There's no way I'd ever get to see anything like that so closeup and with the exceptional audio to boot. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:04:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house Yeah, sort of like when *you* stalked my house in cyberspace. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Dolby digital surround sound home theatre amplifier? | General | |||
| Opinion on 5.1 Home theatre system components | General | |||
| Most explosive home theatre setup? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Best magazines for home theatre to subscribe to? | Audio Opinions | |||
| home audio/video server recommendations? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
