If you had to skimp on your home theater

[jostenmeat]

I'm 100% with you on this!. And whomever said we use our eyes all the time but not our ears is in need of a hearing test. You can hear in 360 degrees, but unless you have eyes in the back of your head...seeing in 360 is impossible.

It would be interesting to see/hear the following test.

10 people are forced to WATCH a movie WITHOUT sound.
10 people are forced to LISTEN to a movie WITHOUT picture.

Which of the 2 groups would have a better experience? Which of the 2 groups would be able to more accurately interpret the story as intended by the director?

I'll put my wager on HEARING!

John

All of my formal education is in classical music. One of my more recent ensembles was just a duo, and we both agreed that if we could only keep one of the two senses, it would be vision, and not hearing. And my former partner was already a published composer.

If you prefer to keep your hearing over your vision, you are definitely in the minority, and do not realize how much more difficult it is to be independent.

OTOH, I've known a few blind musicians. They pick up aural things soooo quickly. One of them speaks maybe 7 languages.

 

[john72953]

All of my formal education is in classical music. One of my more recent ensembles was just a duo, and we both agreed that if we could only keep one of the two senses, it would be vision, and not hearing. And my former partner was already a published composer.

If you prefer to keep your hearing over your vision, you are definitely in the minority, and do not realize how much more difficult it is to be independent.

OTOH, I've known a few blind musicians. They pick up aural things soooo quickly. One of them speaks maybe 7 languages.

I don't mind being in the minority...in fact, given the loss of either of the two senses I would be regardless. Your point therefore is a moot one. I also don't think I want to get in a debate about which loss of senses is the more difficult to overcome or deal with.

All I am saying is that to ME (not you) Hearing is the sense I value more.

John

PS~ I have a University education, I speak 3 languages fluently, I have lived on 3 different continents, I am a frustrated guitarist, my eyesight is aided by prescription yet I am a voracious reader. None of it really matters though, because in the end I would still want to have my hearing.

 

[jostenmeat]

I don't mind being in the minority...in fact, given the loss of either of the two senses I would be regardless. Your point therefore is a moot one. I also don't think I want to get in a debate about which loss of senses is the more difficult to overcome or deal with.

All I am saying is that to ME (not you) Hearing is the sense I value more.

John

PS~ I have a University education, I speak 3 languages fluently, I have lived on 3 different continents, I am a frustrated guitarist, my eyesight is aided by prescription yet I am a voracious reader. None of it really matters though, because in the end I would still want to have my hearing.

My name is also John, and I speak 2.5 languages fluently, and have also lived on three continents. I used to play guitar like nuts, though am now involved only with the violin in duo with cello, as well as string quartet. I've taught music on the west coast, east coast, and in Europe.

I can read just fine, thank you very much.

I don't find my point to be moot at all.

I was responding to your quote:

And whomever said we use our eyes all the time but not our ears is in need of a hearing test.

mperfct did not say "not", as in never, but "rarely".

 

[ErnieM]

I chose audio over video

As you can see from my signature (which describes my system) I have elected to upgrade audio first. I'm very pleased with my decision, but of course it's not for everyone.

 

[john72953]

My name is also John, and I speak 2.5 languages fluently, and have also lived on three continents. I used to play guitar like nuts, though am now involved only with the violin in duo with cello, as well as string quartet. I've taught music on the west coast, east coast, and in Europe.

I can read just fine, thank you very much.

I don't find my point to be moot at all.

I was responding to your quote:


mperfct did not say "not", as in never, but "rarely".

If you are going to quote me on a specific sentence, then do so properly and not the entire body of the text. I can't read minds!

In the end it's all just about opinion and views. We each have our own.

John

 

[jostenmeat]

If you are going to quote me on a specific sentence, then do so properly and not the entire body of the text. I can't read minds!

In the end it's all just about opinion and views. We each have our own.

John

At least I quoted, if only a portion, where you changed the wording, and furthermore insulted a respected member while you were at it.

Your attitude is very tiring in general.

 

[john72953]

At least I quoted, if only a portion, where you changed the wording, and furthermore insulted a respected member while you were at it.

Your attitude is very tiring in general.

Who did I disrepect? And what wording did I change?

John

 

[jostenmeat]

Who did I disrepect?

mperfct. You better keep up the reading.

And what wording did I change?

John

I already quoted it for you. Here's the second time:

And whomever said we use our eyes all the time but not our ears is in need of a hearing test.

He said:

We use our eyes all the time, but rarely do we use our ears.

Yet, you accuse me of not properly quoting an entire text. You failed to quote at all.

The pot calling the kettle black, eh?

 

[Adam]

Can I buy you Johns a couple of beers? Or coffee? Whichever you prefer. No need for anyone to get upset here. One of you would prefer to see, one would prefer to hear. It's cool. Well, I think it's cool.

As long as we're sharing, I speak 0.8 languages fluently and have lived on one continent (but two...count 'em, two...states).

 

[john72953]

I'll have a Heineken thank you!

John

 

[Adam]

I'll have a Heineken thank you!

John

Coming right up!

 

[john72953]

Coming right up!

I shall enjoy it as I listen to Steve Winwood's "Nine Lives" CD!

Thank you and cheers!

John

 

[highfigh]

This is a tough question to answer.

Growing up my family never had the best stuff. I never had surround sound, or even a big TV.

In the past I would have jumped quickly to say that I would skimp on audio, because I never had great audio and I was all about seeing things bigger and better.

Well I bought my HDTV about a year ago along with a Blu-ray player and was amazed at the quality and detail of the picture (and I now had a big TV that I was happy with). It didn't bug me that I didn't have a sound system, I was perfectly happy with the picture.

Then, I had friends starting to get 5.1 packages, so I started to look around. I knew that I didn't want an HTiB because they weren't all that great (at least the ones offered in the big box shops, BB, CC, Fry's, etc.). I had a budget in mind and I listened to everything around that was within my budget and eventually bought my system. After setting it up I was amazed at how much of the experience I was missing by not having the sound. The house shaking bass, the crack of the guns, the clarity of instruments, the sounds going on all around.

Now, I don't know which one I would skimp on. Of course with my system I bought everything at separate times (about 6 months or so apart) and found the best that I could within my budget for each of the components.

I would want to say that if you don't have a lot of money that is probably the best way to get yourself a quality setup. Just set money aside for a while and as you have enough for certain components, buy them. Though, when thinking about this process and if I were to start at nothing, I would most likely buy the TV first.

Personally, I think that having the best just means having things that cost more than they need to in a lot of cases. "The best" is also often very finicky and not always the most durable. The way you bought yours is the best way, unless you happen to find a dealer that carries everything you like, which is unusual.

 

[Alex2507]

I like audio much better than video. I would much rather have tunes and a book than any movie ever made ... except maybe porn.

My g/f really enjoys the 50" TV for General Hospital and Oprah and uses the TV speakers.

 

[MatthewB.]

For every dollar I spent on video I have spent 10.00 on audio, so I guess I am more into audio.

For me audio is far more important because (for me at least) the sound makes the action on the screen seem larger and bigger. I can watch a movie on my guest room system with a 27" TV and my AV123 Mini Stratas just make the image seem far larger (not that I watch that TV much)

Here's what i would do, turn on your display and leave the sound off, you can visually get what's going on but it's not that exciting. Now do the oppsite and turn on your sound and turn off the TV, although you can't see what's going on, you get that visceral impact of the bass, the soft creeping of footsteps and the creaking of floorboards and just imagine in your head what's going on but the sound will be far more exciting.

Heck our grandparents or great grandparents had to do it with radio serials it they were riveted to the radio with nothing to look at it. I still use my 8 year old Pioneer RPTV (picture is good but not as good as those fancy 1080p ones, but the sound will envelope you and still make you jump when something jumps out at you.

So sound for me.

 

[STRONGBADF1]

I like stunning audio better than stunning video. That being said...I think if I was building a dedicated theater room I would go for the best I could on the video side of things. In a non-dedicated room such as what I have I would lean toward audio as I have.


I live a life of conflicting thoughts...

 

[JerryLove]

Coming right up!

For fairness could you please post up the *sound* of the beer with at least equal fidelity

 

[Adam]

For fairness could you please post up the *sound* of the beer with at least equal fidelity

Nicely done. Nicely done, indeed.

 

[chris357]

For fairness could you please post up the *sound* of the beer with at least equal fidelity

you know thats true, I've never wanted a beer more than when i HEARD someone on the other side of the train pop the top on a can. I was instantly drooling.

 

[Adam]

you know thats true, I've never wanted a beer more than when i HEARD someone on the other side of the train pop the top on a can. I was instantly drooling.

I, on the other hand, often get a craving after seeing someone drink one on TV.

I believe that it is time for us to engage in battle.