Is HT making us dumb?

[Bevan]

i've noticed my tastes in music change since i got into hifi and in particular the new high rez formats. i'm starting to get more into jazz and classical. this is an inevitable result of the fact that there is a disporoptionate number of jazz and classical titles in the sacd and dvd-audio catalogues, and the fact that a highly resolving system tends to make well recorded albums sound better, relatively speaking, than the typical pop and modern rock fare that i did and still do listen to.

although i dont like the idea of my hifi dictating my tastes, this trend doesnt worry me too much because, on the plus side, i'm being exposed to new types of music that i might not otherwise have given myself the chance 'get into'. and although it is admittedly a personal value judgment, i consider these types of music to possess some of the greatest atristic pieces that our species has produced. and i doubt that many would disagree.

now since i've got into HT i've noticed another, slightly more worrying trend: me friday night at blockbuster looking through the 'action' section picking out contenders for 'what will show off my system best' movies. master and comander, star wars, U571, spiderman, finding nemo, pearl harbour, matrix, terminator... you know the list.

now maybe i speak for myself only, but i used to value movies mainly for their ability to provoke, challange, stimulate, engage, and affect. edify, in a word. i'm not saying i think there's anything wrong with occasionally watching movies for their entertainment value alone, for pure thrills. i still do, unashamedly. and many of the typical HT movies certainly do more that just entertain. of course i'm being overly simplistic.

but does any one else worry about the opportunity cost of the blockbusters their systems temp them into renting, and see it as a 'dumbing down' of their tastes?

when i think of my favorite films of all time, not necessarily my most enjoyable, but those that have left the longest and most meaningful impression on me, i think LOTR would be the only one which would have benefited in any meaningfull way from having a subwoofer and surround sound. (saving private ryan is on that list, and it does also showcase a good ht system, but to me, the film was not the slightest bit more affecting because i was experiencing realistic sounding artillery fire)

it seems to me that many people would rather have realistic sounding bombs than beethoven in their living room. if this doesnt worry them, well...more power to them i guess. i'm not trying to ruffle anyones feathers or get on my high horse. this just happens to be something thats on my mind and i thought i'd share it too see if anyone agrees or dissagrees. btw, i ended up selling my sub for better fronts and now feel better about my relationship with hifi. music also sounds better now

thanks for listening

b

 

[MDS]

With regard to movies, the answer for me personally is No. I don't buy movies on the basis of whether or not it will showcase the abilities of the HT system. In general, I don't buy movies at all as my main interest is music.

With regard to music, I would also say No. I have never liked Jazz. I think mainly because high frequencies really bother me - horns dominate the mix and I find that annoying. So I definitely won't be buying Jazz or anything like that just because of the general perception that Jazz music is often 'recorded/mastered well'.

 

[W_Harding]

Bevan,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments about music and videos. I have found that listening to multi-channel (5.1) music has broadened my listening experience. I have purchased artists and music types that I might not have if they were only two-channel stereo or one channel mono. Although I have sampled more types of music, this has not led to an elevation to "better" music in my case. As a matter of fact, I have been exposed to some rather unpleasant "music" by some "interesting" "artists". On the other hand, I have found some real gems.

In terms of videos, I have never purchased a movie to demonstrate the abilities of my "home theater". There are only a handful of movies that I would want to watch more than once.

 

[claudermilk]

I've always been a Jazz fan, so the improving HT is just making that even better (BTW, while generally horn-driven, there is a lot of stuff not based around brass. Take a look at Diana Krall's stuff for example).

Like MDS, I don't pick a movie to go with the HT, I pick a movie because I like it. I figure the better HT system just gives those older movies an opportunity to be the best they can. Story is more important then SFX still.

 

[Bevan]

thanks for your ideas.

must agree, not all well recorded music is good music by my tastes.

MDS, interesting what you say. while i wouldnt quite say i buy jazz just because of the general perception that its well recorded/mastered, i would be lying if i said better sounding audio didnt enhance my enjoyment of the music itself. i think that hold true for nearly everyone on these forums.

with the jazz that i enjoy and am gratefull for being exposed to, some of it was bought after being told that whatever album is the best recorded album in the known world. i'm quite interested in the art/science of sound engeneering and would sometimes buy an album for this reason alone. but more often i've bought jazz albums out of interest just because the names have come up so often and so many people have sworn by the music as well as the recording quality.

what you say about blaring saxaphones i can relate too having a mild case of hyperacusis. typically the older jazz clasics, stuff by miles davis, coltrane etc that have me fiddling with the volume or tone controlls. think it the soprano sax thats guilty. but the newer popular artists like patricia barber, dianna krall, madelaine peyroux, norah jones etc seldom seem to use the sax. some of those just mentioned are easier on my ears than anything bar enya maybe.

take it easy,

b.