Vote
If you have a 2.35:1 projection system—or you only dream about having one—which approach do you prefer? An anamorphic lens with its increased brightness and vertical resolution but potential scaling artifacts and optical distortion, or lens memories that avoid these problems at the expense of lower brightness and vertical resolution? Or are you happy with a 16:9 screen and black letterbox bars framing movies?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
This is the perennial question for all TV shoppers. Both types of flat panels have their pros and cons, so you must decide which pros and cons are important to you.
Plasma TVs have inherently sharper motion detail, though 120Hz and 240Hz LCDs narrow this gap, albeit at the expense of creating a "soap-opera effect," which makes movies look like they were shot on video. Also, plasmas have been traditionally cited as having deeper blacks, though LED-illuminated LCDs—especially LED-backlit models—often do much better in this regard than conventional CCFL (cold-cathode fluorescent) backlights. The one advantage of plasmas that LCDs can't match is viewing angle. If you move away from the center of an LCD, the picture quality suffers from color shifts and reduced contrast (as seen in the bottom two images above), while plasmas look pretty much the same (as seen in the top two images above).
LCDs have the upper hand when it comes to sheer light output, which makes them better in a well-lit room. Also, many LCDs have a matte screen, which reduces the appearance of reflections compared with a plasma's shiny screen. (Some LCDs, such as those from Samsung, have shiny screens, negating this advantage.) Finally, LCDs tend to consume less power overall, and their power consumption is more constant over time than a plasma's.
So which do you prefer: plasma with its sharper motion detail, often better blacks, and superior off-axis performance, or LCD with its brighter image, often less-reflective screen, and more economical power consumption?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
By contrast, downloading from services such as iTunes pulls a copy of the content from the provider—not in real time, but at whatever speed your connection allows—and stores it on a hard disk or other high-capacity memory to play once the download is complete. In this case, quality is independent of your online bandwidth, since the download can take as long as it needs to. However, devices with lots of storage capacity are generally more expensive, and there are copy-protection issues to deal with.
Which type of distribution do you prefer, streaming or downloading? Or do you avoid online content altogether?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Streaming services provide content using one of two business models—a flat subscription fee for unlimited access to their entire library (e.g., Netflix and Hulu Plus) or paying for each title you watch (e.g., Vudu and iTunes). Which approach do you prefer, and why?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Graphic courtesy Steve Guttenberg
Here’s an old chestnut for you. These days, analog recordings are available almost exclusively on vinyl LPs, whereas digital audio abounds on CD, DVD-Audio, SACD, and multitudinous online sources. (Okay, "abounds" is probably an overstatement for DVD-A and SACD, but you get the idea.) And music lovers have strong opinions about which sounds better.
Steve Guttenberg cleverly explored this debate in his Audiophiliac blog with two separate entries—"Why does analog sound better than digital?" and "Why does digital sound better than analog?"—though in both cases, he clearly states that he prefers the sound of vinyl, at least when played on a good system. Of course, as Guttenberg points out, digital beats analog hands down in terms of measureable distortion and noise. But he maintains that analog has a certain je ne sais quoi that reaches the human psyche more deeply, which is why vinyl survives and encourages people to actually sit and listen to music rather than playing it in the background as they do other things.
So which sound do you prefer, the technical "perfection" of digital or the ineffable character of analog vinyl? Keep in mind that I'm talking about uncompressed digital audio here—CD specs or better—not MP3 or other compressed formats.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice; I look forward to reading your thoughts on this one.
This debate has been raging since the invention of the transistor over 60 years ago. Tubes are big, hot, and delicate, while transistors and their solid-state progeny, integrated circuits, are small, relatively cool, and robust. Also, tubes are finicky, and they must be replaced periodically, which is becoming more difficult and expensive as the number of sources for these glass throwbacks continues to dwindle. Finally, tube-based power amps typically generate a fraction of the power offered by most solid-state amps, though this isn't really a problem with high-efficiency speakers.
Despite all their apparent drawbacks, tubes have retained a loyal following among audiophiles because of their characteristically warm sound. By contrast, solid-state audio gear is often described as sounding much more "analytical," which many consider to be a more accurate representation of the source content.
Which leads me to this week's question: Which do you prefer, the warmth of tubes or the accuracy of solid-state audio electronics? Keep in mind that I'm talking about analog electronics here—mainly preamps and power amps—not digital or class-D amps, which are a different story altogether.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Aside from the high cost of active-shutter glasses, one of the biggest complaints about 3D TV is that watching it can make some people physically sick with eye strain, headaches, dizziness, nausea, or even convulsions. This phenomenon has prompted manufacturers such as Samsung and Sony to issue warnings about watching 3D content if you're drunk, pregnant—hopefully not at the same time!—tired, elderly, or prone to seizures. One possible explanation is that stereoscopic 3D is not the same as what we see in the real world, and the human brain responds differently.
I have never experienced any related symptoms while watching 3D TVs, and I realize that such warnings are mostly to cover the company's legal ass. Also, I suspect the incidence of these problems is greater with active-shutter glasses, which alternately open and close 60 times per second, than with passive glasses that are used in most commercial cinemas.
Still, I don't know how common "3D sickness" really is, so I ask you: Have you ever experienced any of the symptoms listed above while watching 3D content, and if so, under what circumstances?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice, especially if it depends on the program or where you sit. What programs or locations are best and worst?
As always, I really hope you leave a comment about your choice. If you use a server, which one? Why do you like using a server over a disc player? If you don't use a server, why not?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Do you use your audio system more for movies (and TV) or music? How have you balanced the system's performance as a result? For example, if you mostly listen to music, did you get full-range front left and right speakers to use without a subwoofer? Or are you lucky enough to have two separate systems, one for movies and TV and the other for music?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
In general, plasmas carry a lower price tag than LED LCDs of comparable size. But if plasmas consume five times as much power, they cost five times as much to operate, so those initial savings can easily be wiped out and then some over years of use. Then there's the whole "green" argument, which I won't get into here.
Is power consumption of concern to you? Does it factor into your TV buying decision?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Does your ISP engage in any of these pernicious practices? If so, I'd love to know what your limit is and what happens when you exceed it. I encourage you to leave a comment with these details.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
How about you? Have you cut the cord to cable and/or satellite service in favor of online delivery (and perhaps free over-the-air terrestrial broadcasts for local channels)? Or does cable/satellite still provide something you can't get online? What led you to the decision you've made in this regard?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
The effect of cables on sound quality is one of the most contentious debates in all of audiophilia that applies most commonly to analog cables. Manufacturers make extravagant claims about how different cable materials and geometries affect the sound—and they charge extravagant prices for these innovations.
One can measure things like impedance, capacitance, inductance, and other electrical properties of cables, but if two different cables exhibit the same measurement results, will they necessarily sound the same? Or might there be unknown—and thus unmeasured—properties that affect the sound?
Of course, most audiophiles don't have access to sophisticated measuring equipment, so they must rely on their own ears to determine if different cables make a difference to the sound for them. Swapping cables in and out of a system is a huge hassle, but many have done it to see if they can hear any differences. Have you heard exotic/expensive cables improve the sound quality of an audio system?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment explaining your choice.
Site Map / Direct Links| Displays Speakers |  |
HT Systems Sources Electronics | |
Other Gear Software AV Interiors | |
Top Picks
|
|
Community Show Reports | |
Blogs
|
|
Shop Resources Subscriptions |
