Vote
Sort By: Post Date | Title | Publish Date
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Aug 03, 2012 12 comments
Last week's poll question asked if your home theater's AC power is protected from things like lightning strikes and blackouts. This week, I'd like to know if you have taken steps to optimize the AC power to your home theater. Such steps can include installing a dedicated circuit, establishing a common ground, and using a power conditioner, such as the Furman IT-Reference 20i pictured above.

If you use a power conditioner, have you noticed an improvement in the audio and/or video performance of your system that you can reasonably attribute to that device? Inquiring minds want to know!

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

Have You Optimized the AC Power in Your Home Theater?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Mar 16, 2012 13 comments
When you buy a Blu-ray/DVD bundle these days, chances are it also comes with something called Digital Copy. This is just what the name says—a digital copy of the movie to put on your computer's hard drive or NAS (network-attached storage) so you can watch it on other authorized devices in your entertainment ecosystem, subject to the copy's DRM (digital-rights management) provisions and compatibility with various platforms.

Have you used Digital Copy with titles you've purchased? If so, do you find it to be a useful feature?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

Have You Used Digital Copy?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Dec 17, 2010 1 comments

It used to be that all television was delivered wirelessly over the air for free—well, you have to wait through commercials, but you don't pay any money for it. Then cable companies started offering a much wider palette of programming via wires, charging a monthly subscription—and on many channels, the commercials are still there. Satellite service returned to wireless broadcasting but retained the subscription fee and commercials on many channels.

Now, a fourth delivery system is gaining significant ground. More and more viewers, especially younger viewers, are receiving their TV programming from the Internet. This approach frees you from the strictures of a broadcast schedule—no more Must See Thursday, though DVRs like TiVo remove this limitation from over-the-air, cable, and satellite as well (plus, they let you skip commercials). Even better, some content is free (for example, basic Hulu in standard definition) while premium programming typically requires a subscription fee ($8/month for Hulu Plus in 720p, $9/month for Netflix).

So I wonder: When you watch network TV—and I mean all networks, not just ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, and Fox—do you receive it mostly via terrestrial over-the-air, cable, satellite, or the Internet? Or do you eschew network TV altogether?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Do You Mostly Receive Network TV?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Sep 30, 2011 8 comments
The appearance of 4K home-theater projectors from Sony (4096x2160, seen above) and JVC (which is really more of a "pseudo-4K" that upscales 1080p to 3840x2160) has sparked increased interest in super-high resolution for consumers, especially since 4K seemed like a far-off dream until now. But many argue that the benefits of higher resolution are not visible on any screen size intended for home use. In fact, most people can't see the pixel structure of a 2K digital-cinema projector on a much larger commercial screen when sitting at a normal viewing distance, so how could they perceive the increased resolution of 4K on a smaller home screen?

Then there's the issue of 4K content, which I believe won't be available for distribution to the home for quite some time, if ever. Yes, we might see 4K-capable media in the next year or two—for example, BDXL optical discs and RedRay servers—but the studios give relatively few movies the full 4K treatment, and I bet those same studios will be loath to release movies for the home market at 4K. Until they do, owners of 4K displays will be limited to upscaled 1080p, which isn't all that much sharper than the original and carries the risk of scaling artifacts.

So I wonder how important 4K really is in the home? What do you think?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Important is 4K in the Home?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Jan 27, 2012 7 comments
The 2012 Academy Award nominations have just been announced, and you can see them all here. Hugo snagged 11 nominations, which is no surprise—it's a marvelous movie in every way. But I'm bummed that The Adventures of Tintin didn't make it into the Best Animated Feature category—it has some amazing animation and a great story in my opinion.

How many of the Oscar-nominated movies have you seen so far? Do you intend to see more before Billy Crystal returns to host the 84th annual extravaganza on Sunday, February 26? Which are your favorites? Please let us know in the comments.

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Many Oscar-Nominated Movies Have You Seen?
Vote
Rob Sabin Aug 13, 2012 22 comments
One of the greatest put-offs for anyone trying to watch television or play a home theater system, especially non-technical family members, is figuring out how to use it. Even a simple system that just utilizes the TV speakers is likely to require at least three remotes: one for the cable box, one for the Blu-ray or DVD player, one for the TV. You've got to juggle remotes, cycling through inputs with one, adjusting channels or changing tracks with another, then picking the first one back up to adjust volume...it's a miracle some of us even bother. Universal remotes are supposed to solve that problem for day to day use, but don't always do everything we need them to do, either by insufficient design or poor programming. The result is a stack of factory remotes kept close at hand.

Today's poll question, then, is this: how many active remotes do you currently have on your coffee table that you end up having to pick up at least once a week?

How Many Remotes Do You Have On Your Coffee Table?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Jul 06, 2012 17 comments
Most home-theater sound systems include one or more subwoofers that are separate from the main speakers. In fact, I generally recommend using separate subs at least for movie soundtracks, which often include lots of low frequencies, because the best placement for bass drivers in a room is often not the same as the best placement for the drivers that reproduce the rest of the audio range. And the judicious placement of more than one sub can significantly smooth out the bass response of most rooms so that everyone can enjoy the same great bass no matter where they sit. On the other hand, many audiophiles prefer to have full-range main speakers, claiming that the sound is more integrated than it can be with separate subs.

How many separate subs do you have in your system? Or do you use full-range main speakers without a sub? What led you to your decision in this regard?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Many Separate Subs in Your System?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Feb 04, 2011 12 comments
At CES this year, there was a lot of talk about 3D audio and expanding the speaker array beyond 5.1 or 7.1 with extra width and height channels. Of course, Dolby Pro Logic IIz does this already by synthesizing two height channels, and Audyssey DSX can synthesize two height and/or two width channels. DTS demonstrated its Neo:X algorithm in Las Vegas last month with native 11.1 mixes as well as 5.1 soundtracks expanded to 11.1 with width and height channels.

Such an system sounds remarkable, with smoother pans to the sides and a much more hemispherical soundstage that gives new meaning to the term "surround sound." But during the show, I heard one question asked over and over—will consumers be willing to expand their home theaters to include 11 main speakers? Obviously, this requires a greater financial investment, and very few non-enthusiast spouses would be willing to accept a room crammed with speakers.

Of course, one could even go beyond 11.1—I've heard systems with as many as 45 speakers in the walls and ceiling, and the Iosono system (profiled here) places literally hundreds of speakers around the periphery of a theater. So at what point does this game go too far? How many speakers are too many for a home surround system?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Many Speakers Are Too Many?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Mar 04, 2011 10 comments
Last week, I asked how much you watch TV versus on the go, and the results confirmed that the vast majority of UAV readers watch all or nearly all of their TV at home. This is not really surprising, since our readers are ultimately concerned more about quality than convenience when it comes to video content, as indicated by the response to a previous poll question—Which is more important, convenience or quality?

This week, I'm asking the same question about music—how much do you listen at home versus on the go? Of course, the same issues arise in this case—the audio quality of your home system is likely far better than your iPod or other portable music player, but the portable player is far more convenient. On the other hand, portable music players have been around a lot longer than portable video players, and you can be doing other things while listening to music as opposed to watching video. So I suspect the distribution of answers might be somewhat different, with more people listening to music on the go more of the time. But I could be wrong…

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice. Select the ratio that most closely reflects your listening habits.

How Much Do You Listen to Music at Home vs. Mobile?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Jun 15, 2012 21 comments
This image is an autostereogram. To see the 3D effect, cross your eyes slightly or focus on a point behind the plane of the screen.

Last week, I asked how much you have invested in your home theater. Among the many interesting comments was one from willieconway, who proposed a related question: How much do you plan to invest over the next few years?

I realize that, in an uncertain economy, it's difficult to predict how much you might spend on your home theater. But assuming your circumstances remain as they are now, do you plan to upgrade your system in the next, say, two years? If so, how much do you think you might spend? Will you concentrate more on the video, audio, or environment?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Much Do You Plan to Invest in Your Home Theater?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Feb 25, 2011 1 comments
Steve Guttenberg recently posed an interesting question in his Audiophiliac blog—Will you still watch TV at home in 10 years? He points out that people don't listen to much music at home any more thanks to the iPod and other portable music players, and he wonders if the same thing will happen to video with the iPad and smartphones.

I sure as hell hope we'll still be watching TV at home in 10 years—I know I will be if I'm still around—but I also recognize that this activity is becoming more mobile, especially among younger viewers. Still, I expect both forms of TV consumption to remain viable for a long time—at home for the big-screen, high-quality experience and on a mobile device to pass the commute time (assuming you don't drive to and from work!).

Guttenberg's question got me wondering about the time our readers spend watching TV at home versus on the go—what is that ratio for you? When you cast your vote, select the ratio that most closely reflects your viewing habits. It will be very interesting to see the distribution of responses, and perhaps I'll run this question again in a year or two—or 10—to see how that distribution changes.

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Much Do You Watch TV at Home vs. Mobile?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Jun 08, 2012 33 comments
A home theater is a blessing for those who have one, and it needn't cost a fortune to get decent picture and sound quality. Of course, the more you spend, the more potential there is for truly great performance, though high prices do not guarantee it. Also, as cost increases beyond a certain point, the gains in performance generally become smaller.

These musings lead me to wonder, how much have you invested in your home theater, including display, sound system, and source devices? If you've built a dedicated room, please include furniture, acoustic treatments, ambient-light control, décor, and construction as well. What proportion of your budget has gone for video, audio, and environment?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Much Have You Invested in Your Home Theater?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Feb 03, 2012 14 comments
Last week, I asked about how many Oscar-nominated movies you've seen, and I was surprised that the most popular response was "none" followed by "a few." This led me to wonder how often our readers actually go out to the movies. Of course, many of you have a good home theater, which is generally quieter, more controllable, and less expensive (that is, not counting the purchase price!) than a commercial cinema. And some home theaters even provide a better audio/video experience than lesser commercial venues.

On the other hand, if you stay home to watch movies, you don't get to see the latest titles until they are released on Blu-ray or other media. Also, there are many commercial cinemas that surpass all but the most elaborate home theaters in performance. Then there's the social aspect—maybe I'm weird (okay, maybe there's no "maybe" about it!), but I actually enjoy sharing the movie experience with my fellow humans, as long as they don't talk or text during the show and the kid behind me doesn't kick my chair.

So how often do you go out to the movies? Why do you go—or not—in lieu of your home theater?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Often Do You Go Out To The Movies?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Jun 10, 2011 11 comments
As a die-hard home-theater geek, I love listening to movies, TV shows, and even music on my multichannel speaker system. But speakers must overcome several obstacles—room acoustics, placement issues, and a sleeping family late at night to name a few. Of course, you can avoid all these problems by listening on headphones, the main subject of our new website InnerFidelity.com. On the other hand, headphones mostly provide a 2-channel experience, though systems such as Dolby Headphone, which is available in several AVRs, and the Smyth Research Realiser (profiled here) simulate surround sound in a pair of cans.

These musings lead me to wonder how often you listen to headphones in your home theater? Do you prefer them over speakers, or do you use them only to promote domestic tranquility after everyone else has gone to bed? Do you have an AVR with Dolby Headphone, and if so, do you use it? What make and model of headphones do you have? I really hope you leave a comment after voting with some of these details.

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Often Do You Listen on Headphones at Home?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Feb 24, 2012 16 comments
Throughout my childhood, I remember visiting my grandparents and watching their Zenith TV (which used a Space Command ultrasonic remote, the source of the term "clicker"). Back then, most folks kept their TV for 15 or 20 years before replacing it, usually when the old one finally gave up the ghost. And there was little need to—TV technology didn't evolve much in those days. Once color television was well established, TVs were much the same from one year to the next.

Now, of course, the replacement rate for TVs is much faster, because performance improves, screens get bigger, and cool new features are added while prices drop every year. This leads me to ask, how often have you replaced your main TV in the last 10 years? Has your pace of replacement increased over that time?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

How Often Have You Replaced Your TV In The Last 10 Years?
Site Map / Direct Links