Vote
What's the difference? Bipole and dipole surround speakers include two sets of drivers that fire more or less in opposite directions—with bipoles, the drivers are in phase, while a dipole's drivers are out of phase, creating a null region along the central axis between the drivers. Monopoles are simply conventional direct-radiating speakers with a single set of drivers that many prefer for multichannel music, but they don't create a diffuse surround soundfield that benefits most movie soundtracks.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice, especially if you use a combination in a 7.1 system. What combo do you use, and why?
In his excellent blog on the subject, Home Theater editor Rob Sabin points out that Netflix's streaming library is missing lots of current, desirable titles, and the A/V quality of its streaming content cannot match that of Blu-ray. For now, he recommends sticking with Blu-ray rentals and waiting for the streaming library and quality to catch up.
What do you plan to do in response to the Netflix rate hike? If you're already a Netflix subscriber, will you keep both options or dump one or the other—or both? If you're not yet a subscriber, does this development encourage you to choose one or both, or will you stay away?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
However, in a pre-recorded demo in the Christie booth (which I describe here), James Cameron made a compelling argument that increasing the frame rate at which movies are shot and displayed from 24 to 48 or even 60 frames per second does more to sharpen perceived detail—especially in moving objects—than increasing the spatial resolution. In fact, all the demo material was 1920x1080 on a 15-foot-wide screen.
As the demo clearly illustrated, shooting and displaying movies at higher frame rates dramatically sharpens motion detail—so much so that it no longer looks like film, but more like video, which many people object to. So my question to you is, what's more important, the higher spatial resolution of 4K at film's traditional 24fps or the greater temporal resolution of higher frame rates at 2K? (BTW, Peter Jackson is hedging all bets by shooting The Hobbit at 48fps, 4K, and 3D!)
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
In terms of quality, streaming is clearly at the low end—even so-called "high-def" streaming—with its high data compression and often 2-channel audio. Next up the food chain is broadcast at 1080i or 720p with lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio (and the inevitable commercials). At the top of the heap is Blu-ray at 1080p with lossless 5.1 audio.
All of which begs the question—what's more important to you, availability or quality? Do you tend to choose broadcast and streaming to see your favorite shows ASAP, or do you wait for the ultimate quality of Blu-ray?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Unfortunately, there are some impediments to the immediate widespread availability of 4K. For example, it costs much more to make a 4K display, which must be very large to take full advantage of the extra resolution, so such products would be a lot more expensive in an era of rapidly falling prices and a weak economy. And even if 4K displays were available and affordable, what about content? Studios routinely scan and archive their movies at 4K or higher, and some now shoot with 4K digital cameras, but there's no delivery system for that much data to the home. A physical medium would need much more capacity and much higher bitrate than Blu-ray currently offers, and online streaming is impossible without a major upgrade to consumer broadband services.
The big question is how long will it take to resolve these issues so consumers can watch 4K content on 4K displays in their homes? When do you think this will happen?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Aside from sheer bass level, optimum subwoofer placement depends as much or more on the room's resonant modes and how well they can be controlled. Another factor is domestic tranquility—most partners of home-theater buffs don't want a huge sub sitting in the middle of the room.
So where do you put your subwoofer(s)? Why did you make that choice? Was it for bass boost, room modes, the spouse-acceptance factor, or some combination thereof?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
On the other hand, everyone I talk with is eager to see 4K home-theater displays, which have four times the resolution of "ordinary" high-def. Now that we've reviewed the first such display—the Sony VPL-VW1000ES projector—I wonder how important 4K really is, especially given that commercial 4K content for home use is not likely to be available for years to come, leaving owners of these displays with only upscaled 1080p and their own high-resolution still photos.
So I ask you—which do you think is more important for home theaters, 3D or 4K? Perhaps you believe both are equally significant or that neither one is important. In any event, your fellow home-theater geeks want to know what you think!
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Blu-ray is the gold standard for video and audio quality, but discs are old school, and the convenience of streaming and downloading A/V content is quite compelling for millions.
On the other hand, streaming video from Netflix, Hulu, and other sources often suffers from softness, macroblocking, and other artifacts of high compression, whereas Blu-ray offers pristine picture and sound. In addition, the best high-def cable, satellite, and over-the-air channels look far better than most streaming media I've seen.
This leads me to wonder: Which is more important to you, the convenience of streaming and downloading A/V content or the quality of physical media and many traditional broadcast sources?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment explaining your choice.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
With any new technology, the only way to gauge its importance is to experience it for yourself. On the other hand, new technologies are often not widely available at first—Atmos has been installed in only 14 theaters around the country—making it difficult for most moviegoers to hear it firsthand. But for those who live near one of these theaters, this is an opportunity to hear what could be the next generation in movie sound.
Do you live near an Atmos theater? (Click here for a list of theaters and locations.) If so, will you make an effort to see Brave there? How far are you willing to go? HT reader Jarod and his wife are driving four hours! Or do you plan to skip the movie altogether? If you do see it in an Atmos theater, let us know your impressions of the system in the comments.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
I'll be watching the 3D coverage—will you? If not, is it because you choose not to or that you don't have a 3D display or broadcast source?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
Of course, such a product from Apple—which many are calling iTV—will undoubtedly sport a gorgeous design, an elegant user interface, and an exorbitant price. So my question is, if you had the bucks, would you be among the first to buy a 55-inch OLED iTV?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
If this technology was available to you, would you want to play around with the mix, or would you prefer to simply sit back and enjoy the audio passively? Do you think many content creators will opt to allow consumers that much control over their material?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about 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 |
