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.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are many pros and cons to consider with each technology. Active-shutter glasses unequivocally provide full 1080p resolution to each eye, but they also block more light from reaching the eyes than passive glasses, so the image is typically dimmer. In addition, many people complain about seeing a flickering effect with active glasses that is nonexistent with passive glasses, and active systems are more prone to crosstalk/ghosting. And don't forget that active glasses are much more expensive than passive glasses, not to mention that active glasses are heavier, bulkier, and require replaceable or rechargeable batteries. On the other hand, while FPR displays often have a wider horizontal viewing angle, they have a much narrower vertical viewing angle. And they might not deliver full 1080p to each eye, though this is hotly debated, as discussed in my recent blog.
So which 3D flat-panel technology do you prefer—active-shutter glasses as championed by Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, and Sony, or FPR with passive glasses as espoused by LG, Toshiba, and Vizio? If you haven't actually experienced them, which one seems more appealing to you?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
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.
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.
Reviewer and long-time class-D detractor Michael Fremer was finally won over by the new Class D3 amp used in the SC-57 (shown above), but many audiophiles still scoff at this technology, preferring the sound of purely analog class-AB designs. What's your take? Have class-D amps finally achieved a performance level commensurate with class-AB?
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
In addition to exceptional picture quality, both TVs have something else in common—a very hefty price tag. The PRO-60X5FD lists for $6000, while the 70-inch version is a whopping $8500. (The 60-inch PRO-141FD was $7000 in 2009.) In my opinion, such high prices lead to the demise of the Kuro, because a best-possible-performance, cost-no-object flat panel is unsustainable in today's—or even yesteryear's—economic climate. So I'm concerned that the new Sharp Elite TVs will suffer the same fate as the Kuro.
Do you think ultra-performance, ultra-expensive flat panels can succeed in today's marketplace? Or are they simply too expensive to manufacture and sell in quantities large enough to make business sense?
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 |
