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.
Now it's your turn to tell us what you found most exciting from CEDIA, whether you were there in person or followed our posts from the show. For this poll, I've listed a few of our favorite items, but of course, there was far more to pique the interest of any home-theater buff, so if your fave isn't here, click on "Other" and let us know what it is in the comments.
Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.
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.
Here at HomeTheater.com, we've certainly observed that poor measurements do not necessarily mean poor subjective performance, and that good measurements do not necessarily reflect good performance. On the other hand, in our experience, measurements sometimes support—and even explain—a reviewer's subjective observations, which are always conducted before the measurements.
Do you think that objective audio measurements using test tones correlate with subjective sound quality playing music? If so, is it a strong or weak correlation? In the comments, I'd love to know how much weight you give the measurements found in our reviews compared with the reviewer's subjective assessment.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Site Map / Direct Links| Displays Speakers |  |
HT Systems Sources Electronics | |
Other Gear Software AV Interiors | |
Top Picks
|
|
Community Show Reports | |
Blogs
|
|
Shop Resources Subscriptions |
