Anyone else just not bothered by home theatre?

[Wes]

Do you listen to stereo in mono? Then why would you listen to something mixed in 5.1 in stereo. Whats doing the downmix? Not as easy as stereo to mono. If your not in the middle the dialogue comes from the side. The dialogue gets the middle speaker almost to itself Not mixed in with the music, fx, so its clearer. There are some beautiful film scores mixed in 5.1, thats how I want to hear them.

Why?

Because you are too cheap to add all the gear needed for 5.1 - or it messes up your (her) decor.

 

[Sal1950]

That was probably 25 years ago.

IMO, Everything was great until the demand for more channels pushed the new satilites into service. They designed new discs and eye systems to try and lock onto multipul satilites at once. Signal strenght suffered along with reliablity in heavy storms. During the time there was only one satillte I don't think I lost signal more than once or twice a year for my first five years. Then as things got "upgraded" problems during bad weather went up. Never enough to make me go back to cable though. Only reason I no longer have them is a good basic Xfinity comes free with my Condo dues here in FL.

Take that picture off the wall, and you have plenty of room for a bigger TV.

BTW, you probably could shoot a projector right onto that wall without using a screen.

+1

I'm firmly in the camp of enjoying great TV and movies. I'm continually amazed how many sound editors are hard at work putting small ques into surround speakers, like background conversations while at a bar. It gives you the feeling of being at the table next to the main characters listening to their conversation.

Absolutely, lots of very enjoyable sound experiences to be found in everything from TV dramas to the movies. I've completely enjoyed a full surround TV system for as many years as the soundtracks have been available.

 

[mongobot]

On the other, most people now watch movies on teeny ipads, phones and laptops with crappy sound, and that's mighty depressing when you know how much went in to the product.

It seems David Lynch would agree

 

[gfx_1]

I got stuck with 4.0 in the DVD era. Moved my first 2 way floorstanders behind the chair and got large 4-ways next to the TV. They go low enough that a subwoofer didn't seem necessary and no room for a center. The TV grew from 28" - 37" - 55" the recent one is larger and cheaper than the older ones. I really like the larger screensize.
The surround speakers changed from floorstanders to small satellites (space reasons) and grew a bit larger to bookshelfs for a bit more low end presence. The volume is just reasonable to hear the dialog, some movie effects are a bit on the loud side.

 

[MattHooper]

Well, I'm still bothered by home theater. In a good way.

As mentioned I have a separate two channel system and a custom-designed home theater/listening room. I've had the room for 10 years now and watching movies on a big (projection) screen at home never stops thrilling me. The life long film fan just giggles with glee that this is possible in a home.

I like a sense of dimensionality and high contrast and my JVC RS600 projector, even though about 4 years old now, is still I believe the highest native contrast projector you can get (without being super rich) and it does beatiful black levels and contrast. I was watching the H.P. Lovecraft inspired Color Out Of Space with my son last night, the wide screen image super give and masked to it just appeared against a giant black background.

The vivid, contrast heavy cinematography combined with the big screen, life-like sharpness, created at points a fairly uncanny sensation of "being there," like looking in to the very room at these people inhabited while undergoing the crazy SFX coming alive on the screen. The immersive surround sound, from marsh frogs and crickets to distant and close thunder and lighting, also helped suck me in. It is such a totally different feeling and experience IMO than watching movies on TV growing up (or even on our flat screen TVs) that it justifies all the effort and expense I put in to home theater every viewing.

Before I did my proection-based reno I remember thinking some of my friend's projector set ups were cool enough, but there is something different about seeing it in your own home. When I borrowed a friend's projector just to try out on my wall in my living room, it was a "holy shit" moment of "I can't believe I could see movies like this in my own living room!"

I'd bet that, if there were some way to just transport a great home theater in to the home of those who "don't bother with home theater," just for a viewing or two of a movie they like, they'd "get it." Even though this does not entail they'd actually decide to spend their own time and money setting one up.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Shouldn't the TV be at or below eye-level?

I don't know.

Desktop monitors are suggested to have top of the display at eye level. As far as I know large TV displays are suggested to have center of the screen at eye level. I've detailed why I put my projector screen above that. I wear progressive lens and having it a bit upward, the bulk of the picture is above where my glasses would change focus. So I can hold my head at a more or less level normal angle. And let my eyes rotate slightly upward. If mounted with center at eye level, I'd need to pull in my chin and angle my head downward just a bit.

I'd say I'm happy up until the bottom of the screen is at eye level. (My own screen is a bit lower than this). Get it higher than that, and I don't like it.

I believe maximum visual acuity with your head and eyes level is between straight ahead 0 degrees and 10 degrees downward.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, I'm still bothered by home theater. In a good way.

As mentioned I have a separate two channel system and a custom-designed home theater/listening room. I've had the room for 10 years now and watching movies on a big (projection) screen at home never stops thrilling me. The life long film fan just giggles with glee that this is possible in a home.

I like a sense of dimensionality and high contrast and my JVC RS600 projector, even though about 4 years old now, is still I believe the highest native contrast projector you can get (without being super rich) and it does beatiful black levels and contrast. I was watching the H.P. Lovecraft inspired Color Out Of Space with my son last night, the wide screen image super give and masked to it just appeared against a giant black background.

The vivid, contrast heavy cinematography combined with the big screen, life-like sharpness, created at points a fairly uncanny sensation of "being there," like looking in to the very room at these people inhabited while undergoing the crazy SFX coming alive on the screen. The immersive surround sound, from marsh frogs and crickets to distant and close thunder and lighting, also helped suck me in. It is such a totally different feeling and experience IMO than watching movies on TV growing up (or even on our flat screen TVs) that it justifies all the effort and expense I put in to home theater every viewing.

Before I did my proection-based reno I remember thinking some of my friend's projector set ups were cool enough, but there is something different about seeing it in your own home. When I borrowed a friend's projector just to try out on my wall in my living room, it was a "holy shit" moment of "I can't believe I could see movies like this in my own living room!"

I'd bet that, if there were some way to just transport a great home theater in to the home of those who "don't bother with home theater," just for a viewing or two of a movie they like, they'd "get it." Even though this does not entail they'd actually decide to spend their own time and money setting one up.

Funny, the thing that got me off the mark of wanting a projector and getting one was just that. A friend upgraded, and gave me his old one to play with. I took it home, and fired it up on an off white wall. And then yes, having it in my house, I wanted one. So I used his old one in a variety of positions to decide just how I wanted to orient the video room. Once that was nailed down, a screen and up to date projector and I was set. I've also repeated the favor with other people. Same result for a couple of them. They end up with one too.

 

[Sal1950]

They end up with one too.

Wish I had a wall big enough to use one.

 

[A800]

I found a projector in the dumpster and used it exclusively to play Tekken 2 on a PSX emulator around 15 years ago.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Wish I had a wall big enough to use one.

There is always outdoor use at night. Probably have to forego porn outdoors.

 

[Sal1950]

Probably have to forego porn outdoors

Why is that??? LOL

 

[Zog]

What I don't get is that people think that watching TV/movies has anything to do with listening to music. Different media, different content, different experiences.

There is a point of overlap between music and movies. I for one enjoy watching performances of the symphonic repertoire (I use VLC media player). There is all the visual goodness - think Hélène Grimaud for example, and not just that she is beautiful but her face is often a study in concentration. Actually the main reason is that with the video you can come to hear different things. Not pixie dust, just the fact of the camera playing on, say, a piccolo. That sound might have been lost under the great wash of the strings. But once you see it you will always hear it. In addition you sometimes learn something, for example discovering a melody is being played on violas rather than the cellos.

 

[North_Sky]

Without a home theater (with subs), you'll never know what's missing ...

 

[Wombat]

I guess I'll never know but having experienced high level movie theatres I can down-imagine.

Do you have ceiling fans that simulate chopper downdraft? Aroma/smell dispensers, heat and humidity controllers , rain heads, wind fans, G-sensors, pain sensing, etc? There is more to it than sound.

It is just of little interest to me - and others, it seems. KISS works for me - and some imagination.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

As far as I know large TV displays are suggested to have center of the screen at eye level.

We keep on talking about "eye level" but what we really should be concerned with is the getting the most of the image to fall on the central (macular) region of the retina and that means we have to consider the orientation of our gaze. I, for one, do not sit erect when I am watching a movie (in the theater or at home) but recline so that my gaze is directed slightly upward. That means my central field of vision is, depending on the recline angle and the eye-to-screen distance, generally much higher than the height of my eyes as measured from the floor. The result is that we (and this is subjective and particular to my house) are most comfortable with the bottom of the screen at physical eye-level.

I believe maximum visual acuity with your head and eyes level is between straight ahead 0 degrees and 10 degrees downward.

Is there evidence for for your belief?

 

[MattHooper]

Funny, the thing that got me off the mark of wanting a projector and getting one was just that. A friend upgraded, and gave me his old one to play with. I took it home, and fired it up on an off white wall. And then yes, having it in my house, I wanted one. So I used his old one in a variety of positions to decide just how I wanted to orient the video room. Once that was nailed down, a screen and up to date projector and I was set. I've also repeated the favor with other people. Same result for a couple of them. They end up with one too.

ha, nice!

I was a very early adopter of plasmas. Once Panasonic produced the first plasma with excellent contrast (they struggled for a while) I jumped on it - 2001 I believe - even though they were silly expensive at the time (I got a deal through our company). So I got to be the George Jetson for a while, friends and family amazed by the newfangled huge image and flat screen technology. (That "ED" or extended definition plasma, not even hi-def, is still in use in my family room. And no burn in!).

I spent ungawdly amounts of time in the flatscreen forum at AVSForum, sort of "reviewing" plasmas as the years went on, and expecting to upgrade to a newer plasma. When Panasonic came out with their first 65" HD plasmas I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Plasma image quality, at "cinematic size?" Count me in!

So before buying one I started to figure out where I'd put it. Seemed the best bet was my front living room, which doubled then as my 2 channel listening room. In order to figure out best placement and furniture arrangement I taped a 65" diag outline on the wall and adjusted seating. Hmm...it would be better if I had an actual image that size to figure this out.

My friend at the time used a projector- an absolutely ludicrous little business projector with almost no contrast, a fan as loud as a jet, and it's image was deteriorating terribly. I remember watching a movie at his place and starting from the bottom left corner the image was gone, just a purple smudge, which expanded to fully 1/4 of the image. I asked him "does that missing part of the image bother you? That huge purple blotch?" He looked at me confused. "What missing image? What purple blotch?" A lesson in how people adapt over time

Anyway, I borrowed that piece of crap projector just to make an 65" image size on my wall to plan my viewing angle. It was really cool seeing such a "big" 65" image on my wall. But at some point I thought "since this is a projector what happens if I zoom the image bigger?" I did so and suddenly my whole wall became the image. And I was watching Jurraisic Park! It was a come-to-gawd moment for a film geek. Holy cow!
It just changed the experience. Now I was looking UP at what seemed to be HUGE dinosaurs towering over me, rather than toy-model versions in the smaller image size. It was just too awesome to resist. And that was the turning point. I started to investigate projection and never looked back. Hence, the never-upgraded Panasonic ED plasma still sitting in our family room, home theater for movie/sports watching in the front room (shared with 2 channel listening).

 

[MattHooper]

We keep on talking about "eye level" but what we really should be concerned with is the getting the most of the image to fall on the central (macular) region of the retina and that means we have to consider the orientation of our gaze. I, for one, do not sit erect when I am watching a movie (in the theater or at home) but recline so that my gaze is directed slightly upward. That means my central field of vision is, depending on the recline angle and the eye-to-screen distance, generally much higher than the height of my eyes as measured from the floor. The result is that we (and this is subjective and particular to my house) are most comfortable with the bottom of the screen at physical eye-level.

Is there evidence for for your belief?

Hi Kal.

Oh boy, the number of times that graph was posted over at AVSforum as we'd chew over these issues!

You make a very good point.

However, in my post I was making the case for our eyes being centered with respect to the angle of the screen remaining. As I argued, the depth cues for any image are "correct" (as captured by the camera or created for display in VFX) only from that angle - an angle where the viewer is looking centrally at the image, at an angle parallel to the image. Once you start moving off-center to the image - sideways, above, below, you are introducing new geometrical cues (e.g. the elongating of someone's face, throwing off horizon line cues etc) that add distortion and provide further cue "I"m looking at a flat image from an angle, not a 3 dimensional image." Of course even when perfectly centered we have cues it's a two dimensional image (e.g. lack of Stereoscopy etc), but images with strong depth cues can invoke a sense of depth.

I have found that when I am adjusted so that I'm viewing a big image exactly in the center, there is a slight "click in" effect in the perception of depth and immersion. If this is the case, if you are leaning back while viewing but still filling your central macular region of sight, the last tweak would be to angle the display so it's parallel to your angle of vision. (Not that I'm suggesting it, just expressing the concept I'm talking about).

BTW, I discovered something cool about 2D images long ago when watching movies in the theaters. If I covered one eye and kept looking at the movie image, it would become more dimensional (say, over the course of 10 to 30 seconds), almost like slowly putting on 3D glasses! I can't say why for sure, but I infer that this is because the brain will take any cues it can to make sense of the reality you are seeing, so if you take away the stereoscopic cue your brain says "ok, what do I have to use to understand distance and depth here? Ah, look at all those depth, shading, horizan-line cues in front of me, THAT must be far away, this must be closer" and the 2D image starts to look more like the "normal 3D world."

I just used this trick while watching an interview on my iMac 5K computer. I noticed the image of the interviewer/interviewee was particularly sharp and dimensional in quality. It was very "realistic" except that it was a flat image. When I closed one eye the image no longer looked flat.
It became almost exactly like looking through a display at a real person talking in front of me. Uncanny!

 

[Thomas savage]

Watch a good film and non of this matters lol

 

[watchnerd]

We only watch something on our living room tv once every 2 weeks or so on "date nights".

We don't even have a soundbar.

Most of our viewing is on small screens.

 

[Thomas savage]

We only watch something on our living room tv once every 2 weeks or so on "date nights".

We don't even have a soundbar.

Most of our viewing is on small screens.

After the Mrs comes home from walking the cat ?

There's ways to avoid your other half , then there's ' walking the cat' .