[marvda1]

is it me or is it that people that are into home theater are more skeptical when it comes to cables and tweaks and their costs.
1) is it because of the nature of ht equipment sound?
2) is it because of the extra cost that it would require for multi channel systems?
3) is it that they just don't care about the sound quality?

i will also post this on a mostly ht site and link it later.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=810709

chime in.
marvin

[rollo]

is it me or is it that people that are into home theater are more skeptical when it comes to cables and tweaks and their costs.
1) is it because of the nature of ht equipment sound?
2) is it because of the extra cost that it would require for multi channel systems?
3) is it that they just don't care about the sound quality?

chime in.
marvin

   Marvin,
                1) No
                2) Yes
                3) No
        IMO it is the cost of cable for the entire system is most likely the reason. The main reason is when watching video the brain is just not focusing on the quality of sound as much as watching the movie. So basic cables are good enough. IMO if you opt for better cables you may not notice any difference with home theater.
rollo

[bpape]

A combination in my mind.

Those that are serioiusly into music as well as HT and have hybrid systems put the money into the front 2 channels and not the rest. 

In reality, home theater 'boom boom', dialog, and largely non-dynamic musical soundtracks don't take the same amount of resolution as trying to reproduce a live jazz quartet playing in a cathedral for instance. 

Bryan

[WEEZ]

I'm not much into home theater, but my guess is:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No

The goals are different, in my mind.

WEEZ

[PaulFolbrecht]

is it me or is it that people that are into home theater are more skeptical when it comes to cables and tweaks and their costs.
1) is it because of the nature of ht equipment sound?
2) is it because of the extra cost that it would require for multi channel systems?
3) is it that they just don't care about the sound quality?

i will also post this on a mostly ht site and link it later.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=810709

chime in.
marvin

I think it's all 3.  You nailed it.

[marvda1]

as an add on question, why do ht people attack someone so violently when they bring up products that seem to improve systems sound quality at let's say prices in the $80-$125 range?

[Scotty]

 I think the first two reasons apply and possibly the third due to ignorance of what is possible with a bigger budget and very careful selection of components. A lot of peoples first experience with mid-fi sound comes from HT. Most home theatre systems hopefully don't actively irritate the listener when the video component is missing from the experience. These people don't have building a two channel stereo system and maybe listening to music instead of equipment as a hobby. They come to the party visually oriented. They want a home entertainment system which will do the soundtracks of movies and go boom on the low frequency effects when required. It's a different
application of technology to serve a different end. When they made their purchase the amount they spent was supposed to buy a fully functional system which cannot be improved by expensive cables and barking mad tweaks that they have never heard of and which within the context of their system may be utterly unhearable.I think High Fidelity
home theatre systems are frequently sold but seldom purchased. To actually
purchase six or seven channels of High Fidelity amplification is going to be very costly but it can at least be done. The control amplifier/processor at the heart
of the system is probably the weak link and few of these beasts
would pass a test of transparency and resolution of low level detail that
a dedicated minimalist two channel preamp could pass. If a good two channel preamp costs $2600 imagine what a similar quality six or seven channel preamp would cost. The budget for most peoples HT systems is not open ended and also must include the cost of the video component. As an example if the 50inch monitor cost $6000 what does this leave to spend on the rest of the system.
A lower standard of quality of playback seems to be the rule and for most people with an average budget it may even make some kind of sense.
Scotty

[rollo]

as an add on question, why do ht people attack someone so violently when they bring up products that seem to improve systems sound quality at let's say prices in the $80-$125 range?

   Probably due to their uneducated experience. Lets take a power line conditioner for example. IMO even a die hard antagonist should see the difference. A S-video cable vs. a HDMI cable, also quite obvious. They appear to be willing to purchase these items when demoed at Best Buy, circuit City, etc.
     So why not power cords, isolation devices, and room treatment. IMO if these items are demoed properly the viewpoint may change.
      However I still believe it is a matter of economics. The most money spent is usually the plasma or LCD. Why not buy a cheap TV and spend more on electronics? With state of the art TVs costing $2000 to $10000 who has enough money left for anything other than good basic components. The main attraction of HT is the TV not the sound[except sub].
     Now if you are a videophile and audiophile you are really in deep shit.
    rollo
P.S. Scotty very well said

[PaulFolbrecht]

     Now if you are a videophile and audiophile you are really in deep shit.

LOL!  Thanks for that.

For me - video is a *distant* second.  I just care not nearly as much.  Music is... emotion.  Music is life.  Video is video.

[rollo]

     Now if you are a videophile and audiophile you are really in deep shit.

LOL!  Thanks for that.

For me - video is a *distant* second.  I just care not nearly as much.  Music is... emotion.  Music is life.  Video is video.

 

Paul,
        For me video does not exist. Its all about the music. TV is for watching the ball games. Yes the big screen TV makes a huge difference, especially plasma. So I guess I am a audiotvosportophile. Now who's in deeper.
 rollo

[Daygloworange]

Now if you are a videophile and audiophile you are really in deep shit.

No kidding! 

Cheers

[kfr01]

is it me or is it that people that are into home theater are more skeptical when it comes to cables and tweaks and their costs.
1) is it because of the nature of ht equipment sound?
2) is it because of the extra cost that it would require for multi channel systems?
3) is it that they just don't care about the sound quality?

i will also post this on a mostly ht site and link it later.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=810709

chime in.
marvin

You missed some other possibilities:
4) cables and tweaks rarely make any sort of difference in -any- system; and HT people know this.
5) HT people know speakers, room, room treatment, electronics, and processing components (e.g., active room correction) change the character of the sound many multiples more than cables; and, therefore, cables are their last priority.
6) HT people have a normal amount of skepticism about cables and tweaks, the 2-channel group just has a disproportionally large subset of people that enjoy being separated from their money for next to zero practical gain.
7) the 2-channel population focuses slightly more on bragging rights.  HT people don't mind having 20 cables made by bluejeanscable.

Don't shoot the messenger.  These reflect what my HT friends have communicated to me.  They -DO- care greatly about sound, they just think the cable thing is silly.

I will say that I agree with #5; since almost everything matters more than cables, cables should only be the icing on the cake and remain a small percentage of overall system cost (regardless of whether 2-channel or HT).

[Levi]

I see lots of home owners that are into HT who has very nice screen but pay less attention to speakers and cables.  On the other hand, I see lots of home owners who are into HT but only has 2 expensive speakers in between a small TV.    aa

1, 2, 3) No one knows exactly why we do things the way we do.   

is it me or is it that people that are into home theater are more skeptical when it comes to cables and tweaks and their costs.
1) is it because of the nature of ht equipment sound?
2) is it because of the extra cost that it would require for multi channel systems?
3) is it that they just don't care about the sound quality?

i will also post this on a mostly ht site and link it later.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=810709

chime in.
marvin

[Levi]

As you can see, I have the best of both worlds.

[slugworth]

My Ht and 2 channel are integrated. The good stuff is for my 2 channel. 14 gauge Walmart speaker wire for cheap rear surrounds works for me. I don't really care if I can't hear the rustling of individual leaves in the background or the perfect synchronization bullets flying around me in timbre matched speakers. I also don't think I would notice, it still beats the daylights out  of a regular theater or Best Buys.

[Levi]

BestBuy specially Magnolia have nice Flat Panel screens and Vienna Acoutic speakers and such.  They don't have highend separates, phono rigs, or tubes gears that's for sure. 

So if one would buy their equipment here, they will end up with the above, Audio Quest, Panamax AC filter or maybe MonsterCable cables and a receiver.

[slugworth]

Yup, Magnolia has upgraded. Last time I was there, they had Denon receivers and Martin Logan speakers.

[Levi]

They still have Martin Logan but they are the not the top of the range models.  This should be number 4 on the possible.

8 ) Is it because you are limited by the retailer in your local area?

9) Is it because $$$.  You need lots $$$ Imagine 20ft or more Kubala Sosna speaker cables and such for the rear$.  Ouch$.

10) Is it because you don't have the space them.