My speakers can beat up your TV
As an "investment" video sucks. Before you plunk down big bucks on today's cutting edge video just ponder for a second that what you buy today will be tomorrow's landfill.
Pick up a good set of speakers and they'll stick around for a long, long time. Anybody who dropped $15K on an early generation plasma display has surely replaced it years ago, and is probably on their second or third set by now. So their total investment may be approaching twenty Gs! Remember too that early plasmas were standard definition sets and their picture quality was pretty awful. Last year's shiny new HD-DVD, Blu-ray and high-end DVD players are likewise doomed to early retirement, but they'll make excellent doorstops. Computers are even worse, they get old really, really fast so unless you're rich or a pro that needs the most up to date technology, investing in cutting edge gear is a fool's game. Seven years ago Nikon introduced its first professional digital SLR, the $5,500 D1 (body only). It's a beautifully made camera, but it goes for around $300 on eBay today. The big and bulky 2.7 megapixel SLR is hopelessly out of date.
High-end audio is by contrast remarkably stable; a ten-year old, Martin-Logan or Verity Audio speaker system still sounds killer today.
The video market has a serious size obsession, demanding ever-bigger screens. If The Sopranos is your thing, the dramatic effect is pretty much the same over an iPod or 65-inch screen. So unless you're living on a steady diet of eye-candy/special effects flicks, super-sized screens don't buy you much. Great movies are still all about well-written stories with complex characters.
Audio is a more emotional trip. Play tunes or movies that get your mojo workin' over a great system and you'll be in heaven. Play 'em over a desktop iPod speaker with 1-inch "woofers" and Jimi Hendrix's glorious Strat will get emasculated to the point it's mere background noise. Music, when it sounds really good, works on a deeper more blood and guts level. And not just because the big systems can play nice and loud, no, that's not necessarily the point, but they always have more soul. It's like comparing frozen pizza to a slice fresh out of the oven in NYC's Little Italy. If you really love music, don't you want to hear every precious drop of it? Hold off on that video upgrade and put the money where you'll hear it.
Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to magazines and Web sites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
A well written blog, and I do agree with you that speakers make without a doubt the most stable investment in the entire home theater chain. I have some Polks that have been in my set up longer than any other component, and with proper amplification and good common sense not to play them to ear bleed levels, speakers will last a amazing long time and continue to sound great, all while not becoming obsolete. Compared to display tech which is constantly changing, you are right, good speakers do hold their value much, much longer.
While all of that is true, I must respectfully disagree on one specific passage.
You state,
"If The Sopranos is your thing, the dramatic effect is pretty much the same over an iPod or 65-inch screen. So unless you're living on a steady diet of eye-candy/special effects flicks, super-sized screens don't buy you much."
For the record, I have watched various events, films, regular TV, sports, live music programs, all on various size displays, and I have got to tell ya, those things all have more impact on my brother in laws 96" front projected custom home theater.
Everything is better on a big screen if its properly set up. I remember reading a article where George Lucas said that he thought people should be less obsessed with the actual resolution specification for displays and be more concerned about the size. To him the size of the image was what relay added the weight and the drama of the theater experience, that coupled with a nice sound system is the best case scenario. So, I guess what I am saying, is there is a balance to be obtained when designing a home theater. Should you watch on a old 27" tube surrounded by 20K worth in audio equipment? No way!! Should you get the new 65" high end plasma for 8K and sacrifice that much in potential sound in your budget when there are perfectly suitable alternatives around that size for about 3K? Once again, No way, get the old 720P 10,000:1 set and spend the extra 5K saved on audio, and don't obsess about it being last years display tech, if its big and does some sort of HD, chances are its going to look pretty nice. And if you have the right room for it, big and dark, front projection all the way, its still the best way to take in a
film, and sports special effects or not.
So in short we sort of agree, but I think your statement saying that viewing on a ipod or a 65" screen was about the same, well, its just not true in this viewers opinion. Display size is in fact important to the home theater experience, just don't completely neglect the audio to obtain it.
It doesn't make sense that a mature technology that reproduces 20-20,000hz frequencies would cost more that cutting edge HDTV video displays with electronics operating at far higher frequencies.
Loudspeakers, audio amps, and digital processors have been around for decades. As a value proposition, I don't see that a Denon receiver can possibly equal a 58" Panasonic plasma, although they cost about the same. I can't even consider the stratospheric cost of a Mark Levinson or other high end audio component.
Yes, new technologies will come along to usurp current hi-def displays, but that doesn't mean they are any less valuable today or a decade from now. I'm still enjoying and using my 25 year old, soon to be replaced TV. I expect to enjoy my new bedroom HDTV for years to come, as the picture is exceptional.
http://www.hometoys.com/article.php4?displayid=800
Great sound with so-so picture trumps great picture with so-so sound every time.
SO -
1) better sound is more important, anyway
2) let's not kid ourselves - video formats will change (studios need to re-sell us what they already sold us) well before a pair of good speakers will be obsolete. Even if standards don't change, the lifespan of a TV is less than that of speakers.
Good speakers ARE a better investment than a good TV.
And, if you're in the know about quality video, then you also know that a good-quality HDTV from a few years ago will hold up just fine for a good long while, even if it doesn't have 97 HDMI inputs and 1080P and an air-conditioned glove compartment.
If you listen to the marketing on ANY consumer product you'll eventually be convinced that no electronic purchase can last more than six months before needing replacement.
- Wait for the technology to mature
- by dougdoug August 21, 2007 12:38 AM PDT
- Obviously, audio is a mature technology, thus a good long term investment.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(7 Comments)CRT TVs were mature 20+ years ago, maybe longer and have been a good
investment as well. I have had my CRT TV for over 20years. Only a 1080p set
could beat the quality now. I think in the next few years, TV's will be a good
investment again. The quality of both LCD and Plasma are getting quite good.
A 1080p set will be hard to beat over the next 20 years. I think the only real
improvements to this technology will be size and better blacks. I also think I
can get my $1500 to last as long for a new TV now as a new stereo (if I can
put together a good enough system for that amount). Yes a new TV techology
will come along but will we be able to tell the difference enough to upgrade? I
doubt it.
One other thing on long term investments. My 20yr old $250 TV has been
fixed once, my 20 yr old stereo has had many more problems. I fixed the
reciever twice, dvd once. Both are now dead or too expensive to fix so I
replaced them. By the way, they cost $600. Of course the dvd was new
technology back then.