Comments on: Sound vs. picture: What's a better investment?

When budgeting your home entertainment dollars, should you go for the latest and greatest video, or think long-term satisfaction?

[zmnatz]

Yup, I'm still using the same speakers that I got 15 years ago. And guess what they still sound great. Monitors and Televisions on the other hand...

[traxx09]

You don't need a receiver with HDMI switching to experience good sound and picture. My Sony receiver that I bought circa 2000 gives me a great home theater experience and it doesn't have HDMI.

By running HDMI through your reciever you just giving the signal that extra length to have to run though. Cut out the middle man and run your Blu-ray, satellite receiver, cable box etc. straight into your monitor. That way you don't have to worry about a degraded video signal.

I run my video components straight into my monitor via HDMI and I run my sound through my receiver via optical or coax. It works out great. Great sound, great picture.

[pubmat]

Thats not what he was saying. If you don't have a modern receiver or pre/pro with the new high-def codecs, you're forced to decode at the source, (the player) and use the analog inputs. Most older receivers (your's included) don't have bass management, so you're losing the LFE part of the audio along with the crossover setting. Some high-end players have sophisticated bass management, but only a few as far as I know. Also, the analog outs of many players, and the inputs of many receivers are poorly constructed. Most companies put their efforts into the digital end (HDMI) of things, and neglect analog connections. The extended signal path issue you refer to isn't really an issue any longer with modern receivers and their improved video scaling, pass through, and upconversion software--although your's may be a different story.

[traxx09]

pub, I get the thing about bass management. What I'm saying is run a digital audio source (optical/coax) to the receiver ( a six year old receiver should have this), run your image straight to the monitor with HDMI and manage the bass at the subwoofer. It's not a perfect solution but better than what was suggested.

And anytime you make an extra cable run and the signal has to run through another piece of equipment you're going to get some signal degradation. It may not be alot, but it's there. Depending on video scaling and upconversion is just muddying up the signal. Keep the signal pure and run it directly from the source to the destination. Depending on software to solve your problems is just lazy. I equate it with people who take crappy pictures or video and say they can just correct it with post production software. Do the job right in the first place and you don't have to worry about that.

[pubmat]

Traxx...you didn't read the last part of what I wrote. Routing everything through the receiver really isn't the issue it used to be, even back when your receiver was new in 2000. The newest processors are much more sophisticated, and their upscaling and isolation abilities are much better. That additional signal path is irrelevant compared to the benefits. And by the way, its not the LENGTH, its the extra electronics of the receiver that potentially muddy the signal. DISTANCE has nothing to do with it.

[traxx09]

pub, I get that electronics are better than they were 9 years ago, but that still doesn't beat a pure signal. And I did mention that the extra electronics that the signal would have to go through could muddy the signal.

If length doesn't matter on cable runs, then are the makers of distribution amps just ripping me off when I have to make a long cable run. I can tell you from experience that on certain longer cable runs I've had, the signal strength is weak but when I put in a DA it solves the problem. I'm not suggesting you use a DA on a home theater, 6' cable run, but the point is that signal does degrade over length. Different signals degrade at different lengths.

[feverboy777]

Let's not forget that the eyes are more forgiving than the ears.

[traxx09]

You've got that backward.

[pubmat]

I'll invest most of my money in the audio end any day. Most video at this point is pretty damn good--you get good value for your dollar. Even an 800-1000 dollar plasma looks great these days, but there are too many HTIBs on the market that sound like a toilet flushing, Bose included.

[d06svt]

^ Well put.

[crisante]

Steve your beating a dead horse with this topic and similar one's. Move on to some of the stuff you promised us awhile back like some budget systems. I would love to see you put together a couple possibilities at different price points.

I recently got a Sonos system and hooked it up to my Paradigm's that I have throughout my house. I want to graduate up though, and am looking for some helpful suggestions.

Overall though I like your articles and look forward to reading them. Thanks.

[douglord]

You don?t graduate up from Paradigm ? you just pay more!

[njjay2008]

Well of course this article was going to favor Audio...It's by Mr. Guttenberg not to mention the image of the speaker crushing the TV monitor. At least it was a short read, but something he's pointed out numerous times in the past.

[one_flat_monkey]

good sound won't make bad video tolerable. the issue is that it's almost impossible now to get really bad video. so good sound is an option that isn't always pursued. now, many people don't care about good audio. it's not necessary for commercial TV watching, which is probably the norm for most of us.

if you spend a bit of time viewing home theater, that's something else, but you can view home theater without good audio and still enjoy the content of the movie. it's a different experience, but it isn't intolerable to most viewers, where bad video would be intolerable.

[mediocrates--2008]

It's Sound vs. Picture in the **Audiophiliac** blog. Golly! I wonder who'll win. :p

[Helk]

Haven't we had this discussion countless times before?

[pubmat]

Well its not all about you, sorry to say. There are people that still haven't dealt with this issue, and may enjoy discussing it.

[galtthedestroyer]

I've sold home theater for almost 10 years and there's one peice of advice that I always gave everyone: spend the LEAST amount of money on the receiver ... as long as it can drive your speakers enough. then buy a dedicated amp asap. hear me out.

just like he said, speakers have lasting power ... but so do amps! as far back as 1999 I noticed dolby and dts duking it out with new formats and my customers were always wishing they could get new receivers. so I found a magic price point: $500. at times sony ES, pioneer ELITE, and denon have them at this price point with a necessary feature: analog pre-outs.

and there you go. run from the pre-outs to a dedicated amp. so instead of overspending on the receiver EVER you can keep upgrading to new formats when they come out. and right from day one you have a REAL amp driving your speakers. have you ever looked at the little sticker on the back of ANY receiver that shows "max power usage?" they all have them and I hate to break it to you, but you DIDN'T buy the power that you thought you did.

BUT HERE'S THE REAL TREAT! instead of playing the receiver upgrade game, use a little bit of credit and get a surround preamp as your next receiver. but make sure it's upgradeable! even better would be hardware upgradeable. anthem is the only company that comes to mind there. and sometimes B&K Components.

[paskunyak]

Most comments are about audio as it applies to video, ie DVD/BluRay/TV watching, not audio for listening to music. This creates some confusion. Audio for music is a very mature technology, as was the now extinct analog television. But hi-def video, and the audio associated with it 5.1, 7.1 and 9.1 and the ever changing Dolby flavors is just two examples. Does anyone believe the video on a high def monitor is as advanced as analog tv was say 15 years ago? They are making improvements at very rapid rates and should continue to do so for several/many years to come. So, yes, spend your bucks on audio for music and watch them on video and its associated audio for now. Speakers will last a long time, monitors and receivers might not be so cool even three years from now.

[minimalist]

I have a 22 year old NAD integrated receiver and some decent Cambridge Soundworks Sat/Subs I bought 12 or 13 years ago. And they still sound great.

Now that I have a 46" Sony flat panel and a Blu-ray player I'm finally considering multichannel audio. But the constantly evolving codec race has me questioning the wisdom of buying a really high end amp that will just be out of date next year. Good speakers still seem to be a wise investment but it seems that once you get into multichannel audio you are stuck in an eternal upgrade cycle.

[Freeradical79]

Minimalist, you have to spend so much more on a 5.1 to get decent sound. Stick with the 2.1 set up.

My beloved speakers (JM focals) were given to a friend when I moved countries, and he is using them with a Creek 2 channel amp. Previously he had a midrange sony HTIB - but was blown away by how much more enjoyable movies (let alone music) were with a high quality 2.0 system.

My Dad is onto his 2nd "home theatre" set up in 10 years, but still using a pair of Advent speakers from the 80s for the main speakers.

[minimalist]

Thanks Freeradical79. I have to admit, the lack of surround hasn't bothered me one bit up till now and my gut tells me a really good set of stereo speakers might be a better investment. I'd say the usage of these speakers is 60/40 music v. movies. So its almost a tossup whether 2 channel or multichannel listening is more important. What I would hate to happen is have the multichannel system sound worse than my existing 2 channel setup.

I've been eying Energy and Paradigm systems for something in the 1200-1400 range. Probably not going to happen till the end of the year but I'm saving for a little splurge for myself around that time.

[nallja]

My point, don't short-change your next speaker purchase to buy a new display or player. " - Steve Guttenburg

I would think the converse of Steve's statement is also true, "don't short-change your next display purchase to buy new speakers or amps". The issue here is balance. In 2001 I purchased a Pioneer Elite RPCRT. 8 years later it is still providing crystal clear HD. In 2004 I grabbed some B&W 604 series 3's which are also still purring along. I expect both to continue to be in use for a long time.

[robarpoch]

Invest in both - one of my best purchases to date has been Anthem's AVM-50 - a pre/pro with heavy-weight specs in both audio and video. More importantly, Anthem does an amazing job of keeping the thing current. This is the only high-end piece of equipment (apart from their similar D2) which a company has both a) made modular and upgradable, and b) actually delivered upgrades for! Software upgrades come regularly and are free. Hardware upgrades come at a nominal cost, but so far have included room correction and soon will include a full upgrade to a better video chip, hdmi 1.3, and more connection options than even now!

BTW, +1 on the Pioneer Elite RPCRT. Fantastic picture.