HT Definition

ChuckSolo · 10-27-2003, 04:22 PM

A co-worker wants to buy a new HT to put in his new house, so at lunch time we went to the local BB and looked for a bunch of components, TV, receiver, speakers, sub, DVD player, etc. When we went to check out the TVs he went over to the 27" HD TVs and was looking at a Panasonic unit when the sales person came over and asked us if we needed help. Since my co-worker wants an HD TV but can only afford a 27" HDTV, he was asking about them only. The sales person casually let my buddy know that if you are gonna buy a 27" TV to be the display for your new HT, it is not really gonna be a TRUE HT. He quipped that it is standard knowledge to ALL HT enthusiasts that 36" is the minimum display that could make a system considered to be a TRUE HT. Is this true, or was the salesperson FOS?

Wayne A. Pflughaupt · 10-27-2003, 04:29 PM

I would tend to agree with the salesman. It’s not hard to get an excellent picture on a small screen – any DVD, digital satellite or S-VHS recording will do the trick. The main problem with large displays has always been that they looked bad close-up, due to the limited resolution of previous broadcast and playback mediums. HDTV allows for stunning resolution on big displays, even at close range, and as far as I’m concerned it’s wasted on a small display.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Jack Shappa · 10-27-2003, 04:34 PM

"Home Theatre" is just a name. Why does he care if someone else thinks its a "real HT" or not. Your HT is whatever you want it to be and whatever you're happy with. If your friend enjoys movies on a 27", wether or not someone else thinks its a "real HT" is irrelevent. It doesn't affect how much he'll like his equipment.

To be honest, when I think of an HT, I'm thinking of something like my 96" screen, 7.1 surround, two rows of seating etc etc, but what I think should have no bearing on what your friend likes.

That said, has he ever seen a big FP picture? If he's never seen the big picture he may not know what he's missing. Maybe he'll want to save his money for something bigger. If he's still happy with a 27" picture then the heck with what some guy at BB thinks.

- Cryo

ChuckSolo · 10-27-2003, 04:59 PM

Well, the issue is not that he really cares about what the guy at BB said because my buddy is NOT ever going to be an HT hobbyist. He is into cars and puts all his money into that. His kids have been bugging him to get an HT for some time now so they can view their DVDs and listen to them on something other than a 15 year old Sharp 19" TV. I just found it curious that the BB sales person put such definate limits on what a HT is. According to the salesperson's definition, I guess my HT is hitting the bottom of the barrel with it's 36" Panny. I live in a condo and anything larger would be overkill since my TV room is not very large. The only reason my buddy wants HD is an article he read about everything going to HD by 2005. I was trying to get him to buy a 36" direct view analog TV. Anyway, my buddy will probably get the 27" HDTV, he's hard headed that way. TV is NOT very important to him at all. I on the other hand would only consider a 27" TV (which I have) for a secondary bedroom tv (which my wife will be watching anyway, and does).

Lew Crippen · 10-27-2003, 05:10 PM

If I were your co-worker Chuck, I’d take my business elsewhere, if for no other reason that to make sure that salesman did not profit from my purchase.

HT (imo, of course) is a state of mind. It is something more than a portable 19” set with a mono, low-fi speaker. But it nonsense to state that there is some minimum screen size, which if you don’t meet, you can’t join the club. What I think we are trying to achieve is to be able to watch movies at home, approximating a theatre environment, as our budget and current technology will allow.

But then, I may be overly sensitive as none of my sets meets the salesman’s criteria—they are both under 36”. Or perhaps I’m just not an enthusiast, but only someone who enjoys movies. I would get what I could afford, realizing that an upgrade will likely be desirable in a year or two.

I’m not saying that a big screen is not desirable, but it is not the only consideration. He should get a budget (sounds like that is already in place) and decide on an upgrade path and where to sink that initial budget.

Good luck.

BTW, I’ve missed your posts in movies. Where have you been?

**HTF Ads**

Jack Briggs · 10-27-2003, 05:10 PM

It's all rubbish. We're splitting semantical fine hairs here. "Home theater" is partially a state of mind. If one has a 19-inch TV, a stereo receiver, and a DVD player and is immersed in the cinematic experience, he's enjoying "home theater." These lines of discussion always make me uncomfortable, as though we are discussing class distinctions ("we have a real home theater while those poor schlubs are just watching DVDs on their TV").

ChuckSolo · 10-27-2003, 05:39 PM

Jack, you are absolutely right. I was just asking because the sales person, may have just been trying to make a larger sale. I abhorr any type of elitism in hobbies, and trust me I have a few. That however was not my intent. I was also wondering if anyone or any organization like THX, DTS or Dolby has ever published any criterea for a minimum "Home Theater" like some companies do for say, a minimum criteria for a gaming PC. Thanks to everyone for the input.

Lew,once again you show your wisdom. Actually I haven't been absent at all but haven't really posted much in the movies section. There are a couple of threads that look interesting though but I always like to read the WHOLE thread before I post; I don't want to look like an idiot. Lately, the last 3 weeks to be exact , I have been nursing a pinched nerve in my neck and I haven't been to the cinema in a few weeks as it isn't very comfortable sitting in a single position for two hours at a stretch.. My list of unseen films is growing, a situation I will relieve shortly. Thanks for asking.

Lew Crippen · 10-27-2003, 05:51 PM

So did I steal ‘state-of-mind’ from you Jack or did you from me?

I notice that our posts have the same time stamp, so we must have been typing the phrase at the same time.

It is obvious that I agree with your assessment.

Jack Briggs · 10-27-2003, 05:53 PM

Lew, we posted almost simultaneously and said almost the same thing. What's that people say about "great minds"?

Chuck, I wasn't questioning your post so much as I was the state of mind (that phrase again) that would make a distinction between "real" home theater and those with small monitors.

A lot of people have this idea that one cannot have a home theater if one doesn't have surround-sound capabilities. To which I would ask: Does that mean all the old commercial theaters that sported a lone Altec A-7 Voice of the Theater horn behind their screens were not, in some way, "real" theaters?

So there you go. The multichannel-only mindset, by default, dismisses nearly all films made before the era of surround sound. One casualty, therefore, would be Citizen Kane.

It's all a matter of degrees. If one is immersed in the cinematic experience at home, he or she is enjoying "home theater." Someone starting out today with only an HTiB and a 27-inch display just might some day be enjoying a 9-inch, CRT-based front projector throwing images onto a Stewart Firehawk screen.

Also, I happen to like 27-inch displays; they're great for bedroom theaters!

Jack Briggs · 10-27-2003, 05:54 PM

And Lew, so help me, we both noticed the time stamp and posted again almost simultaneously. Now, that's a record!