What can anyone tell me about watching fast motion video (such as sports) and the technology and specs that would be best for that? I've noticed differing refresh rates, such as 60 Hz, 75 Hz, and 120 Hz, and response time, such as 4 ms, 8 ms, or higher. Are these important vis a vis fast motion, and if so what numbers am I looking for?

Refresh rates: You generally want a higher number here. US TVs will be in multiples of 60hz, and European/Australian TVs will be in multiples of 50hz.

Different brands use different technologies to generate higher numbers, 'cause they're still only getting x many frames per second in the broadcast.


Response time: You generally want a lower number here. This is the time it takes for a pixel (most commonly on an LCD) to switch colours.



Old CRT monitors work by flashing light across the screen; LCD monitors work by turning pixels on and off.

Thus, the impact on the eye is slightly different in fast moving stuff. The best thing to do is to look at the TVs (take some recorded material of stuff you like watching) in action and decide which is best for you, especially since some of the technologies used to increase refresh rates can be perceived differently by different people.

I recently upgraded to a 1080p LCD and am wondering what my options are for skipping upgrading to HD or Blu Ray and going right to streaming video from my network. Is there something as easy to use as an Apple TV? I'm assuming it's possible to stream movies from a network drive to the Apple TV as long as they are kept in iTunes, is that true? Does it make sense to wait for an Apple TV that will output 1080p? My cable box says it is 780p and looks pretty amazing. And finally, does this even make sense? I'm not going to get as good a picture from any kind of rip of a standard DVD compared to rip from an HD or Blu Ray disk am I?

Thanks for the info, this is a great thread.

I'm setting up a new home theater system and would like to hook several components into my wireless network.

I have a Linksys router across the room hooked up to a cable modem and my desktop.

There are three components I'd like to get on the wireless network: a Series 3 TiVo, a Slingbox, and my A/V receiver (which the manual tells me can play audio files off of my computer).

I'd ideally like to get a single wireless bridge to sit on top of the cabinet where the components are (minimizing clutter/wiring is a big priority). Are there bridges that I can hook up to three different devices, or will I need a switcher as well? Do I need adapters for any of the devices on top of the bridge? (I've heard that I may need one for the TiVo.) Any recommendations for brands/models I should look for?

I'm willing to spend more $$ for a better product, if it makes a difference. Ease of setup is a big concern too -- I really don't know what I'm doing, and would like to keep this as simple as possible.

All suggestions appreciated. By this way, this thread was invaluable in helping me pick out all my stuff. Assuming the hookup goes well, I'll post a TR next week on the whole system.

Rick,

I also can't wire my back speakers so I just went with big expensive fronts from AV123 and absolutely love my setup. Sounds amazing - don't care much about surround.

Astro,

I bought that same WH 32" for my second bedroom. Should be arriving soon. Apparently 'great minds'.

Thanks everyone for your help - I PROMISE to post pics next week. Just been lazy, but my setup is unbelievable, IMHO.

Hey guys,

I'm trying to buy a universal remote control and am really looking at the different Harmony ones, but I can't really tell the difference between all of the different models. Any help here?

I really want to get some sort of wall mounted speakers for our tv, and have heard great things about the yamaha line.

only issue is it's a little more than I want to spend for speakers that won't get used that often (~3 times/month or so). mainly I want to get rid of the damn receiver and wires surrounding my tv, especially since we got a new puppy that likes to chew on them .

any recommendations for similar products that are a bit less? I would google but there doesn't seem to be a standard name for these types of things.

Ok, I've figured out that the only differences are:

1) RF vs IR
2) type of screen
3) batteries or no batteries

anyways, I'm deciding between the Logitech Harmony 550 and the Logitech Harmony 880. anyone have opinions about either? i hear about some possible charging issues with the 880.

I know polk makes one as well, but none of these all in one "surround sound" systems is going to be cheap.

I can't really imagine what you mean by no batteries. With regard to RF vs IR, you want RF if possible because IR needs to have clear line of sight to the device. With RF you can point the remote sideways and the device can be inside a wood cabinet and it will still work. (I don't actually have RF, but this is my understanding.)

Guys,

I have a very nice 50" TV, but it's in a small room without surround sound. I am happy with the performance of my standard DVDs, although I have never watched a Blu-Ray DVD. Is it worth it to buy a Blu-Ray player without surround sound? Would the surround sound even play a big enough role in determining this?

I have the Polk SurroundBar, which sounds great and looks great mounted under my TV. Wire clutter is pretty minimal -- just one cable running from the speaker to the AV receiver (no separate power cable).

The grey version is currently on sale at Amazon for $485, about half of list price. (The black version is a couple hundred more.)

One word of caution, which I imagine applies to the Yamaha setups as well as the Polk: if you get one of these, you'll also need to spring for an AV receiver and a stand-alone subwoofer, so factor a few hundred bucks more into your bottom line.

i dont have any components hidden in anything so i dont need RF. some remotes have internal batteries (like cell phones) and recharge using a dock, some use normal batteries

will it sound decent without a subwoofer? I really want a minimum amount of wires and stuff running around the room. I don't need super amazing sound, as we only use the speakers for movies ~3 times a month or so.

yeah, I'm not even sure we need "surround" so much as a wall mount speaker system that will sound decent for movies. fwiw, the most I'd want to spend is around 1k.

It'll still have good sound, but it doesn't put out much bass by itself -- probably not as much as larger stand-alone speakers.

I'm not at all an audiophile, but I heard a noticeable improvement in both music and movie sound effects with the subwoofer. Like, I was watching a movie with a thunderstorm last night, and my dog ran under the couch because he thought it was real.

It'll still be a vast improvement over the TV's built-in speakers even without the sub, but I think you'd do yourself a service by adding even a smaller 6 or 6.5" subwoofer. We have our sub right next to the TV cabinet, so there's really no extra exposed wiring.

good to know, it's definitely an option. what's the deal with the receiver? do I have to buy it special with the polk surroundbar or will another receiver work or do I need one at all?

fwiw, our current setup is a panasonic 30something plasma with a old school jvc receiver powering some old bose stereo speakers. it doesn't really sound that great.

This is probably way general for this thread, but I'm pretty clueless when it comes to this kind of stuff. I need a sound system type thing (I guess surround sound?) for my TV room. I want to spend ~$1K. A bit more isn't the end of the world. Can I get something decent for that price?

The previous owners of my townhouse had this room wired for surround sound, and left the wires for us, so I assume they'll suffice? What type of system do I need? I assume I'll want the four speakers for the walls, a receiver (I don't even know what a receiver does), and a subwoofer? Do these all come in some sort of package anywhere? Should I buy them individually? Will these speakers be able to be used for music as well, or just the TV? (Will I be able to hook up my iPod for parties/poker night?)

The room is about 15' from front to back if that matters for anything. Here's a picture. Will I need to do any other wiring other than what's already there?






Second question, has either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD emerged as superior? I'd like one or the other, and I don't want to buy something and have it be obsolete in two years.

Thanks for any help.

They're identical (Blu-Ray has more capacity, but that hasn't made any difference in actual quality of the movies). The only question is which format has the movies you want.

Here are two good threads where you can see what movies are available and which have the best quality.

Blu-Ray

HD DVD

Also see the release schedule, color coded by format.

If you have kids, it's a no brainer: Blu Ray has exclusives for Disney and several kids movies (e.g., Ice Age, Open Season). (OTOH, Shrek is HD DVD exclusive, so I guess it's closer than I thought).

Also see the 4th quarter exclusives thread. In the 4th quarter, BR will have 79 exclusives compared to 44 HD DVD exclusives.

Any receiver that can handle 5-channel output should work. Although the Polk has only one cable, there are 5 different wire endings that need to be hooked up, since the the SoundBar has 5 separate speakers to simulate surround sound.

The quality and power of the receiver may have some effect on the ultimate sound, though.

You may also want a center channel speaker. (or not, some people don't like them.)

What a receiver does is switch between sources (e.g., between your cable box and your DVD player) and sends the signals to the speakers. E.g., your DVD player has a digital output that the receiver will separate into signals for each of your speakers.

Search this thread for recommendations on home theater in a box (which has the receiver and all the speakers).

Surround sound isn't absolutely necessary. I watch plenty of HD (on HD DVD and on DirecTV) and I've never had any surround speakers. I have heard systems with surround. They do add something. But I'm fine with not having them.

To answer another poster's question, I would say that a subwoofer is necessary, though. Especially if you like action movies, which use the subwoofer a lot.

So this isn't going to be another VHS-Betamax thing? They'll both still be around in 3 years?

hey gang,
Have used a NAD 2-channel integrated amp for the past 5+ years.
I've been doing some research into a pre-amp/amp combo b/c I'm looking to upgrade to a home theater sometime in the next year. Anyone have any experience with products from Outlaw Audio? They seem to be very well reviewed and the price seems about right.

Thanks,
Mike

Keep in mind the VHS-Betamax war lasted a long time. Betamax started in 1975. VHS didn't take over until the mid 80s and Sony started making VHS machines in 1988. Also keep in mind that technological superiority is meaningless--Betamax was better than VHS. But VHS won.

No one really knows who'll win the HD DVD/Blu-Ray "war." It's just too early to tell. Blu Ray has more players (because of the PS3) and also sells more discs by a rate of about 60% to 40%. But the HD market is so small that it could switch the other way with the right title. (E.g., when Transformers was released exclusively to HD DVD, the weekly sales ratio was only 51 to 49. But when Spiderman 3 was released exclusively to Blu-Ray, the ratio was 71 to 29.)

Each has its pros and cons:

HD DVD:
* Cheaper players (Wal Mart had one model for $99 a few weeks ago. You can still get that model for $185 on-line: search for Toshiba A2.

* Availability of combo discs (this gives you a Standard DVD on one side and HD DVD on the other, allowing you to play a movie on other players.

Blu-Ray
* More movies
* Cheapest player is also a gaming machine (PS3)
* Higher capacity (not used now, but possibly will be in the future. Also could lead to Blu-Ray winning the market of recordable media, which may lead to overall victory)
* Combo discs are more expensive than Blu-Ray discs. (Though non-combo HD DVDs are the same price as Blu Ray.)

It should also be noted that the earliest Blu-Ray discs were compressed using what many consider an inferior compression scheme. Thus leading to the same movie looking better on HD DVD than Blu Ray. This situation is rare now and I believe the consensus is that movies released today in both formats look pretty much identical.