$60 DVD player vs. Home Theatre

Written by Amber Gertzbein
Published June 07, 2004

I like to be entertained. By movies, television, music. You could say more than most. More than average, to be sure. However, I seem to be in the minority when it comes to the equipment I use to absorb said entertainment.

For years, I consumed my tv and video on an ancient creature remotely resembling an early model Zenith circa 1973 (complete with plastic faux wood panelling). I even resisted switching from casette to CD in the vain attempt to slow the ever-growing trend towards digital media. When Napster and MP3s became all the rage, I resisted that, on the grounds that I prefered liner notes and uncorrupted music files (not so much morally, in an "it's wrong to steal music" way, although it was a minor factor).

And up until this weekend, I have prized my VHS collection with every intention of obtaining the world's largest non-commercial stockpile of $4 videos from BMV on Yonge Street.

What I've neglected to mention so far in this post is that while "true" A/V afficionados insist on the surround-sound experience and enhanced audio perception of digital media, I have been content to listen to my music on a $50 boombox I bought 8 years ago at Bay Bloor Radio, and my videos and TV have audibly streamed just fine out of the left and right speaker that came attached to my 24" Sony TV (yes, I did get a new TV last year, but only because the Zenith kept spontaneously shutting off and emitting radio stations over the cable, no doubt caused by years of watering plants strategically placed on top of the monitor).

My point being that I have never felt that my appreciation of a good story has waned because I was not able to experience Dolby Digital Surround sound from the comfort of my couch.

However, due to much pressure from a significant other, this weekend, we purchased a DVD/Home Theatre in a Box. Now, even the guy at our local rental place insisted that all you really need is a $60 DVD player, because it's the same component as a more expensive home theatre system, but without the radio tuner and 6 speaker set. It still plays MP3s, CDs, even JPEGs in addition to its primary function: to play DVDs.

But no, my boyfriend insisted (despite not knowing what S-Video is, or that he was trying to jam the cable in upside-down, or the fact that he thought you were supposed to hook up the tv through the A/V jacks in the front intended to hook up your video camera) that we needed 5 speakers and a sub-woofer, a 5 CD/DVD changer and a digital tuner, with 750 watts of speaker sound.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
$60 DVD player vs. Home Theatre
Published: June 07, 2004
Type:
Section: Sci/Tech
Filed Under: Video: News
Writer: Amber Gertzbein
Amber Gertzbein's BC Writer page
Amber Gertzbein's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Amber Gertzbein
Video: News
All Sci/Tech Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — June 7, 2004 @ 10:25AM — Mark Saleski [URL]

It just doesn't seem worth it for a couple of left to right wing flutters and car explosions.

now THAT is funny!

#2 — June 7, 2004 @ 10:31AM — Matt Paprocki [URL]

Well, the system would hook up just fine to the front inputs. Anything will, it's just stated that it's moe convient for cameras and such.

Also, is the system hooked up with an optical cable? If it's only hooked up with standard AV cables, then you will never notice a difference (at least not a big one). If the system supports it (and it should since you just bought it), try any movie with a DTS track. You'll really begin to feel the bass and you'll literally become surrounded. Of course, you have to have the optical cable for that. Try any of these:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/02/030214.php

You also need to be sure everything is configured correctly and the speakers are in the proper places. Not all rooms are the same. If you need any more help, drop me a line.

#3 — June 7, 2004 @ 10:33AM — Eric Olsen

And the television, being new also, should definitely feature surround, at least on most shows

#4 — June 7, 2004 @ 10:43AM — Amber [URL]

Ok, I will look into the set-up, but I still think it's balls, especially when we don't have $500 to be tossing out for a DVD player we're going to use maybe once a week.

#5 — June 7, 2004 @ 13:45PM — Tom Johnson [URL]

I agree - I'm totally fine with a simple, two-speakers-in-the-TV-set approach. I've got two friends who have expensive surround-sound systems (one was around $6000!) and while I agree there are some benefits to it, they don't add up to enough to compensate for even the lowest-priced home theater system right now. I just have better things to spend my money on . . .

#6 — June 7, 2004 @ 13:47PM — Mark Saleski [URL]

i mostly watch movies like Pi, Zelig, etc...talking head movies. so surround is definitely a waste of money.

#7 — June 7, 2004 @ 13:49PM — Eric Olsen

I am not a gadget, techie type at all, but I can't imagine going back to just plain TV and DVD - with a good receiver, the surround, and the subwoofer, it's a whole new world for not that much expense. The big screen TV is next.

#8 — June 7, 2004 @ 13:58PM — Mark Saleski [URL]

i will admit that as soon as front projectors become more affordable, i'll probably buy one.

imagine not having to have a humongous box in the room, just a screen on the wall (or pull-down, whatever)

#9 — June 7, 2004 @ 14:01PM — Phillip Winn [URL]

Tom (#5), you moan and complain any time anybody mentions that might listen to *gasp* compressed music in MP3 of AAC formation, and yet watch movies through your tv's built-in speakers?

Man, talk about some screwed-up priorities!

Anyway, though I didn't spend very much, I'm still bummed out that I finally put the finishing touches on my living room surround-sound system just shortly before going deaf in one ear. Fat lot of good surround-sound does a guy with one ear!

My family and friends love it, though. And yes, there is always just one or maybe two features that the "universal" remote just isn't universal enough to handle, no? Ah well, mine's pretty darned close.

#10 — June 7, 2004 @ 14:35PM — Tom Johnson [URL]

Music is important. TV just fills the time between listening to music. ;-)

Really, the few times I've experienced surround-sound, I've found myself irritated because it seems to cause people to just turn the volume up louder. Dude, seriously, When Harry Met Sally sounds just fine at conversation-volumes. (But I totally agree - Billy Crystal's performance of "Surrey With A Fringe On Top" in that Sharper Image-type store was awesome in surround. And, yes, yes, I admit it's really impressive to hear Bruno Kirby say "You made a woman meow?" from just in back of me to my left while Crystal's bat pings loudly from my right.)

I'm waiting on the big-screen TV thing until they get this HD-thing worked out. A friend just got a big-screen (one of the less ridiculously expensive ones) and while it looks great for things designed for it, TV shows looks horrible - not only is the image stretched out to fit the width, it also looks like someone smeared vaseline all over the screen. Since I only watch movies a very small percentage of my in-front-of-screen time, it seems a waste to put up with the crappy TV performance. In time, they will not only get better, they'll get cheaper. And I'm cheap, so this works out pretty okay.

#11 — June 7, 2004 @ 15:53PM — Matt Paprocki [URL]

Yeah, non-HD stuff looks terrible on an HD. That's why mine is for games and movies only. Even some of the older games (Genesis, SNES, Saturn) are sometimes hard to play. You can buy an "Up convertor" or something like that which will double the resolution (or again, something like that) and make it look a whole lot better. Of course, they cost like a grand...

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/16311)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments