“HOME THEATER”: FACTS AND FALLACIES
© Mark B. Anstendig
The
term “home theater” is a new designation in the audio/visual world for a room with
a sizeable TV/video screen and digital surround sound-reproduction. The current
ideal of a home theater has a large front-projection TV system, with an image
size close to that of a movie theater, and the same digital surround-sound
found in high-tech movie theaters.
Trying
to achieve this ideal is a grave mistake, which leads to unnecessary outlays of
enormous amounts of money for 1) a too-large image size that makes all of the
shortcomings of the current TV/video standard disturbingly if not unbearably
visible, 2) line-doubling technology intended to make invisible the horizontal
lines that make up the image, but actually degrading the sharpness and image
detail and 3) digital sound reproduction that is even less capable of
reproducing the expressive-emotional content of the original live sound than
CDs, which are now universally known to be inadequate.1
THE
CONFINING LIMITS OF IMAGE SIZE
TV
image2 size has a built-in limitation: the TV picture is made up of
horizontal lines spaced a certain distance apart. In the
LINE
DOUBLERS, THE “CURE” THAT MUDDIES THE IMAGE
With
the advent of movie theaters with enormous panoramic screens and
high-definition 70mm film images the public is becoming accustomed to ever
larger and more detailed images and wants them in their home viewing. This
dream is impossible until the current
In
an attempt to enlarge present TV images without the disturbance of visible
lines, a system called line-doubling has been devised which doubles the numbers
of lines so that they remain invisible at much larger image size. But, in doing
so, the sharpness and detail of the image is degraded.
In
principle, a line doubler creates a duplicate of every frame of the TV image
and then simultaneously transmits both images slightly displaced so that the
lines from the duplicate image are exactly in between the lines of the original
image. Obviously, if a machine transmits two matching images that are not
precisely lined up, the sharpness and detail will be degraded. All line
doublers necessarily degrade the image to some degree. And they are
prohibitively expensive, with the better units costing well upwards of $10,000
and the cheapest units still costing $2,000 to $3,000. The less intricate,
lower priced, units cause a lot more distortion. Expensive, more complicated
units, including newly released quadruplers, perform their work with less
apparent distortion, but the sharpness and resolution of detail are still
noticeably “softened”, as one honest dealer described it. The irony is that,
even though the lines become less apparent, the viewer still has to sit far
away from the screen, or this fuzziness becomes apparent. Of course, sitting
farther away results in a smaller image, unappreciably larger than that of a
rear-projection set at the manufacturer’s recommended viewing distance. A
better large-screen system and a top-of-the-line line doubler will provide a
clean, but indistinct image for a lot of money (for purchase, installation,
adjustment, and enormous upkeep costs for half-yearly expert professional maintenance,
which is often not mentioned at purchase time).
THE
CATCH-22 OF FRONT-PROJECTION TV
Front-projection
systems consist of separate components: screen, projector, line doubler and
tuner. Rear-projection TVs are exactly the same technology (separate screen,
projector and tuner). But the components of rear-projection systems are
permanently mounted in a box which uses mirrors or prisms to project the image
the necessary distance for the screen size. Because all components are firmly
fastened in their box, rear-projection TVs can be permanently adjusted at the
factory and require only a simple, on-screen optical adjustment by the owner.
Not
so with front-projection TVs. Their adjustments are a headache even for the
highly skilled professional. All the extremely technical final factory
adjustments of rear-projection sets have to be performed in the home, with the
addition of extremely difficult, yet crucial operations to ensure that the
projector and screen are at precisely determined distances, in precise alignment
to each other, and that they can dependably remain so for appreciable periods
of time. The process, which is much more difficult with free-standing
components, takes a few hours (when performed by a highly experienced
technician) and consists of many trial-and-error adjustments, which can easily
be botched.
Our
institute’s technical advisor, Mitchell A. Cotter, points out that, to be done
correctly, these adjustments demand expensive test equipment and that
approximately 60 fine adjustments, some of them trial and error, have to be
performed in exactly the right order, or the set will not perform optimally. He
also points out that expensive, half-yearly maintenance is necessary to
maintain image quality, because these adjustments necessarily change over time.
EVERYONE
LOOKS SICK, OR THE GREEN-CAST PROBLEM
In
addition to the problems already stated, The Anstendig Institute has not, as
yet, seen a front projection set that did not have some degree of green
color-cast to the image. Because green is a difficult color to control in the
design and manufacture of a TV set, a green cast should be looked for and
avoided when buying any TV. It is the most oppressive color aberration,
because, on flesh tones, a green cast makes people look sick. Less expensive sets
often have this problem, but even some top-of-the-line sets suffer from it.
A
SMALL SCREEN CAN HAVE A LARGE IMAGE AT CLOSER VIEWING DISTANCES
Front-projection
TVs were originally developed for industrial presentations of computer images
for large audiences in large rooms, where the screen size of one-piece units
was not big enough and price was no object. At the larger viewing distances in
such rooms, the image size for most viewers is no larger than that of a small
screen TV at normal home-viewing distances. The better, more expensive
projection TVs cost disproportionately more than one-piece TVs, because they
are made to resolve the much higher resolution of computer images, which is not
needed for TV images. (Computer monitors cost much more than ordinary TVs of
the same screen size, because of their higher resolution capabilities.)
Apparent
image size is directly proportional to the viewing distance. By sitting closer,
a conventional tube TV can provide as large an apparent image as a front
projection system. For a small group of viewers, a 60” set will be more than
adequate. Because the distance at which the viewer must sit in order not to be
disturbed by the lines and other distortions is considerable, the apparent
image size is reduced and the potential of a front-projection set is not
realized. In other words, the maximum possible image size without disturbing
aberrations can be achieved with either set by varying the viewing distance.
But a rear-projection set has many inherent advantages, such as a brighter
picture, with more saturated colors and more contrast. It can be viewed with
the lights on, can be placed anywhere in the room and moved around at will.
Most front-projection systems demand a fully darkened room and have a much
lower range of contrast adjustment because their highlights are not as bright
nor their black tones as saturated as with tube or rear-projection sets.
DIGITAL
SURROUND SOUND HAS EVEN LESS EXPRESSIVE DETAIL THAN CDs
The
deficiencies of the present system of digital audio recording are a well known
fact and no longer a matter of opinion.3 Yet, in order to have four
tracks instead of two within essentially the same system, the manufacturers
have reduced the resolving power of the digital system even further. CDs are
deficient enough in expressive detail to degrade and actually change the
expressive content of music. But our institute has found the sound in 4 track
digital surround-sound to be irritating and unsettling as well. In our
experience, it makes viewers nervous and unstill. High-quality films with
excellent music, such as “Brave Heart”, “Babe”, and “Jungle Book” should keep
viewers mesmerized. With these films we fidget, stop to get popcorn or use the
bathroom, and listen intellectually, i.e., informationally, rather than
emotionally, i.e., experientially.4
If
expressive-emotional content is compromised and lost, why have filmmakers not
noticed this and done something about it? The answer is that the lack of the
emotion that normally holds the viewer/listener involved is
noticed, albeit often without the filmmakers realizing the cause. In the last
decade, there has been a nearly universal trend in filmmaking to compensate by
adding more and more distracting sound-effect detail. Critics often complain
about major films not being sufficiently engaging, without being able to
determine the actual cause.
SONIC
DISTRACTION HAS REPLACED EMOTIONAL DEPTH
The
replacement of emotional depth by sonic distraction means that sound effects,
instead of musical-expressive content, come at us steadily. Doors creak more
loudly, chains rattle, car motors roar, feet clomp and shuffle unrealistically.
Small, unimportant details are given larger-than-life sound effects. 1995 and
1996 have marked the greatest changeover to digital surround-sound, but the
bulk of films most eagerly anticipated for the high quality of their talent and
no-expense-spared production parameters have bombed in relation to
expectations. The digital sound has sabotaged them, and, instead of
emotionally engrossing speech and musical content, they are left with noisy,
distracting sound tracks that quickly tire the viewer with their incessant
contentless effects.
OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS
1)
Avoid front-projection TVs. Their image quality does not measure up to the
better tube and rear-projection sets.
2)
Unless you can afford one of the best rear-projection sets, buy a 32” or 35”
tube TV. Be careful of 35” sets: some are prone to interference from large
speakers or other magnetically radiating sources if positioned close to the TV.
Technology has improved and new 35” sets should have better picture quality and
greater imperviousness to interference. The great advantage of a tube TV is
that it can be viewed from any angle, while rear-projection sets have a more
limited viewing angle, outside of which the image drastically loses brightness
and contrast. Better sets have greatly improved the viewing angle, but there
still are large differences, so this aspect should be thoroughly checked out
before purchase.
3)
Avoid surround-sound. Surround-sound is a silly, unnecessary sound-effect since
the viewing image is necessarily in front of the viewer/listener. Even stereo
can be “weird” when the speaker remains still, but the camera position changes.
For example, in a group shot with a character on the left speaking, it is
illogical and distracting if the sound moves to the center during a close-up
and then back to the left side when the camera goes back to the whole group.
4)
It is, however, desirable to have a four-speaker system, either with all
speakers playing mono, or, with stereo, front and back pairs playing the
respective channels. The whole body plays a role in the experience of sound,
not just the ears, and sound hitting the body from all sides enhances the
effect.5
5)
When choosing a sound system, sound quality is most important. If money is a
problem, buy a decent, basic stereophonic system, rather than a surround system
for the same price. The surround-sound system has to be of lesser sonic
quality, because the same price has to buy four speakers and more electronic
parts. With a good program and good sound, a small-size TV will still
mesmerize the viewer. But with poor sound, no TV will do so, no matter how
large the image.
Footnotes
1
The sound-reproduction industry is already poised to release
new, more accurate digital systems, after originally claiming CD technology to
be perfect. One new system, High Definition CD, i.e. HDCD, has already been
released. But HDCD still does not achieve a high enough sampling rate to solve
the problems and equal analog sound. Perfected systems already exist and the
industry is holding conferences and negotiating to determine which system
should become the new standard. The original problem of a large enough storage
medium to store all the additional data of a digital system with a larger
sampling and bit rate has been greatly improved. But the industry seems to be
making the mistake of favoring convenience by decreasing the size of the media,
instead of finally bringing out a digital system with a sampling rate large
enough for the sound to equal that of analog.
2
Image size is not solely the product of the size of the TV
screen. Apparent image size results from the size of the image on the screen in
relation to the viewing distance, i.e., a closer viewing distance means a
larger image, and farther away means a smaller image.
3
See our papers “The Truth About CD and
Digital”; “Digital Recordings: A Tragedy
Unrivaled in the History of Art”; “Our Loss of
Emotional Richness Due to Bad Sound Reproduction”; and “AB Testing: A Misapplication of Visual Criteria in Audio”.
4
See our paper “Hearing:
The Informational and Experiential”.
5
See our paper “Stereo, a Misunderstanding”.
The
Anstendig Institute is a non-profit research and educational institute that studies
the vibrational influences in our environment, particularly those of sight and
sound, and how they affect sensory perception. Its papers on sound
reproduction, problems of focusing in photography, psychology of hearing and
seeing, and erratic vibrational influences that affect our lives are widely
distributed throughout the world. All are available free of charge.