Based on observation of posts on various threads (albeit reasonably limited), some differences in "perspectives" surface here and there.
The first major difference in perspective lies in the primary application - Audio or Video - as these two applications tend to have different assessment criteria.
In "Audio-Mode", assessment is linked to how well a system reproduces the listener's favourite musical genres - be they classical, jazz, acoustic, vocal, rock, or what-have-you.
In "Video-Mode", assessment is more linked to how well the system creates an audio sound-field that matches the video perspectives on-screen and adds "drama" to the proceedings.
If we accept these - admittedly rather broad - outlines of what constitutes two primary applications for "AV systems" (the "AV" tends to be a give-away) and we accept that their respective assessment criteria differ, then it makes sense, when creating any thread on SQ, to identify the primary application so that the priorities are better understood.
But, this is something of an oversimplification as there are many factors that can result in any system having a dual-application usage. These include factors such as available space constraints, budget constraints, "personality constraints" (where more than one individual is involved), and other priority-based constraints (other hobbies/interests that provide competition for space and/or budget). By way of example, anyone who has limited space and limited budget and also has a personal preference dilemma of having to satisfy music listening on one hand and watching video material on the other, is likely to wind up with a single "system" that needs to fulfil both application usages - which will wind up being a compromise in some aspects.
As individuals, we all have our own unique set of preferences and these tend to define our assessment criteria, which in turn, influence our system build criteria. This is bad enough to handle, but gets even more complex to handle when we are no longer "individuals" cocooned in our own personal space, but become a "family unit" having to inhabit "shared space". The increased complexity lies in potentially conflicting priorities. One wants "AV realism" (as presented by eight speakers in a 7.1 configuration with their associated "flying spaghetti monster" of cables) while the other wants everything to be easy-to-clean and aesthetically pleasing (which demands as few speakers as possible and no visible means of connection). The inevitable compromise is just that - a compromise - and results in compromised "quality". Unfortunately, that's life...
This can be even more complex when both the "A" and the "V" are requirements and we need to add the need for quality music reproduction as a "capability" and as a space requirement...
In the "Ears-household" we adopted an approach that was based on the "A" usage being assigned to the lounge and the "V" usage being assigned to a spare bedroom (henceforth referred to as the "TV room". Initially, "TV room" was an appropriate name, but with the introduction of DVDs, flat screens and multi-channel audio, the TV room became the "home theatre" in application but remained the "TV room" by label. After some serious heavenly pyrotechnics that took out all of the equipment in the TV room, we put in a flat screen together with an inexpensive Denon HTIB system. But time soon uncovered another major area of difference between SWMBO and I - tastes in viewing. The result was to get another flat screen TV for the study and hook it up to another wee Denon micro-system and add a another DVD player. This enabled both of us to watch what we wanted without conflict (worth its weight in gold).
The other benefit of this separation of "A" and "V" was that any shifts in preferences in "V" aspects were insulated from the "A" setup, which enabled the system to be stabilised and the focus to move from hardware upgrades to growing the music collection.
After another lightning strike that blew out the HTIB rig, we opted for an entry-level 5.1 separates rig as a replacement that utilised the same wiring installed for the Denon but switched the speakers and electronics. The grumbling about the "spaghetti" continued and reached a head when we downsized a year ago. Out went the 5.1 speakers to be replaced by a single pair of small bookshelf speakers which were hidden away in the AV stands cupboard section along with the AVR. Now all that is visible is the TV and a media player (for remote IR communication).
In this context, it would probably make some sense to chuck out the AVR and put in an inexpensive but reasonably competent stereo audio integrated amp plus some half decent bookshelf speakers - but this would be a waste as it would never get used by SWMBO. Meanwhile, in the study (my mini man cave) that transition has happened (the usage is split 50:50 between "A" and "V" (whereas SWMBO's usage is 100:0 - "V" to "A").
Where all this is going is that SWMBO and I have very different sets of criteria - usages, aesthetics, space, component priorities, etc. - and, as a result, have very different opinions on what constitutes "value".
To a lesser(?) extent, this situation occurs here on this forum - where different individuals (who each have different circumstances, preferences, etc.) add posts to threads which - naturally - reflect these differences. This can result in disconnects... :flame:
Isn't human nature wonderful?
The first major difference in perspective lies in the primary application - Audio or Video - as these two applications tend to have different assessment criteria.
In "Audio-Mode", assessment is linked to how well a system reproduces the listener's favourite musical genres - be they classical, jazz, acoustic, vocal, rock, or what-have-you.
In "Video-Mode", assessment is more linked to how well the system creates an audio sound-field that matches the video perspectives on-screen and adds "drama" to the proceedings.
If we accept these - admittedly rather broad - outlines of what constitutes two primary applications for "AV systems" (the "AV" tends to be a give-away) and we accept that their respective assessment criteria differ, then it makes sense, when creating any thread on SQ, to identify the primary application so that the priorities are better understood.
But, this is something of an oversimplification as there are many factors that can result in any system having a dual-application usage. These include factors such as available space constraints, budget constraints, "personality constraints" (where more than one individual is involved), and other priority-based constraints (other hobbies/interests that provide competition for space and/or budget). By way of example, anyone who has limited space and limited budget and also has a personal preference dilemma of having to satisfy music listening on one hand and watching video material on the other, is likely to wind up with a single "system" that needs to fulfil both application usages - which will wind up being a compromise in some aspects.
As individuals, we all have our own unique set of preferences and these tend to define our assessment criteria, which in turn, influence our system build criteria. This is bad enough to handle, but gets even more complex to handle when we are no longer "individuals" cocooned in our own personal space, but become a "family unit" having to inhabit "shared space". The increased complexity lies in potentially conflicting priorities. One wants "AV realism" (as presented by eight speakers in a 7.1 configuration with their associated "flying spaghetti monster" of cables) while the other wants everything to be easy-to-clean and aesthetically pleasing (which demands as few speakers as possible and no visible means of connection). The inevitable compromise is just that - a compromise - and results in compromised "quality". Unfortunately, that's life...
This can be even more complex when both the "A" and the "V" are requirements and we need to add the need for quality music reproduction as a "capability" and as a space requirement...In the "Ears-household" we adopted an approach that was based on the "A" usage being assigned to the lounge and the "V" usage being assigned to a spare bedroom (henceforth referred to as the "TV room". Initially, "TV room" was an appropriate name, but with the introduction of DVDs, flat screens and multi-channel audio, the TV room became the "home theatre" in application but remained the "TV room" by label. After some serious heavenly pyrotechnics that took out all of the equipment in the TV room, we put in a flat screen together with an inexpensive Denon HTIB system. But time soon uncovered another major area of difference between SWMBO and I - tastes in viewing. The result was to get another flat screen TV for the study and hook it up to another wee Denon micro-system and add a another DVD player. This enabled both of us to watch what we wanted without conflict (worth its weight in gold).
The other benefit of this separation of "A" and "V" was that any shifts in preferences in "V" aspects were insulated from the "A" setup, which enabled the system to be stabilised and the focus to move from hardware upgrades to growing the music collection.
After another lightning strike that blew out the HTIB rig, we opted for an entry-level 5.1 separates rig as a replacement that utilised the same wiring installed for the Denon but switched the speakers and electronics. The grumbling about the "spaghetti" continued and reached a head when we downsized a year ago. Out went the 5.1 speakers to be replaced by a single pair of small bookshelf speakers which were hidden away in the AV stands cupboard section along with the AVR. Now all that is visible is the TV and a media player (for remote IR communication).
In this context, it would probably make some sense to chuck out the AVR and put in an inexpensive but reasonably competent stereo audio integrated amp plus some half decent bookshelf speakers - but this would be a waste as it would never get used by SWMBO. Meanwhile, in the study (my mini man cave) that transition has happened (the usage is split 50:50 between "A" and "V" (whereas SWMBO's usage is 100:0 - "V" to "A").
Where all this is going is that SWMBO and I have very different sets of criteria - usages, aesthetics, space, component priorities, etc. - and, as a result, have very different opinions on what constitutes "value".
To a lesser(?) extent, this situation occurs here on this forum - where different individuals (who each have different circumstances, preferences, etc.) add posts to threads which - naturally - reflect these differences. This can result in disconnects... :flame:
Isn't human nature wonderful?
