WE WELCOME QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Please note: Be sure to check the FAQ page on out Website (www.HomeiheoteiMog.com) to see if we've already answered any questions you might have. Questions about the features and functions of a particular product are best directed to the manufacturer. Questions about what product you should buy are best directed to a dealer who knows all the details of your system, your preferences, and your personal habits. All submissions are considered the exclusive property of Home theater magazine and Source Interlink Media. Due to the volume of mail that we receive, we regret that we cannot respond to every letter.

More Pixels = More Resolution?

In his article on anamorphic lenses (HT, October), Thomas J. Norton says, ‘An anamorphic setup doesn’t really increase image resolution.” But he goes on to say, “The process does put more pixels on the screen with a 2.35:1 source.” Doesn’t putting more pixels on the screen mean greater resolution?

Steve Benoff
Los Angeles, CA

Actually, no. In the first part cf the anamorphic process (prior to the addition cfthe anamorphic lens), the projector (or an outboard processor) vertically stretches the 2.35:1 image until it fills the entire height cfthe imaging chip(s). This means picture material fills the 'pace that the black bars previously occupied. But the added irformation is the result cfthe video processing used to perform the stretch. There’s no way this processing can provide more genuine resolution than the original 2.35:1 video transfer presents. More pixels only increase resolution when they carry data that originates in the source. As an example from a different but related and frequently misunderstood topic, this is also why a 480i DVD upconverted to 108Cp isn’t a true high-definition image.—TJN

3:2 Pulldown and 1080i

Hello. I really enjoy your magazine, and I think it’s the best of the consumer-oriented magazines out there. I enjoy reading the test results, although I don’t always fully understand the details. Your recent review of the Pioneer Elite KURO PRO-111FD plasma HDTV was certainly a positive one overall. I have a couple of questions, though, about some things I didn’t understand. For example, you stated on page 61, “The results on 1080i-to-1080p tests were only fair,” that “It didn’t recognize 3:2 pulldown,” and that “It produced moire on many of my tests.” Do sources often output 1080i? What problems would not recognizing 3:2 pulldown cause? I’ve been patiently waiting for an honest review of a product that doesn’t have significant shortcomings—artifacts, deviation from accurate color standards, etc.—to give me the confidence that my (expensive) purchase won’t disappoint. I appreciate your efforts to answer my questions so that I can go spend my money!

William Wright
(Via E-mail)

HD sources from satellite, cable, or over the air are mostly 1080i or 72Cp. (A set-top box sometimes converts 72Cp to 1080i) fiyour processor doesn’t recognize and correctly compensate for 3:2 pulldown in a 1080i source, it won’t properly deinterlace movies at 1080i Theoretically, this will result in motion artfacts and a loss cf resolution. Keep in mind that when we perform these tests, we use material that has been shown to trigger these problems in susceptible displays. That doesn’t mean the tests are unimportant, but it does mean they won’t necessarily be a frequent distraction to many viewers. That’s why I always specfy whether or not I saw art facts in a given set with normal program material. I can’t recall any spec fic examples cf distracting artfactsfrom any cf the Pioneer sets I’ve reviewed recently (apart from those I reported on from those specially selected discs). That does not mean you never will (there’s a lot cfprogram material out there!), but you should not see them frequently.—T]N

Bowled Over by Blu

I’ve never written a letter to any magazine before, but Robert Molfese’s letter (HT, November) has upset me dearly. People like you, Mr. Bah Humbug, have made up your minds before you give Blu-ray a chance. Blu-ray looks phenomenal, sounds phenomenal, and is far better than the National Geographic channel in HD. When I view a Blu-ray Disc with my friends, we are blown away. So to Mr. Molfese, if you choose not to support Blu-ray, it’s your loss. We will enjoy our movies in HD and our subscriptions to Home Theater for years to come.

Blu-ray Enthusiast Chris Brasuell

(Via E-mail)

Some Cheese With Your Whine?

I took the time to write this after I read the letters complaining about HT’s enthusiasm about Blu-ray, and I have to wonder what made those guys get into home theater in the first place. I’m not wealthy enough to go out and get the latest best new thing, but I welcome it with enthusiasm! Imagine if there were no quest to create superior-performing components. Wow, I hate to even think how boring life would be. I want to close with praise for HT magazine. I love to read the articles and reviews. I even take time to enjoy the ads. Thank you so much for printing the nasty letters you have been getting lately. It makes me want to go visit a dealer today!

Jack Wood
Port Orford, OR

I have been a subscriber for a number of years (love the new format), and your magazine has given me great insight into the industry, technology, and great gear and toys. Most of all, it has helped me dream big and small and get educated on what, where, when, and how I can put together my kick-ass home theater. Over the years, I have gotten a kick out of the angry folks writing in, bitching at you about this, that, and the other thing, calling you elitists, etc. I have a few words to all those folks who complain and stay up late thinking of ways to insult and criticize: It’s a magazine that you spend 12 bucks on for a year! Get a Ife! (I wrote this e-mail in two minutes.)

I composed the music for Pioneers new KURO campaigns. I can’t afford one of those TVs yet, but you don’t see me getting all pissed off about it. Gear is a wonderful thing. Keep up the terrific work. Keep it all in—crazy expensive, rare, cheap, good, silly, and serious.

JMO

(Via E-mail)

Don't Let the Door Hit You...

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that the new mag looks great! I love the more advanced look, and I think the layout really works. Home Theater is for people who eat, sleep, and breathe home theaters! What’s the latest tech? What’s the best equipment? If you think Blu-ray and HDMI version 1.3 is for suckas, good for you. If you want to cancel your subscription, there’s the door. Stop wasting our time being bitter and trying to convince us that your twice-replaced technology is still the best, and let us enjoy our new toys!

Mark
Mesa, AZ

The Jerk, Part II

Shane Buettner, you are a jerk. A pompous, arrogant jerk. Since you took over Home Theater, you have had the audacity to eliminate the ratings system. You have put on the spin of “less is more.” You have responded to criticism with the typical arrogance that permeates high-end audio. You pissed me off with that snotty, know-it-all attitude. I was ready to let my subscription run out. But after I read the October issue, all I can say is: Go man, go! You have transformed HT into a learned periodical that really is worth reading. I was never satisfied when Ultimate AV went digital. I missed the demanding criticism of

GAV. Home Theater was too similar to Sound & Vision, where everything is worth a recommendation; not that bad, mind you, but too sensitive to advertisers for comfort. The change is refreshing. The new writers are decisive and very knowledgeable. They are more interested in substance than style, and if they have to rip a major player in the industry, they aren’t afraid to do it. There’s a lot more content than before, even if there are fewer pages. (Tess is more.) So you can keep on being a jerk, as long as you continue to jerk this magazine up by its bootstraps. You may soon have the best magazine in the industry! Go man, go!

Dan Carrero
Puerto Rico

The jerk replies: I hope the return cfthe ratings in this issue doesn’t cost me any cfthe street cred I’ve earned with readers like Dan.—SCB

I’ve been reading your magazine for a couple of years now and have always found it to be a great source of information regarding all things А/VI do have one gripe about your publication (and you’re not alone here): your constant distaste of large electronics retailers. I work for one such retailer. While I am the first to point out the shortcomings of some of my co-workers, not all of us are ill-informed miscreants who are there for beer money. I may be in the minority, but I and others take our jobs seriously and make it our business to stay informed about the latest technologies and trends in the industry, unlike some of our competitors at smaller chains.

I also have a question regarding the scheduling of reviews. I realize it can take several weeks to get a magazine edited, sent to the publisher, and then in the mail to my doorstep, but why are some of the reviews of TVs so delayed? This past summer, I was reading reviews of TVs that wed already sold through completely. Thanks for making this a great publication that consumers as well as those in the industry can turn to for advice and information on the fast-paced world of consumer electronics.

Pete Caivano
(Via E-mail)

A good deal cfthe attitude toward big-box store salespeople described here comes from the letters we get from people who were either badly misinformed or outright lied to. Some favorites from recent years include salespeople’s claims that extended service contracts cover “gas recharges” on plasma displays, that an HDTV isn’t really high def until you plug it into a name-brand power conditioner, and recently that consumers need expensive 120-hertz- compatible HDMI cables to connect their Blu-ray player to a 120-Hz LCD, in spite cfthe fact that what comes out cfthe Blu-ray player is 1080p/60 at most. We’ve received multiples on each cf these scenarios from all over the country, so these aren’t isolated incidents. But I agree that we shouldn’t let the bad apples spoil the bunch. Knowledgeable salespeople (like Pete) are to be revered since they play a critical role in perpetuating enthusiasm for the hobby. I wish it weren’t the case that Home Theaters view is skewed by the fact that we’re far less likely to hear from satisfied customers cf bigbox stores.

On the product review delays, we’re getting better. Our number-one priority is getting reviews in print in the most timely and thorough fashion. With the recent introductions cf Pioneer’s latest KURO plasmas, Panasonic’s newest plasmas, and Samsung’s 950 series cf local-dimming LCDs, we received review samples the same week these HDTVs hit retail stores, and we’ve gotten our reviews in the can within three weeks cf receiving the sets. We do have several weeks cflag between the time we send cffour completed issue and when it hits newsstands and subscribers, which is beyond our control. But we’re going to keep getting after it to get the hottest products reviewed in the timeliest fashion. That’s the part we can and will control.—SCB

Deep (Color) Thoughts...

I am very discouraged by Fred Manteghian’s review of the Rotel RSP-1069 surround processor (HT, October). The issue I have with this $2,200 processor is that it doesn’t have the latest HDMI (1.3) inputs, but rather the outdated 1.1 versions, and therefore doesn’t process the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio formats. I understand the alternative that Rotel offers, but the reviewer dismisses the issue like it’s no big deal. And since he’s OK with it, we should be too. You altogether dismiss the importance of HDMI 1.3 and indicate the additional functionality of Deep Color, which isn’t an issue since there’s no high-definition material to support it. Tet me ask you a few questions. How often do you think a consumer buys a $2,000 processor in his life? Or how often do you think a consumer should update his purchase? I have to say, it looks like the intentions here are to benefit the manufacturers instead of the readers. I wonder if I’ll start to see some Rotel ads in your publication. I apologize if I come off as a bit harsh, but I’m very confused with the issue of the high-resolution audio formats and the ability to decode them in the highest possible way. I feel that I hear conflicting advice from your magazine. An article providing an honest, accurate, and up-to-date status of HDMI, what all the versions mean, and their importance on upcoming Blu-ray functionality, for both audio and video, would be very useful. Thank you.

Greg Handy
(Via E-mail)

There’s nothing harsh at all about accusing us cf selling out reader interests for advertising dollars. Sure, you shot our dog and said we’re ugly, but at least you’re sorry. Cough. Ahem, faking aside, let me lay out HTs current philosophies on the cor fusing quagmire that is HDMI. Working with our technical and audio/video editors, the current baseline we’ve agreed upon forAVRs and surround processors is that they must pass/process high-def video up to 108Cp/60 and have the ability to process high-resolution multichannel PCM over HDMI. We do not review or recommend units that don’t meet this bare minimum. This allows a consumer to get the most from Blu-ray’s high-def video and lossless audio with a player that can decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA at full resolution to PCM over HDMI. Players with Bonus View and BD-Live capability that can do this are now available for as little as $299.

HDMI 1.1 meets these baseline specs. We’re not yet convinced that there’s a consistent, tangible benefit to decoding Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA in your AVR or surround processor. And we do know there’s an obvious downside: Secondary audio for commentaries and streaming PiP from Blu-ray can only be decoded in the player. Most importantly, in this reviewand others, we give you the straight dope and let you make an informed decision.

Further, current consumer high-dtfinition video (both packaged media and broadcast) is mastered at 8-bit depth, and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon. Currently, x.v.Color is only available on some camcorders and might be coming to the video game world. At this point in time, we aren’t convinced that an AVR or processor should be precluded from recommendation because it doesn’t use HDMI 1.3. In fact, my reference Anthem Statement D2 processor is HDMI 1.1.1 get fantastic performance from it with Blu-ray and wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it to anyone.

That being said, I must also point something out. Contrary to this reader’s contention, while the Rotel RMB-1085 power amplifier Fred Manteghian reviewed in our October issue made the grade as a Top Pick, the RSP-1069 he reviewed with it did not. (Sony fthat takes some steam out efthe conspiracy theories out there!) Finally, I agree with you that an article on the current state cfHDMI and how to get the most from your next-gen components is not only warranted but necessary. Consider it in the works. — SCB

***