[Stuart Wright]

What are your main concerns when buying home cinema technology?

[Rasczak]

Most play a factor for me: features, compatibility (with existing and potentially future kit) and - to a much lesser extent - looks are all important elements depending on what is being brought. However I would have to say that the core issue for me is Performance. I always take time to demo equipment prior to buying it - if it isn't good enough to do what is required then the rest isn't important.

Reliability is not really a big concern for me. Invariably buying new home cinema products they haven't been around long enough for such issues to arise. I would generally try to avoid some brands though...

Price, value and retailer knowledge aren't really of any concern - although I won't buy products I think are vastly overpriced (IMHO Sky+ 160).

[eviljohn2]

Value for me, I want the best I can get for the money I pay. That's why a lot of my equipment is second hand.

[LicensedTaximan]

Quality of performance has to be the priority, but within the context of ones personal price range. Looks do come into it but that would not be a number one high factor, reliability would.

[Gary D]

Performance for me everytime. when i bought my new display i was after a top picture, the sound was secondary - in short i want it to be good at what its purpose is, not because it can play MP3's or make the tea and walk the dog. if a display retails at 2 grand then i want 95% percent of its budget spent on the picture.

Looks aren't important but should never be underestimated. Value, thats always a tricky one and totally subjective. hey if i like it can afford it then hey its value for money.

Gary

[lenny]

Value and then performance. I have always applied these two rules in sequence.

Lenny

[Marc]

i think performance for me, although i don't claim to be an expert with AV equipment, i just try and get stuff that has good reviews, but value is definitely important to me too, i wouldnt spend £5000 on a plasma if a £2000 one was almost as good.

I try to get the best preformance at the budget I can afford which equals the best value ...

I strive to upgrade whenever there is newer technology that improves on the previous but still maintains the value principle ..

[oxygenuk]

I Chose performance as thats priority, after that comes price then looks...

[Supra]

Fo rme it has to be performance, the best I can get for my budget

[eviljohn2]

Originally Posted by Supra

Fo rme it has to be performance, the best I can get for my budget

I consider that to be value.

For me, Performance is the most desirable, but value was my main concern...

I agree with previous posts too, that looks comes in pretty close, because sometimes it also has to sit there on standby, just lookin' good.

[AMc]

Has to be value for me - I could afford to spend more money on my kit (i.e. 'Performance' as a primary concern) but there is a balance between what it costs and how I use it. There is no point in shelling out £1000's for a set of speakers that for domestic reasons will only get used to their full potential for 2 hours a week. I consider the balance between performance, features and price to be a good definition of 'value'.
YMMV

[Eddy Boy]

Performane matters to me with relability as well. Features is not so important beacuse I'll pick the best performing model with the features I am looking for.

[ahin4114]

Ditto to Eddy Boy. There's no point having the greatest sounding amp on earth if it will only play on the second sunday after pentecost

Compatibility - seems to be a complete knightmare when purchasing a new display. Does one go for RGB SCART, component, DVI or HDMI. Does it support HDTV, HDCP, at what resolution, frequency, NTSC or PAL, ... aargh! Thank goodness I've got avforums to help!

[FazerThou]

Has to be price or we would all have the very best there is to offer. If your budget is £1K then you find the best for that and if its £50 K then the best for that.