Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Some events like Proms can have superb sound and would benefit from a
serious set of audio kit. But other programmes may have level compressed
and/or poor sound that may not justify much beyond what you get in the
TV.

I've yet to hear any broadcast audio which doesn't benefit from being
reproduced via a decent amp and speaker. That which starts out as being
possibly less than ideal even more in many cases.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Some events like Proms can have superb sound and would benefit from a
serious set of audio kit. But other programmes may have level
compressed and/or poor sound that may not justify much beyond what you
get in the TV.

I've yet to hear any broadcast audio which doesn't benefit from being
reproduced via a decent amp and speaker. That which starts out as being
possibly less than ideal even more in many cases.

Yes and no. :-)

I agree that I also find that I prefer to hear 'poor source' sounds over a
good system. It can certainly aid hearing the details. So overall, I agree
with you. However I was really thinking of the POV of people who simply
don't take audio quality that seriously.

Just as in the days when a new hi-fi was the consumer fashion, when many
simply went for loudness and loads of bass. Feel the width, not the
quality. So today I suspect people may often want louder and more 'impact'
rather than clarity and a more 'real and natural' sound.

One of the reasons I like ESLs is that they make things like background
noise and clicks easier to ignore. But I doubt most people would think the
expensive and inconvenience justifies that. The reality is that most people
probably would think most serious audiophiles are bonkers... and given some
of the things they do, I find it hard to argue at times. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

I agree that I also find that I prefer to hear 'poor source' sounds
over a good system. It can certainly aid hearing the details. So
overall, I agree with you. However I was really thinking of the POV
of people who simply don't take audio quality that seriously.

I can understand that. Most people don't settle down these days to
'listen to the wireless' or even recorded music to the exclusion of
everything else and in a silent room. They're usually doing something
else at the same time, like eating breakfast, and making so much noise
that good audio quality would just be lost on them.

Just as in the days when a new hi-fi was the consumer fashion, when
many simply went for loudness and loads of bass. Feel the width, not
the quality. So today I suspect people may often want louder and more
'impact' rather than clarity and a more 'real and natural' sound.

Yes. That's to cut through all the other noise they're making.

But I think there's a case for a sort of Turing Test for audio quality.
Hide a selection of real people and audio systems behind a screen, and
see if people really can't distinguish between them. Has there ever
been an audio system that would pass that, I wonder?

One of the reasons I like ESLs is that they make things like
background noise and clicks easier to ignore. But I doubt most people
would think the expensive and inconvenience justifies that. The
reality is that most people probably would think most serious
audiophiles are bonkers... and given some of the things they do, I
find it hard to argue at times. :-)

Indeed.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
But I think there's a case for a sort of Turing Test for audio quality.
Hide a selection of real people and audio systems behind a screen, and see
if people really can't distinguish between them. Has there ever been an
audio system that would pass that, I wonder?

Has anyone ever done a Turing Test to see if people can distinguish between
live reproduction (microphone, amplifier, speakers) and digital recording
(microphone, amplifier, CD, CD player, amplifier, speakers), to see if those
people who say that they prefer vinyl over CD are really saying that they
prefer the restricted dynamic range and frequency response required for
vinyl - ie that live sound and CD recorded sound are "too faithful" compared
with vinyl recording.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I agree that I also find that I prefer to hear 'poor source' sounds
over a good system. It can certainly aid hearing the details. So
overall, I agree with you. However I was really thinking of the POV
of people who simply don't take audio quality that seriously.

I can understand that. Most people don't settle down these days to
'listen to the wireless' or even recorded music to the exclusion of
everything else and in a silent room. They're usually doing something
else at the same time, like eating breakfast, and making so much noise
that good audio quality would just be lost on them.

I'm invariably doing something else as well as listening to the radio,
etc. But that doesn't mean I'd be happy with any old rubbish. And since
this thread is about TV sound, why buy a large screen TV if it's only
going to be some form of background to other tasks?

Just as in the days when a new hi-fi was the consumer fashion, when
many simply went for loudness and loads of bass. Feel the width, not
the quality. So today I suspect people may often want louder and more
'impact' rather than clarity and a more 'real and natural' sound.

Yes. That's to cut through all the other noise they're making.

But I think there's a case for a sort of Turing Test for audio quality.
Hide a selection of real people and audio systems behind a screen, and
see if people really can't distinguish between them. Has there ever
been an audio system that would pass that, I wonder?

The average modern TV won't pass that test, then.

One of the reasons I like ESLs is that they make things like
background noise and clicks easier to ignore. But I doubt most people
would think the expensive and inconvenience justifies that. The
reality is that most people probably would think most serious
audiophiles are bonkers... and given some of the things they do, I
find it hard to argue at times. :-)

Indeed.

You don't need anything like as large and obtrusive as ESLs to give
satisfactory audio quality. The LS 3/5a proved that some 40 years ago.

--
*I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You don't need anything like as large and obtrusive as ESLs to give
satisfactory audio quality. The LS 3/5a proved that some 40 years ago.

Indeed, there are a pair within feet of this desk.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


But I think there's a case for a sort of Turing Test for audio quality.
Hide a selection of real people and audio systems behind a screen, and
see if people really can't distinguish between them. Has there ever
been an audio system that would pass that, I wonder?

Actually, yes. Various systems have passed that test in the past. All a
matter of the details and conditiong, etc.

Part of the problem tends to be that above a given level people may take
some time to really learn how to hear and appreciate what may be quite
subtle details. Human hearing is more a matter of perception processing in
the brain than having eardrums.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , NY
wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
But I think there's a case for a sort of Turing Test for audio
quality. Hide a selection of real people and audio systems behind a
screen, and see if people really can't distinguish between them. Has
there ever been an audio system that would pass that, I wonder?

Has anyone ever done a Turing Test to see if people can distinguish
between live reproduction (microphone, amplifier, speakers) and digital
recording (microphone, amplifier, CD, CD player, amplifier, speakers),
to see if those people who say that they prefer vinyl over CD are
really saying that they prefer the restricted dynamic range and
frequency response required for vinyl - ie that live sound and CD
recorded sound are "too faithful" compared with vinyl recording.

Yes, such tests have been done. They've also done tests comparing CD Audio
with the 'High Rez' formats. However:

A) In many cases it is hard to get material that is 'familiar' and is
produced in the same way for both so as to avoid other differences. e.g.
Audio Cd version having been level compressed when the 'alternative' High
Rez wasn't.

B) People often don't like the outcomes, so they dismiss or attack the
test.

They've also done such tests on amplifiers, cables, etc. Much the same
outcomes...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:29:06 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:44:04 +0100, the dog from that film you saw
wrote:


The makers seem to noticed a gap in the market between those people who
are not concerned about the poor quality of the sound from the built-in
speakers in TV, and those people who use a decent external amp and
speakers (possibly an existing Hi Fi system).

That seems plausible to me. The assumption will probably be that it is
sufficient to provide a way for someone to use the TV with a 'home theatre'
audio system.

Some of us fill that gap with PC speaker systems (a pair of speakers and
a sub-woofer). A soundbar designed specifically for the job might or
might not give better results. Whether the performance would justify the
expense is another matter.

Depends on what you listen to and what you prefer.

Some events like Proms can have superb sound and would benefit from a
serious set of audio kit. But other programmes may have level compressed
and/or poor sound that may not justify much beyond what you get in the TV.

I use a Logitech PC speaker system for "general" listening.

When there is serious listening to be done I fire up a pair of Quad II
amps.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

You don't need anything like as large and obtrusive as ESLs to give
satisfactory audio quality. The LS 3/5a proved that some 40 years ago.

Indeed, there are a pair within feet of this desk.

Mine are the Spendor version. :-)

I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer the
ESLs.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html