| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things
like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ....on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. Paul DS. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
Oh I see well, if you think about it, most laptops have crap sound as the
case is so small I suspect this is the issue with tvs. When I wasy ounger some tvs did have good sound but it was generally the top end models. I just don't understand why they do not sell speakers that plug in on top end models. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Paul D Smith" wrote in message ... Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ...on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. Paul DS. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...
Oh I see well, if you think about it, most laptops have crap sound as the case is so small I suspect this is the issue with tvs. When I wasy ounger some tvs did have good sound but it was generally the top end models. I just don't understand why they do not sell speakers that plug in on top end models. Brian +++++++++++ They sort of do sell plug in speakers - but they plug in via a digital input typically via an amplifier. Personally I want either "OK sound from a TV" or "full 7.1 surround for my Bluray films". The problem is that all TVs do these days seems to be "tinny sound with rattle at various frequencies". As to laptops, I'm old school and I use them to crunch numbers, surf the web, write documents which they do well. Watching movies in a "nice add on" but it's not their primary purpose - but of course that is precisely what a TV is supposed to be for. Paul DS |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
"Paul D Smith" wrote in message ... Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ...on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. Paul DS. You generally need a nice voluminous box for decent sound. This is not achievable with a flat screen telly, laptop, tablet or smart phone, so you either have to use external speakers [and often amp] or headphones. "admit" suggests they are trying to cheat you, but they are not. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things
like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ...on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. Paul DS. You generally need a nice voluminous box for decent sound. This is not achievable with a flat screen telly, laptop, tablet or smart phone, so you either have to use external speakers [and often amp] or headphones. "admit" suggests they are trying to cheat you, but they are not. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Playing devil's advocate, how soon before they offer to sell me a decent video monitor to go with my TV? For me, decent sound and vision go together and if that means that, say, their "TV" has to contain no speakers and come with external speakers (lightbulb - that's probably what Brian Gaff was suggesting) then so be it. But producing something which is so crap that they then try to sell me the speakers that should have come with the TV in the first place is really taking the mickey. Paul DS. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote: Oh I see well, if you think about it, most laptops have crap sound as the case is so small I suspect this is the issue with tvs. A laptop is designed to be portable. Large screen TVs not. -- *Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article ,
Paul D Smith wrote: But producing something which is so crap that they then try to sell me the speakers that should have come with the TV in the first place is really taking the mickey. It all down to fashion. A TV which is all screen seems to be what the public want and buy in the showroom. Finding out later the sound is crap doesn't seem to bother them. -- *TEAMWORK...means never having to take all the blame yourself * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , Paul D Smith wrote: But producing something which is so crap that they then try to sell me the speakers that should have come with the TV in the first place is really taking the mickey. It all down to fashion. A TV which is all screen seems to be what the public want and buy in the showroom. Finding out later the sound is crap doesn't seem to bother them. It's not always the cheap tellies which have the worst sound. OK my little 14" portable telly with its 2" speaker was never going to have good sound, and I usually listened on headphones through my amplifier, taking a phono feed from the VCR. But the worst sound I've heard was from an expensive B&O telly back in the 80s. It had a good range of frequencies, but there was horrendous distortion and sibilance on high-frequencies in dialogue: some female newsreaders' voices would set my nerves jangling. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
On 23/04/2013 13:29, Paul D Smith wrote:
Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ...on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. Paul DS. it's a side effect of people wanting thin tvs. if fat tvs with proper speakers were still flying off the shelf they would still make them. -- Gareth. That fly.... Is your magic wand. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
On 23/04/2013 13:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Oh I see well, if you think about it, most laptops have crap sound as the case is so small I suspect this is the issue with tvs. When I wasy ounger some tvs did have good sound but it was generally the top end models. I just don't understand why they do not sell speakers that plug in on top end models. Brian because anyone who would want to buy them, would buy a proper amp and speakers instead. -- Gareth. That fly.... Is your magic wand. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article ,
the dog from that film you saw wrote: I just don't understand why they do not sell speakers that plug in on top end models. because anyone who would want to buy them, would buy a proper amp and speakers instead. I have indeed bought an amplifier, but only because the TV didn't provide one. Building an adequate amplifier into a TV wouldn't cost much. In fact, as TVs display more and more from external sources, their primary function becomes the display, and it would make perfect sense for the amplifier to be bundled into that. -- Richard |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:44:04 +0100, the dog from that film you saw
wrote: On 23/04/2013 13:38, Brian Gaff wrote: Oh I see well, if you think about it, most laptops have crap sound as the case is so small I suspect this is the issue with tvs. When I wasy ounger some tvs did have good sound but it was generally the top end models. I just don't understand why they do not sell speakers that plug in on top end models. Brian because anyone who would want to buy them, would buy a proper amp and speakers instead. 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). 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. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
On 23/04/2013 18:30, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article , the dog from that film you saw wrote: I just don't understand why they do not sell speakers that plug in on top end models. because anyone who would want to buy them, would buy a proper amp and speakers instead. I have indeed bought an amplifier, but only because the TV didn't provide one. Building an adequate amplifier into a TV wouldn't cost much. In fact, as TVs display more and more from external sources, their primary function becomes the display, and it would make perfect sense for the amplifier to be bundled into that. -- Richard you can get quite a few blu ray players with integrated amp and plug in 5.1 speakers if you don't want to go the full blown amp route. -- Gareth. That fly.... Is your magic wand. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
On 23/04/2013 14:35, Paul D Smith wrote:
Playing devil's advocate, how soon before they offer to sell me a decent video monitor to go with my TV? For me, decent sound and vision go together and if that means that, say, their "TV" has to contain no speakers and come with external speakers (lightbulb - that's probably what Brian Gaff was suggesting) then so be it. But producing something which is so crap that they then try to sell me the speakers that should have come with the TV in the first place is really taking the mickey. Our old CRT set came with better speakers than any flat panel (well - they had the space :) ) AND a sub-woofer in the factory supplied stand. Not to mention read speakers. Andy |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
On 23/04/2013 20:27, Andy Champ wrote:
Our old CRT set came with better speakers than any flat panel (well - they had the space :) ) AND a sub-woofer in the factory supplied stand. Not to mention read speakers. It had rear speaker too... :) |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
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. 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 , Richard Tobin
wrote: In article , the dog from that film you saw wrote: I just don't understand why they do not sell speakers that plug in on top end models. because anyone who would want to buy them, would buy a proper amp and speakers instead. I have indeed bought an amplifier, but only because the TV didn't provide one. Building an adequate amplifier into a TV wouldn't cost much. In fact, as TVs display more and more from external sources, their primary function becomes the display, and it would make perfect sense for the amplifier to be bundled into that. The problem for set-makers is that decent stereo (and even more so, surround) tends to mean well placed speakers of a decent size and spec. This means that some customers will compare an 'all in one' TV with those that might offer a soundbar or seperate speakers... and go for "that one doesn't need the extra clutter". So they save money. In that context the advantage of providing a 'digital' audio output rather than analogue is that it cuts cost and avoids degradation by cheap analogue circuits. Those who have an interest in audio simple come to take for granted that for the best quality results you'll need a seperate audio system with a TV or DVD/BD player, etc. May already have that before they get the TV, so won't want a cheap duplication of it bundled. Given all that the 'soundbar' seems to me a relatively convenient half-way-house for those who want "better than the TV" sound but wish to avoid the "clutter" of a decent set of audio seperates. So once a TV can provide a digital output and has some internal 'backup' speakers for those who don't care about audio quality I guess the makers have judged their markets well enough. 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?
Paul D Smith wrote:
Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ...on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. I'd be quite happy if my TV had come with NO built in speakers. BugBear |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article ,
bugbear wrote: Paul D Smith wrote: Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ...on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. I'd be quite happy if my TV had come with NO built in speakers. I would too, since I've not used built in speakers since colour TV started. But decent power amps to allow the use of external speakers without additional remote controls and mains wiring that a soundbar needs would be a decent way of doing it. -- *'ome is where you 'ang your @ * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , bugbear wrote: Paul D Smith wrote: Feeling very "grumpy old man" as I look at possible new TVs and things like... Save £50 when bought with Panasonic Soundbar ...on websites. Apparently manufacturers are now completely happy to admit that the sound from their TVs is so crap that you need to buy a separate speaker system. I'd be quite happy if my TV had come with NO built in speakers. I would too, since I've not used built in speakers since colour TV started. But decent power amps to allow the use of external speakers without additional remote controls and mains wiring that a soundbar needs would be a decent way of doing it. I suppose in the early days, the quality of FM analogue sound was the limiting factor. Once NICAM and later DVB-T/DVD-S broadcasts began, the difference in clarity, noise and frequency response between cheap TVs and expensive external amplifiers/speakers started to become noticeable. When I first got a VCR that was capable of decoding NICAM sound, I compared off-air analogue FM sound and NICAM through the same amplifier and speakers, and was surprised at the difference. Even more noticeable was the difference between the linear and hi-fi soundtrack on a VHS recording - that was quite staggering! |
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 |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article , Bob Latham
wrote: In article , NY wrote: 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. Now I would not describe myself as a vinyl advocate by any means but I can honestly say that I would never have consider either dynamic range or frequency response as being obvious weak areas. On paper yes, I'm sure they are less than CD but when listening neither, is noticeable at all to me. In practice for *well made* LPs and CDs I'd generally agree. Of late I've been making digital file copies of some old LPs and some deliver excellent sound. The problem is that many others don't because they were simply made (usually by EMI) slopply. So some of the best LPs I have are by people like Decca. That said, EMI also made some pretty poor CDs at times. My main concern with LP used to be finding one without manufacturing flaws. Not with what a well-made one was like. Then the concern was to avoid any damage when storing or playing. If EMI had bothered to consistenly make classical LPs carefully I'd not have been so keen on Audio CD. 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?
"Bob Latham" wrote in message
... In article , NY wrote: 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. Now I would not describe myself as a vinyl advocate by any means but I can honestly say that I would never have consider either dynamic range or frequency response as being obvious weak areas. On paper yes, I'm sure they are less than CD but when listening neither, is noticeable at all to me. Now had you said usability, practicality, signal to noise ratio and/or playing time then yes vinyl would be seriously on the back foot. Agreed with all of those: usability (eg lack of in-car or Walkman record players!) is a big problem, but even for a static record player, the amount of noise (scratches, dust, crackle) on even a new record was horrendous - and it got worse with every playing. Dynamic range is limited in that there is a higher noise floor at one end and a limit to how large the deviations of the grooves could get. I can think of no advantage that a record has over a CD, apart from the fact that a record is larger so there's more area on the sleeve for a photo and liner notes! But I've heard it said that some people prefer records over CDs because CDs are too "clean" and "clinical", and I'm interested to know whether anyone has ever tested whether it's the insertion of the analogue-to-digital, CD recording and digital-to-analogue process that such people object to, or whether it's the lack of the processing that's needed to put audio onto a record. Hence the "control" test of comparing CD against live reproduction, with neither CD nor LP stages. If the same criticisms are levelled at live reproduction as CD then it's not the CD process that's the cause of people's complaints. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote: 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. Sounds like the output transformer laminations are rather loose. -- *If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote: 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 have Rogers, Chartwell and home made versions. ;-) I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer the ESLs. Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in this context. -- *Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article , NY
wrote: But I've heard it said that some people prefer records over CDs because CDs are too "clean" and "clinical", and I'm interested to know whether anyone has ever tested whether it's the insertion of the analogue-to-digital, CD recording and digital-to-analogue process that such people object to, or whether it's the lack of the processing that's needed to put audio onto a record. Hence the "control" test of comparing CD against live reproduction, with neither CD nor LP stages. If the same criticisms are levelled at live reproduction as CD then it's not the CD process that's the cause of people's complaints. One of the problems with this area is that people can fail to distinguish between how well the different 'carriers' *can* work *if well made*, and differences between the imperfections introduced by sloppy implimentations. This is understandable when people have to take commercial releases 'as manufactured'. But it clouds the topic as people blame the container for the contained. Interesting example in the letters column of the new Hi Fi News where Keith Howard shows a probability histogram of the samples on an EMI CD. This shows regular gaps. Some sample values never appear at all. His deduction is that EMI were using a 13-bit ADC at the time. sigh I have a number of EMI CDs where the strings have a 'sandpaper' effect, which makes me wonder how they were produced. Certainly the recent CD/SACD hybrids they did of old material sound a lot better *on the CD layer* than the early CD transfers they released. FWIW we've seen similar odd-histrogram results due to someone scaling the volume with no dither or noise shaping. The result is defects that may be audible and occur on a 'digital' carrier due to 'digital' processes. But aren't a reflection of what a properly made CD would do. Yet unless the listener does a statistical and forensic analysis, all they can tell is that the sound isn't good. Ditto for discs which are 'improved' by the application of HDCD, essentially distorting them when played as CD. Some of these disks don't even have HDCD codes, so play distorted on an HDCD player! The people making them are using HDCD as an 'effect' to make it LOUDER. I've lost count of the ways the clever clogs at music companies have found to foul up their products which the ordinary user won't know about... apart from the resulting sound quality. So the poor damn CD system itself gets the blame. Whereas some of the manufacturing faults of LP were obvious. LPs which are clearly pressed off-center, with scratches producing rifle-shots, and/or with ripples big enough to make a shape like a Pringle crisp. Bit of a clue that the LP in question wasn't made well. 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 18:13:10 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer the ESLs. Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in this context. Discerning people with the correct priorities realise that you buy loudspeakers to listen to, not to look at. Rod. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:13:10 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer the ESLs. Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in this context. Discerning people with the correct priorities realise that you buy loudspeakers to listen to, not to look at. years ago, I was Laskys in Tottenham Court Road and I was a pproached by someone doing a survey on loudspeakers. There was a selection in various diffeent finishes. "Which one do you like best?" I picked one with a shiny metallic cabinet. "Whic one would you?" I picked one in a teak finish. "Why wouldn't you buy the one you liked best?" Because my wife wouldn't let it in the house. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:07:05 +0100, "NY" wrote:
When I first got a VCR that was capable of decoding NICAM sound, I compared off-air analogue FM sound and NICAM through the same amplifier and speakers, and was surprised at the difference. Even more noticeable was the difference between the linear and hi-fi soundtrack on a VHS recording - that was quite staggering! NICAM, at effectively 14 bits and no statistical data reduction was probably the best sound quality that has ever been used on terrestrial broadcasts in the UK. I built the Maplin kit receiver, which had switches to select FM or NICAM and internal pots to match the volume levels between the two, and found that the most noticeable difference was the background mush on FM. I'd never noticed it before, never having been able to compare it with an otherwise identical source that didn't have it, but once I heard how bad it really was I wondered how it had been tolerated for so long. I'm amazed the VHS "hi-fi" sound system worked at all, as it used an FM track on the spinning video heads, but for some reason didn't produce any buzz due to head switching. Sometimes a quite enormous horizontal dislocation of the video signal could be seen, so the audio signal must have been subjected to the same dislocation with a chunk of it either missing or repeated every 50th of a second, but there was no audible effect. Some VHS machines had provision to record sound only from an external source, because they actually made better sound recordings than those little Compact Cassette things. Rod. |
Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:13:10 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer the ESLs. Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in this context. Discerning people with the correct priorities realise that you buy loudspeakers to listen to, not to look at. One of the reasons my better half likes the Quad ESLs is that they hide the wires and mess behind them. :-) She also likes the sound. 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 , Roderick
Stewart wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:07:05 +0100, "NY" wrote: When I first got a VCR that was capable of decoding NICAM sound, I compared off-air analogue FM sound and NICAM through the same amplifier and speakers, and was surprised at the difference. Even more noticeable was the difference between the linear and hi-fi soundtrack on a VHS recording - that was quite staggering! NICAM, at effectively 14 bits and no statistical data reduction was probably the best sound quality that has ever been used on terrestrial broadcasts in the UK. I suspect it is also the reason many audio fanatics prefer 'analogue' FM radio. Just as they love 'analogue' LPs cut from digital sources. 8-] 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com