 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did we go from the tragedy of home stereos to Plasma TVs?
Sorry - mostly my fault. Someone here talked about having to buy a replacement TV, and I suggested they act quickly, because Panasonic is getting out of the plasma business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another problem with LCD (at least I assume it's still a problem) is back-light bleed. Patches of the screen that should be black, often in corners, actually looks grey. Not good when watching 2.35:1 material. I gather if you're really unlucky you may actually have a pixel that bleeds light... but I never did.
I definitely experienced picture lag though, and all sorts of weird artefacts on things like grills and patterned walls.
Plasma tops LCD all the way for me.
That's not to say plasma is perfect either, of course. Banding, especially, is an issue on my 42" Panasonic.
Dead on. Most (but not all) LCDs exhibit this problem, which is quite evident with letterboxed material (as you point out). It's important to remember that the black bars are supposed to be exactly that - black. An easy reference is the black border of the TV panel itself. Just compare to see how well your set is doing in terms of black level / contrast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 17, 2013 - 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Col. Flagg
(Member)
|
Some differences between the two systems will be a matter of personal taste, but the black levels of good LCD´s (local-dimming) nowadays are as good as on the Plasmas. Saying something else is just a myth.
As someone who generates film content (or supervises its creation, depending on the gig), I disagree with the notion that LCDs outclass Plasmas in any category.
I'll say this about a layman's approach, too: if you've had the fortune to shoot film, pro digital video, finish picture or mix feature films in some of the best rooms in the country - as I have - you will know what your content is supposed to look and sound like. When shopping for home gear, I don't hold myself to pro standards (couldn't afford to!) but my eyes/ears will automatically rule out a lot. I take DVDs, CDs and Blu-rays which contain content I've been a part of creating and see how close a given TV, amp, speakers, etc. can replicate the quality of the experience - the experience I know it SHOULD be. LCDs, though improved in recent years, never make cut not so much because of their black levels, but because I've yet to see an LCD where tonalities don't band or look like digital artifacting on the way to black. Modern plasmas just handle film or film-like imagery better, that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John, I certainly bow to your superior technical knowledge and vastly greater experience, but as the average man-in-the-street (and I'm nothing if not average), I have to say that some of your comments don't entirely match with my experience.
Firstly, I've never noticed LCD's higher brightness. If I ever noticed such a thing, I would assume one or the other set was mistuned. When I've perused sets in the stores, I could never percieve any difference in picture quality between LCD and Plasma, in terms of brightness or anything else. Hell, not even the black levels people keep talking about. Am I blind? Don't think so; I had an eye test quite recently. I've read forums where poster after poster claims, like yourself, that plasma is 'clearly' superior. Well, it ain't clear to me, and from the comments I've overheard in shops, it's not too clear to many others either.
Mind, I'm not contradicting you, just pointing out that what may seem obvious to those in the game who spend a lot of time studying these things may be insignificant or unnoticeable to the ordinary person. I'm quite fussy about picture quality (I carry my audiophile standards over from sound to video here), and I take some time to get the picture as natural as possible, with no exaggerated colour or contrast. Visitors to my home will often remark on the naturalness of the picture. The problems you mention with regard to LCD--"screen uniformity, blown out highlights, poor black level performance, etc (not to mention motion lag problems that LCD has to jump through all kinds of hoops to address"--mean nothing to me in real terms. I don't know if it's ever been done, but I would love to see a survey where Average Joes and Jills were lined up in front of medium level LCDs and Plasmas and asked for their opinion. I honestly believe it would come done to brand, setting up and just plain old personal preference before Plasma v. LCD.
Again, not contradicting you. Just trying to put the perspective of the man in the street.
I really do appreciate your thoughtful comments. I would agree with you that the average person does not care about these things. And I always agree with anyone who says that there is no right or wrong when it comes to personal preference. However, there is such a thing as objective picture performance, and in that realm it is pretty easy to demonstrate plasma's superiority in most - but not all - facets of objective performance.
I'm sure if we sat down together and compared a couple of sets I could show you a few things to look for that might give those terms I throw about real meaning (like many things, once someone points out a flaw in something, it's hard to "unsee" it). On many occasions I have been in the local Best Buy and had discussions with people looking to buy a new flat panel set. Most are already pre-disposed to buy LCD. I sometimes ask if I can point out a few things to them in terms of picture quality and suddenly they are much more open to a plasma purchase (fortunately I am friends with the manager there and he and I enjoy talking about this stuff  .
RE: brightness. Next time you go into a big box retailer with a wall full of flat panel TVs, wait for a white screen to be displayed. The plasmas will immediately stand out because the whites look "dirty" in comparison to the LCD sets, which are quite literally much brighter (objectively so). Black levels are notoriously hard to compare in a store setting, because the bright lights of the store itself force your iris to close down so much that even middle level greys look like black. The only real way to compare these things are to get both sets in a reasonable lighting environment and bring up some dark video material with lots of shadow detail. Do that and in most cases plasma sets will almost instantly appear to have greater depth and dimensionality. This is due to the superior contrast that plasma is capable of.
Now, this is not an absolute, as a 5 year old plasma set will not have as good a contrast measurement as a brand new LCD. As with any claim that one technology is "better" than another, it is always important to define your terms, compare apples to apples, and realize the fact that technologies change and improve (and, perhaps most importantly, come up with a test procedure that can reliably demonstrate differences). It's entirely possible that next year an LCD manufacturer may come out with a set that puts the new Panasonic and Samsung plasmas to shame. It just seems unlikely, given the built in limitations of the technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some differences between the two systems will be a matter of personal taste, but the black levels of good LCD´s (local-dimming) nowadays are as good as on the Plasmas. Saying something else is just a myth.
As someone who generates film content (or supervises its creation, depending on the gig), I disagree with the notion that LCDs outclass Plasmas in any category.
I'll say this about a layman's approach, too: if you've had the fortune to shoot film, pro digital video, finish picture or mix feature films in some of the best rooms in the country - as I have - you will know what your content is supposed to look and sound like. When shopping for home gear, I don't hold myself to pro standards (couldn't afford to!) but my eyes/ears will automatically rule out a lot. I take DVDs, CDs and Blu-rays which contain content I've been a part of creating and see how close a given TV, amp, speakers, etc. can replicate the quality of the experience - the experience I know it SHOULD be. LCDs, though improved in recent years, never make cut not so much because of their black levels, but because I've yet to see an LCD where tonalities don't band or look like digital artifacting on the way to black. Modern plasmas just handle film or film-like imagery better, that's all.
Totally agree. Interesting, too, in that I had a discussion just this past Wednesday with a rep from Sony Consumer Electronics who came to that position after spending 5 years in Sony's Digital Cinema division. I asked what Sony Pictures used as reference monitors when color timing films, preparing them for DCI or home cinema release, etc. He said Sony is now switching to OLED monitors from CRT (!). Hey discussed the very same LCD issues you just brought up (poor handling of gradations, especially in dark areas of the picture). They also use calibrated digital projectors in black out rooms on reference quality white screens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Col. Flagg
(Member)
|
Totally agree. Interesting, too, in that I had a discussion just this past Wednesday with a rep from Sony Consumer Electronics who came to that position after spending 5 years in Sony's Digital Cinema division. I asked what Sony Pictures used as reference monitors when color timing films, preparing them for DCI or home cinema release, etc. He said Sony is now switching to OLED monitors from CRT (!). Hey discussed the very same LCD issues you just brought up (poor handling of gradations, especially in dark areas of the picture). They also use calibrated digital projectors in black out rooms on reference quality white screens.
That's funny, John - I was going to mention that, to me, CRTs are still benchmark technology - the 24-track analog audio tape of the video monitor world. Pro houses know this. Despite lag issues when cutting from a very bright to very dark scene, it still renders excellent images.
I recently spent a week color correcting a feature using a DLP projector, and the colorist and I were discussing the imminent arrival of laser projection - how it would simplify consistency over time (not having to rely on bulbs that power current projection technology - because, even over a short time, these bulbs age and don't stay one hundred percent in terms of brightness and color, making benchmarks or references difficult to track.)
I'll be very interested in what Movielabs' conclusion is for next-gen video. We have at least a decade's worth of digital intermediates delivered at 2K to factor in!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 17, 2013 - 5:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
One of the most frustrating things about the test was that screen uniformity on the LCD set was so poor that what appeared to be the better picture depended on what side of the set you were standing closer to. In other words, if you were standing to the right, the right side image looked better. If you were standing to the left, the left side image looked better. The reason was because the screen brightness and contrast varied so much that the image directly in front of you always looked best. The only way to judge the image accurately was to stand dead center.
That´s certainly true, though different models will show different results in this respect. But that´s nothing new: this was also a problem with crystal-type screens for (Super-)8mm films or slides. Yet they arguably had the best overall picture-quality (you just should not sit too far to the left or the right).
One of the problems with product reviews is that the reviewer usually has only the set being evaluated in their "lab" (in most cases, actually the reviewer's home) and does not have a reference set to compare to.
Well, the reviews I usually read do compare 5-6 different tv-sets directly and do not trust their eyes only but use a whole battery of fancy instruments. In spite of all this, I agree that there are many problems with such reviews (in fact with ALL reviews and test-results): the main problem being that almost every review you can find comes to a different result! 
Comparing TV-sets, cameras, radios...whatever...seems to be an almost impossible task. First problem: WHAT is picture quality??? You can probably examine two dozens (or more) items (sharpness, resolution, black levels, screen uniformity, color accuracy, motion resolution etc.)
One set will have better color accuracy, the next one better resolution or sharpness. So which one is better now? 
Only a few days ago I read two photo-magazines, both reviewing the newest cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony. The first review resulted in saying that the Canon-camera had by far the best picture-quality, followed by Nikon and a distant Sony, which did not quite reach the quality-levels of Canon and Nikon. The second magazine declared Sony the winner with best picture quality of the three products. I guess the resume is: you can do all the testing you like, in the end it all comes down to a highly subjective assessment.
last year’s top-of-the-line Sony HX950 XBR, seemed to suggest that it is possible to get state-of-the-art, Kuro plasma-like picture quality from an LCD. But this year’s LCDs at the Shootout paled by comparison to the plasmas.
I guess many of the newest LCDs are a step backwards, as they do not use local dimming anymore.
I know the HX925 and it has excellent black levels (in fact you cannot see where the screen ends and the frame of the TV begins when watching a 2.40:1(or something even more drastic) wide screen format. Some examples seem to suffer from DSE (dirty screen effects) but I won´t even start to list the problems Plasma-Tvs can present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 17, 2013 - 5:57 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
One of the most frustrating things about the test was that screen uniformity on the LCD set was so poor that what appeared to be the better picture depended on what side of the set you were standing closer to. In other words, if you were standing to the right, the right side image looked better. If you were standing to the left, the left side image looked better. The reason was because the screen brightness and contrast varied so much that the image directly in front of you always looked best. The only way to judge the image accurately was to stand dead center.
That´s certainly true, though different models will show different results in this respect. But that´s nothing new: this was also a problem with crystal-type screens for (Super-)8mm films or slides. Yet they arguably had the best overall picture-quality (you just should not sit too far to the left or the right).
One of the problems with product reviews is that the reviewer usually has only the set being evaluated in their "lab" (in most cases, actually the reviewer's home) and does not have a reference set to compare to.
Well, the reviews I usually read do compare 5-6 different tv-sets directly and do not trust their eyes only but use a whole battery of fancy instruments. In spite of all this, I agree that there are many problems with such reviews (in fact with ALL reviews and test-results): the main problem being that almost every review you can find comes to a different result!
Comparing TV-sets, cameras, radios...whatever...seems to be an almost impossible task. First problem: WHAT is picture quality??? You can probably examine two dozens (or more) items (sharpness, resolution, black levels, screen uniformity, color accuracy, motion resolution etc.)
One set will have better color accuracy, the next one better resolution or sharpness. So which one is better now?
Only a few days ago I read two photo-magazines, both reviewing the newest cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony. The first review resulted in saying that the Canon-camera had by far the best picture-quality, followed by Nikon and a distant Sony, which did not quite reach the quality-levels of Canon and Nikon. The second magazine declared Sony the winner with best picture quality of the three products. I guess the resume is: you can do all the testing you like, in the end it all comes down to a highly subjective assessment.
last year’s top-of-the-line Sony HX950 XBR, seemed to suggest that it is possible to get state-of-the-art, Kuro plasma-like picture quality from an LCD. But this year’s LCDs at the Shootout paled by comparison to the plasmas.
I guess many of the newest LCDs are a step backwards, as they do not use local dimming anymore.
I know the HX925 and it has excellent black levels (in fact you cannot see where the screen ends and the frame of the TV begins when watching a 2.40:1(or something even more drastic) wide screen format. Some examples seem to suffer from DSE (dirty screen effects) but I won´t even start to list the problems Plasma-Tvs can present.
By the way... here the best Plasma seems to be on position 11 (not that this means anything ):
http://www.computerbild.de/bestenlisten/Die-besten-Fernseher-ab-46-Zoll-3648963.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 17, 2013 - 11:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
How did we go from the tragedy of home stereos to Plasma TVs?
I was wondering that... lol
Me too (he said, while listening to a CD on his home stereo).
So let's see now. Each of the following assertions has been shouted from the rooftops during my lifetime:
God is dead.
The theater is dead.
The LP is dead.
The CD is dead.
The DVD is dead.
The home stereo is dead.
Still around, in all cases. Reports of their respective demises are premature to say the least.
I think we can agree that each of the following died for good reasons (primarily, improved technology or better marketing which made them obsolete):
The 8-track tape
The cassette tape
Quadrophonic recordings and quad stereo set-ups
The Betamax system
The VCR
The Laser Disc
The HD system (beaten out by Blu-ray)
Not everybody chooses to wander around with little headphone buds stuck in their ears, listening to their music in crappy mp3 form while they walk, drive, sit in class and/or pretend to be interacting with other human beings. I believe there will be a market for home stereos for many years to come, because some, even many, people like to hear their music on speakers in a high quality presentation. I also think that if CDs are ultimately replaced, it won't be by downloads from iTunes, but rather by some improved technology (think DVD->Blu-ray) that will provide vastly improved musical information, maybe on a reduced size disc. But what do I know? It may make for an entertaining debate, but ultimately it's pretty much just an exercise in intellectual masturbation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana Wilcox:
Re the above. I think your entire piece could be transplanted to my PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE thread and fit in quite nicely.
Yes, there will always be some of us with our SACDs and our 8 speaker surround systems -- I'm seeing more and more movies released in 7.1 and even 7.2 surround, although, for the life of me, can't see a great need for 2 subwoofers in most home stereo systems. And the habitués of this site alone would keep manufacturers pumping out hot new CDs and Blu-rays with improved fidelity and a myriad of other features. Last night I was roaming around the big Amoeba Music record store in Hollywood and carried home a big bag of CDs, and there's NO comparison between listening to them on an iPod with headphones or a big audio system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 18, 2013 - 1:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
Not everybody chooses to wander around with little headphone buds stuck in their ears, listening to their music in crappy mp3 form while they walk, drive, sit in class and/or pretend to be interacting with other human beings. I believe there will be a market for home stereos for many years to come, because some, even many, people like to hear their music on speakers in a high quality presentation. I also think that if CDs are ultimately replaced, it won't be by downloads from iTunes, but rather by some improved technology (think DVD->Blu-ray) that will provide vastly improved musical information, maybe on a reduced size disc. But what do I know? It may make for an entertaining debate, but ultimately it's pretty much just an exercise in intellectual masturbation.
I've been listening on headphones since the late 60's (& so far my hearing is OK), I just don't want to annoy neighbours with loud music, & I much prefer headphones now. I don't take the ipod out of the house now, because if you're doing something else while you're listening to music, you sort of forget you are listening to it (well I do). I have a feeling that CD's (& DVD/Blu-ray) won't be replaced, & people will stop buying things on shiny discs...well most people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's funny, John - I was going to mention that, to me, CRTs are still benchmark technology - the 24-track analog audio tape of the video monitor world. Pro houses know this. Despite lag issues when cutting from a very bright to very dark scene, it still renders excellent images.
I recently spent a week color correcting a feature using a DLP projector, and the colorist and I were discussing the imminent arrival of laser projection - how it would simplify consistency over time (not having to rely on bulbs that power current projection technology - because, even over a short time, these bulbs age and don't stay one hundred percent in terms of brightness and color, making benchmarks or references difficult to track.)
I'll be very interested in what Movielabs' conclusion is for next-gen video. We have at least a decade's worth of digital intermediates delivered at 2K to factor in!
LOL, RE: CRT. I know that CRT has been the gold standard for black level / shadow detail "resolution" that has not been topped by any digital display technology (up until the advent of OLED anyway). It can give you a "pure" black, where even plasma cannot. I just didn't want to start touting CRT benefits when I was already being challenged on the plasma front
Actually, despite all of my blatherings on about LCD vs. plasma, my real background is in audio and projection technologies. Once again, you are dead on about projector bulbs and color reproduction variations as they age. Like you say, LED and laser will start solving those problems here pretty soon.
If you haven't already seen this, here is an excellent discussion on laser projection (and the future of digital projection in general) from AVS and Don Shaw of DPI:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1481958/the-future-of-digital-projectors-with-don-shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That´s certainly true, though different models will show different results in this respect. But that´s nothing new: this was also a problem with crystal-type screens for (Super-)8mm films or slides. Yet they arguably had the best overall picture-quality (you just should not sit too far to the left or the right).
Well, the reviews I usually read do compare 5-6 different tv-sets directly and do not trust their eyes only but use a whole battery of fancy instruments. In spite of all this, I agree that there are many problems with such reviews (in fact with ALL reviews and test-results): the main problem being that almost every review you can find comes to a different result!
Comparing TV-sets, cameras, radios...whatever...seems to be an almost impossible task. First problem: WHAT is picture quality??? You can probably examine two dozens (or more) items (sharpness, resolution, black levels, screen uniformity, color accuracy, motion resolution etc.)
One set will have better color accuracy, the next one better resolution or sharpness. So which one is better now?
I guess many of the newest LCDs are a step backwards, as they do not use local dimming anymore.
I know the HX925 and it has excellent black levels (in fact you cannot see where the screen ends and the frame of the TV begins when watching a 2.40:1(or something even more drastic) wide screen format. Some examples seem to suffer from DSE (dirty screen effects) but I won´t even start to list the problems Plasma-Tvs can present.
I agree with much of what you say here. You get 10 different reviews or reviewers and get 10 different results. That's why the guys who are serious about designing audio and video components rely upon objective standards and blind (preferably double blind) testing. A blind shootout like the Value Electronics event is extremely valuable in that regard, as it eliminates viewer bias, the mood of the reviewer on the day of the review, how much he or she had to drink the night before, etc ; All of those things greatly affect subjective reviews of these types of components (as do confirmation bias, placebo effect, the list goes on and on...).
I am seriously not trying to sound like a know it all, but I just wanted to make a point about your projection screen analogy. The company I consult for currently is Panamorph, a manufacturer of anamorphic lenses for home theater projection. Screen technology is pretty basic - the more you focus the light back at the viewing area, the more you limit your viewing cone (this is referred to as "screen gain"). The upshot of a high gain screen is a very bright (not better) image, the downside is what is called "hotspotting," where the image is brightest in the center and dims as you move to the sides (there is also a problem with color shift on these screens). It can be argued that the biggest benefit of high gain screens is that they are good at rejecting ambient light (for reasons I won't go into here, as I've highjacked this thread enough . However, reference screens have a neutral (unity) gain of 1.0, which means they reflect light equally in all directions. The upshot is an extremely neutral, accurate image without color shift or hotspotting. The downside is that you need to install such a screen in a totally blacked out room or side wall / ceiling reflections come back to wash out the image.
Thanks for your comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me too (he said, while listening to a CD on his home stereo).
So let's see now. Each of the following assertions has been shouted from the rooftops during my lifetime:
God is dead.
The theater is dead.
The LP is dead.
The CD is dead.
The DVD is dead.
The home stereo is dead.
Still around, in all cases. Reports of their respective demises are premature to say the least.
I think we can agree that each of the following died for good reasons (primarily, improved technology or better marketing which made them obsolete):
The 8-track tape
The cassette tape
Quadrophonic recordings and quad stereo set-ups
The Betamax system
The VCR
The Laser Disc
The HD system (beaten out by Blu-ray)
Not everybody chooses to wander around with little headphone buds stuck in their ears, listening to their music in crappy mp3 form while they walk, drive, sit in class and/or pretend to be interacting with other human beings. I believe there will be a market for home stereos for many years to come, because some, even many, people like to hear their music on speakers in a high quality presentation. I also think that if CDs are ultimately replaced, it won't be by downloads from iTunes, but rather by some improved technology (think DVD->Blu-ray) that will provide vastly improved musical information, maybe on a reduced size disc. But what do I know? It may make for an entertaining debate, but ultimately it's pretty much just an exercise in intellectual masturbation.
Good points.
The next generation audio formats are already being worked on, and an extremely effective demonstration of where things are headed can be found at any movie theater that features Dolby's new ATMOS surround system. It utilizes up to 64 speakers in the auditorium and what is known as "object based" audio mixing. This is where things are headed in terms of "vastly improved musical information."
Other improvements will come in recording techniques and speaker technology. The bottlenecks to good quality sound are not coming from the delivery medium or even most components - they come from reducing sound down to point sources, poor room acoustics, and the current limitations of speaker design.
The information is already there with 16 bit / 48 khz audio. The reason why recorded music does not sound like live music is because we lose most of the directional cues when everything is mixed down to 2 channels (while we only have two ears, our ears do not experience sound coming from two point sources - speakers - when we attend a live music event). There is also the heavy compression that is applied to many modern recordings. That is also responsible for the lack of "liveness" in much modern recording.
The issue is not so much mp3 as this type of compression. At higher bit rates, many blind tests have shown that efficiently encoded mp3s are audibly indistinguishable from the source.
RE: headphones. Harman International is finally trying to set some objective standards for headphone sound quality. I agree that many headphones sound terrible (particularly earbuds). I am glad Harman is finally putting some money and research into determining what makes for a good sounding headphone as compared to a bad one:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-relationship-between-perception-and.html
If you are into listening to headphones as a way of enjoying music, give this article a read
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana Wilcox:
Re the above. I think your entire piece could be transplanted to my PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE thread and fit in quite nicely.
Yes, there will always be some of us with our SACDs and our 8 speaker surround systems -- I'm seeing more and more movies released in 7.1 and even 7.2 surround, although, for the life of me, can't see a great need for 2 subwoofers in most home stereo systems. And the habitués of this site alone would keep manufacturers pumping out hot new CDs and Blu-rays with improved fidelity and a myriad of other features. Last night I was roaming around the big Amoeba Music record store in Hollywood and carried home a big bag of CDs, and there's NO comparison between listening to them on an iPod with headphones or a big audio system.
Just a quick point -
The advantage of multiple subwoofers is in reducing the effect of room modes on your listening experience. Any room will have many strong peaks and valleys in bass response. There will be places in your room where the bass is overpoweringly loud, and other places where you will have a "null," or almost zero bass response at certain frequencies. Multiple subwoofers help counteract these issues (along with good acoustic treatment).
Much research has been done by THX and Harman regarding this phenomenon, with the ultimate solution being 4 subs placed in the room:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/why-you-need-four-subwoofers
You can easily prove to yourself how nasty these room modes can be. Just put on some music (or a movie) with heavy (and constant) bass content and walk around your room. You will notice heavy bass in the corners and along walls, and almost zero bass in the middle of the room. The most accurate bass response in most (but not all) rooms can be found by using the "38% rule," where your prime listening position is located about 38% from the front wall or rear wall.
A good guide to this stuff can be found here:
http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Schuermann: Re: "There will be places in your room where the bass is overpoweringly loud, and other places where you will have a "null," or almost zero bass response at certain frequencies. Multiple subwoofers help counteract these issues (along with good acoustic treatment)." Plus I looked at some of your links.
I sat at my regular central spot, watching "Elysium," and specifically looked for any "null" areas where there might be "almost zero bass response at certain frequencies," and although I didn't go to every nook and cranny in my listening room, I didn't find any deficiencies in the bass response of my Klipsch RF-82s or, for that matter, my new Klipsch Sub-12HG Synergy Series 12-inch 300-watt subwoofer, in the ones I did test. And if the bass did indeed drop in one of the far corners I may have missed, frankly, I don't think that has appreciable effect on my enjoyment of what I heard, and that included watching most of the second generation Blu-ray of "Stargate" with its very impressive low frequencies that have been known to blow out some decent speakers. And whether I have the subwoofer sitting on the floor behind my bank of components or on a table to the left of everything, I almost never can point directly to it as the source of the lowest of the frequencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Schuermann: Re: "There will be places in your room where the bass is overpoweringly loud, and other places where you will have a "null," or almost zero bass response at certain frequencies. Multiple subwoofers help counteract these issues (along with good acoustic treatment)." Plus I looked at some of your links.
I sat at my regular central spot, watching "Elysium," and specifically looked for any "null" areas where there might be "almost zero bass response at certain frequencies," and although I didn't go to every nook and cranny in my listening room, I didn't find any deficiencies in the bass response of my Klipsch RF-82s or, for that matter, my new Klipsch Sub-12HG Synergy Series 12-inch 300-watt subwoofer, in the ones I did test. And if the bass did indeed drop in one of the far corners I may have missed, frankly, I don't think that has appreciable effect on my enjoyment of what I heard, and that included watching most of the second generation Blu-ray of "Stargate" with its very impressive low frequencies that have been known to blow out some decent speakers. And whether I have the subwoofer sitting on the floor behind my bank of components or on a table to the left of everything, I almost never can point directly to it as the source of the lowest of the frequencies.
Thanks for your comments!
Just to be clear, I never meant to insinuate that any of these issues have anything to do with a deficiency in your speakers or, for that matter, any speakers or speaker designs. It's simply a matter of physics and how sound waves propagate in a room. Even if you had Pro Cinema JBLs, the bass response issues would be (mostly) the same.
Also, to clarify one other point, you will usually find the strongest bass against the walls and in the corners particularly. It is out in the middle of the room you will notice the nulls. And it will vary by frequency. For example, you may have strong response at 38 hz out in the middle of the room, but nothing at 32 hz (just random numbers I am using to illustrate a point). Most of the bass frequencies tend to pile up in the corners of a room, where the bass will be very strong but muddy.
If you have the time or inclination, you might try again with some rock / pop / r & b or rap music. In other words, something would good yet consistent low frequency energy that continually repeats. With movies it is difficult, because the same bass frequencies don't usually repeat over and over.
As you point out, bass frequencies are very hard to localize by ear, which is why you can't locate it no matter where you put it.
Subwoofer placement tip - place your subwoofer at your listening position, play some music with strong (and consistent bass content) and then walk around the room until you hear the strongest bass response (generally a corner). Typically if you place your subwoofer in that location you will have the strongest - and smoothest - bass response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 18, 2013 - 7:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
I agree with much of what you say here. You get 10 different reviews or reviewers and get 10 different results. That's why the guys who are serious about designing audio and video components rely upon objective standards and blind (preferably double blind) testing. A blind shootout like the Value Electronics event is extremely valuable in that regard, as it eliminates viewer bias, the mood of the reviewer on the day of the review, how much he or she had to drink the night before, etc ; All of those things greatly affect subjective reviews of these types of components (as do confirmation bias, placebo effect, the list goes on and on...).
Apart from the "human factor", I´m quite sure there are a dozen other reasons, too, for differing results: production spread, different devices for testing, different ways to grade the results etc...another list that goes on and on...
I am seriously not trying to sound like a know it all, but I just wanted to make a point about your projection screen analogy.
It probably wasn´t a very good analogy anyway. When you wrote "the only way to judge the image accurately was to stand dead center", I guess all I wanted to say was: OK, this may be a disadvantage, but I would call this only partly a "picture quality - problem", that´s rather a "seating problem".
A last word about "CRT benefits", which you didn´t want to touch additionally : again some benefits, some disadvantages: I remember how relieved I was getting rid of that technology! People seem to have forgotten that "beautiful" red, green and blue lines embellishing the contours of the picture.
It´s like the audiophiles claiming that vinyl sounded better than CDs - but only if you do not mind all the crackling and rumbling noises inherent in almost all LPs. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
