Fancy Flat Screen TVs

Well, we really don't watch TV (just a movie once or so a week), but I have a HD projector that we use for trade shows that we also commandeered for movies.

The image is 70 to 80 inches diagonally and while it is HD, the larger image size softens the image enough to remove that harshness you are seeing.

The cost for the projector is about the same as a large LCD display (~42" to 50"). I would not use a projector for watching TV hours on end, but great for movies at home with a good stereo of home theater system. It gives you that movie theater feel at home.

Yeah, these movies are made to be watched on the wide screen in the theater. They translate fairly well onto my tube TV. One would think that the technical wizards behind this stuff would have come up with a way to make the TV view similar to the theater experience.

It has to do with broadcast standards then and standards for the "big screen" movies. I would imagine that theaters used the big screen as a mechanism to draw people to the theaters with something that you just couldn't get on the old TV sets.

Additionally, it probably would have been much harder, and therefore expensive, to manufacture a CRT tube with a widescreen format. That was probably the biggest reason the broadcast industry adopted the 4:3 standard to begin with.

Once technology allowed for relatively inexpensive widescreen displays the HD standard was born.

LCD and even Plasma not only has an advantage with display size, but overall energy usage is much better than CRT. Frankly, I am happy to get rid of CRT devices. They take up too much room, generate excess heat, and suck electricity. I can hang an LCD display on the wall like a picture. CRT needs to be embedded into the wall and takes up space behind the wall.

No argument there. My tube TV is a monster. I think they still have work to do on the picture though. There are times when "crystal clear" takes something away from the experience.

The sharpness on a smaller screen should be able to be adjusted so that it looks like it does in the movies.

As far as the picture quality, I agree. The old style was just fine by me. The LCD (at least the one I have now) has settings for the Hor/Vert aspect ratio, so it might just be the way she has it set up.

Only thing I can add is that I don't have to watch the TV, especially if it hurts my eyes. But my wife loves to rearrange the living room, and moving those old sets that weigh 15 tons hurts my back. Not moving the TV is not an option I can choose.

That would be the aspect ratio. Old sets use 4:3 and high definition is 16:9. Typically, LCD screens are wide-screen 16:9, but some are not and playing a high-def movie or TV show requires the top and bottom of the display to be masked off with black.

Conversely, watching an older 4:3 show on a high-def display causes everything to be stretched out and everyone looks fat (including those pretty girls).

Yeah, I opened her menu and tried the different aspect ratios. It didn't help. Zooming in a little, did fill the screen, but again, it's not the way it's intended to be watched, and created pixelation and weird looking edges.

They have never been something that I felt I needed, because regardless of how good they get, the programming on TV still sucks.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if an image softening option, that could be adjusted for what was being watched, would be very popular. Humans, even good looking ones, just don't look good in that much detail.

I'll hang onto my 32" JVC tube TV. I like the picture better, and at around 100 lbs. or better, it will never get stolen.

I'm with you there, Kram. Still hanging on to my two-ton Sony, which shows the same dreadful programming as all the newer models. I keep saying I'll get a bodacious flat screen when the Sony croaks, but I don't think it will.

I have more fun in front of the computer, anyway.

I discovered the focus trick while at my sister's..............................alcohol. Just enough to blur the image, but not enough to double it.

I had a JVC 32" CRT TV (purchased in '98). And while it was big and bulky, the pictures quality was more than adequate for our family. We don't watch very much (Jeopardy a few times over 2 weeks, movie once or twice a month and the kids watch one 30 minute show on school mornings while my wife is making them breakfast). Okay, I also watch Dr. Who when it's playing, too.

We would still have it, but our house was struck by lightning this past August. I was not able to find a local shop to repair it, so we brought a 55" flat screen Panasonic with HD capability (and something I rarely use). I like the flat screen as it's relatively light and doesn't take up much space, but I still miss my JVC.

Many of my HD stations have the option of not watching in HD, but rather the old format. This does two things. It makes the volume much louder and the picture quality is just like the "old days". This option may go away in time, I don't know.

This may depend on your service provider. _{(Direct TV in my case)} This is definitely not an endorsement. They are all overpriced in my opinion.

There are a couple of exceptions. My neighbor has a pretty big flat screen and I think direct tv too. I have to admit, the nature shows, like National Geographic channel.................................animals or underwater footage, is impressive. It's overkill for anything that involves people though.

Come to think of it, on the banks of display models in the stores, don't they usually loop swimming fish, tigers on the savanna, or something like that?

It's definitely not the local newscast.

Well there are settings for how the picture is viewed. That will allow the picture to fill the screen. And adjustments to contrast and sharpness so you should be able to blur it enough so the nose hair disappear. Apparently you are not alone as comments from the other posts.

I thought Avatar was great on a flat screen. Of course it was an 80" TV and the movie from a Blu ray disc.

So the clarity to be able to see the make-up is a problem to you. Hey that's real life just like those nature programs. I'm sure we all have seen people on the streets that wear too much make up. I'm sure that as soon as the producers figure it's a problem to the viewer and way to edit it so it don't show they will.

With my limited experience, the animated/computer generated stuff does look good.

Being able to visually see the makeup on the human actors is more than just how it looks though. It's a constant reminder that they are actors playing roles. To me, it takes away from the ability to immerse myself in the film.....................if that makes sense.

{Edit} That's it!! I don't know if it's just the makeup, or the ability to see directly into their eyes...........................but I can tell they're acting.

It takes the fun out of it, because it's no longer the voyeuristic, fly on the wall, adventure that it should be.................................or used to be.

You sure your just not growing up! Lost the heart of a child.

NOOOOooooooooo!!!!!!

Perish the thought.

I still have a CRT TV which I am happy with. But for watching Grand Prix I visit a friend with a big LCD TV and HD quality from satellite (Freesat, in UK). This is definitely better. The director naturally follows the leading cars but HD lets you see what is going on further down the field in the back of the picture. And the cars are far easier to recognise in the helicopter/airship shots.

As for the quality of TV programming you probably need a different country. I'm currently watching the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, and a man is demonstrating how a changing magnetic field from a coil next to a person's head completely disrupts the operation of the brain, so that for example he cannot clap his hands any more.

I'll strongly disagree on protesting against flatness and better resolution on screens. The problem is not the high resolutions, it's that the screen is bigger than what we're used to, and watching from the same distance, does make your eyes get tired faster. But seriously, changing the mainstream house TV and PC screen ratio to wide screen is not something that was addressing a serious deficiency of the 4:3 ratio. I believe it was a masked effort to make all those years of good watching material obsolete, and give some room to new production. By the way 90% of the material I watch on my 50 HD plasma (yes I did it too, I'm no smarter) is a deformed original 4:3 that constantly makes me feel stupid, (but does make my wife look skinnier). At least I didn't go for the "LCD" that was promoted as better (my b*t) technology at electronic shops, and missed the opportunity of enjoying everything "cartoonized" plus the ability of drawing white lines on the screen with my finger. (that part drived me crazy too). Screens. Another technology that often advances by "moonwalking". S.M.

At least you're man enough to admit it.

What would be so tough about putting a little dial on the remote to soften or sharpen the picture for different circumstances?

Nobody said anything at my sister's house, but once I did, everyone agreed. I think a lot of people have been thinking this for a long time, but were afraid to say it.

I think I noticed that on NCIS, they are somehow deliberately softening the picture to look better on the HD TVs.

I also think I remember reading, that the HD format is wreaking havok for the makeup people on the high dollar movies........................looks good on the big screen, but once it's on DVD or Blueray, it doesn't work.

A dial? We got away from that. But the remote does have push buttons. The brand new TV I just bought has one button for a menu. In the menu are settings for picture. Those settings include contrast, sharpness and others.

But seriously, changing the mainstream house TV and PC screen ratio to wide screen is not something that was addressing a serious deficiency of the 4:3 ratio. I believe it was a masked effort to make all those years of good watching material obsolete, and give some room to new production.

Like the dismantling of LA public transportation to help the car industry?

I worry about more issues related to TV "modernization", regardless of the so-called advantages.

I fear the whole trend toward "content control".

Only a few weeks ago I noticed a I can't record some stations on my cable box any more:

"Channel xxx doesn't allow recording".

Never had a problem with my component video wiring and my VHS recorder.

Is there a VCR that accepts HDMI input and records Hi-def?

FYI: There's a lot more information traveling down that HDMI cable than simply audio and video of the show you are watching...

I can say that since I got a wide screen CamCorder, that "building" the subject matter is more difficult, especially close shots, than with 4:3....I got a special wise angle adapter for short range work to help, its worth its weight in gold.....

Maybe my brain is only good enough for 4:3!!!

Actually Andy the conciously perceived human field of view is just a few degrees corresponding circle (I stress circle and NOT elipsis). Everything else is a very blurely perceived background, and unless there is a (very) recent memory in your brain having "scanned" it and being able to assign that memory to the blured image, plus the real image is not changing much over time, the final perception can be very different from reality. And the closest to the focused human field of view is a circle. (And on displays a 1:1 square The rest as I said is just background.) S.M.

True, but I try and compose the whole area I am filming as much as possible and to get it right with the wide screen is far more difficult than I ever dreamed......

I look upon it as sort of picture painting and try to give the viewer the time to look at the whole a lot longer, but as you correctly point out, and any point in time, the human eye can only take in a relatively small area......therefore with my awful errors and mistakes, it allows me to better appreciate the work done by major film directors......

I enjoy filming as well as I can, but its certainly not a strong point of mine. I find it to be simply very hard work!!! My failures glare back at me from the screen, but careful editing can help to a degree sometimes to correct them......

That is not what I experience, nor indeed what was taught to me for my physiology degree. It is true that the visual field has particularly good resolution within the limit of a few degrees, but that is far from saying that the rest of it is blurred. It is not. Furthermore humans enjoy binocular vision, which further helps with resolving small objects.

Binocular vision mostly helps on 3D space perception. And much of the detail we think we see on what I called "background" is actually on memory. That's all I said. It's been experimentally proven and was fully exploited by "magicians", Ninjas (and recently by politics). S.M.

I know you said it. It's just that it's not true. The optics of the eye focus on the retina with a high degree of accuracy. The fact that one portion of the retina offers a much higher resolution than the rest does not mean that most of the vision is blurred.

The area where maximum resolution is obtained is called the fovea. It contains about 50% of the optic nerves and is about 1mm in diameter (1% of the retina area).

And didn't say blurred. Said "blurely perceived" which may not be orthodox expression but it's clearly not about focused or not (actually if objects there, are in a different distance than the "focused" ones in the center, they will be also be literally unfocused and blurred) but that makes little difference since the real time info from that area to optic center is very LIMITED anyway. By the way on a degree class the instructor does have to limit the material analysis somehow and seal it for practical reasons, before it's scope is compromised by field widening to uncontrollable size. Anyway hope I don't have to agree with you (or else...). Happy new year to all. S.M.

I recently replaced my 20 year old CRT with a flat screen. My CRT finally broke and needed to be replaced. If you watch soccer, football, hockey, or baseball and compare the two, you will notice a major difference. I much prefer the new because it provides a sharper and larger viewing area. It is significantly sharper and allows me to customize the picture to my preference.I chose a plazma partially because I liked the tracking of fast moving objects but there are LCD models now with fast tracking. However, a bigger factor was the deal provided by the retailer. It is a smart TV and will allow me to stream HD movies and provides internet connection. I think movies are also improved but I would say most of my viewing is with soccer. And no I won't go back even if I could. IMO and I am a Luddite.

the useful life span of these things are about 8 years but many don't make it 2 years. I put an hourly rate on them but keep my 30 year old tv that has never failed too

The movie props look like really bad props when viewed in HD. Makeup looks like makeup too.

The movie, Avatar, looks really odd in HD.

You can mess around with the picture properties quite a bit. You just haven't found the right menu (yet)

Your old 32" tube is now or very soon will be obsolete. They are too expensive to make, too bulky and fragile to transport, use too much power, and require electronic components that are no longer in production. If you find flat screen a real pain, go out and buy another tube TV now (if you still can) and store it in the cellar. Because if you wait until your current one fails, they will no longer be available.

Progress......, who needs it?

Well, the good thing is, that they tend to last a real long time.

I don't really watch enough TV to care one way or the other. I can see the draw for watching sports, car races, etc. Unfortunately, I find sitting and watching those things completely incomprehensible. It's too bad. I'd probably have more friends if I could get my brain into them. I've tried, and I just can't.

The sharper crisper look is the visual equivalent of hifi sound. I can remember similar arguments against that new CD thing when compared with vinyl, and indeed that new transistor thing when compared with valves. The fact is that vinyl records, even played on a horrendously expensive turntable, never began to compare with the real thing in concert halls. You are now experiencing hifi video which is too near to the truth to be comfortable.

Oh yeah, the CD thing. Now those are going away too. The total junk MP3 standard is becoming the norm.

I like CDs. I do have a story about those too:

I had been listening to them for years, and thought they were pretty decent on sound quality..................................then one day my old, heavy 70's era receiver gave out. Well, I went and bought a new one..........thin, lightweight, high tech, etc. Long story short, my same CDs sounded tinny and horrible.

I got rid of the new receiver when I found another old, heavy Sony at the flee market. And I have another one as a backup out in my shop. I will buy those whenever I see them. People will sell them for 20 bucks or less............they have no idea what they have, as far as I'm concerned.

Digital audio cannot effectively reproduce the bass as could, say, an old style of amp. The bass digital does reproduce is more of a 'thump' than an actual musical note as attested by many a vehicle equipped with mega watt drivers that can be heard coming from miles away (I suspect that type of sound has a tendency to collapse the pulmonary system)

I intend to keep my Marantz and Wharfedales and my vinyl albums. Adding small neodinium magnet drivers to that system just further enhances the beautifull sound.

but i do like my flatscreen hd..........

See post #31 for a better understanding of what you are hearing. It really is not a digital versus analog thing, but how the engineer mixes modern music for today's reproduction.

44.1 kHz sampling rate is more than enough to faithfully reproduce audio from 10 Hz to 22 kHz.

Audiophiles with engineering degrees should be the ones designing everything that has to do with music, rather than just technophiles. Which is being done to a certain degree, but not for the masses.

I think the other thing about the earth shaking thump that emanates from the cars of punks, is that it isn't being made by drums, but is created on a synthesiser.

...................................and my Dad thought me cranking Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, etc., was bad.

I still do it when I get the opportunity.

Yeah, same here from time to time.

I think you have to draw a distinction between the domestic hi fi setup and the boom boxes which tend to be installed in a car. If you investigate the car audio enthusiasts' websites you will find that they are obsessed with fitting a pair (!) of subwoofers as the sole output transducers from their megawatt amps, without any idea that sound output requires mid-tone speakers and tweeters as well. It has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of digital reproduction. It has to do with the desire of that sort of driver to produce the maximum of that sort of thump.
You are welcome to stick to your Marantz and Wharfedales. My CD player is Marantz, though my speakers are Celestion.

all Mp3's aren't created equal

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

speakers in the 4 corners of the room, go a long way too

my current quest is better random, I can come up with a playlist several 1000 files long, but some songs just seem to come up more often

another sticky wicket is file management, I have 30k files

I need to be able to have the user defined info on the tags stay with the file

Itunes for instance has a library database where some of the changes are kept. I suppose that's great if you have apple everything & sync it all to their cloud.

if I copy files to an external memory or across my network, changes may or may not be transfered with the files

Playlists generated with Itunes certainly aren't portable, even though the formats are the normal ones

it's really too bad the Itunes graphical user interface is excellent [other than the depressing grey color scheme]

I'm still in the dark ages with all this stuff. No MP3s, no ipod................just CDs being played through an ancient Sony tuner and decent speakers works for me.

I will say, that I can notice too much technical tampering. Just like some movies in HD, a CD that says, "Digitally Remastered", usually sounds too clean.

Ever get stuck on here?

http://www.archive.org/browse.php?collection=etree&field=%2Fmetadata%2Fcreator

not a dead fan

I have an old beater computer plugged into a 20 year old receiver, which is a step up from the ol Pioneer where you had to jiggle the selector switch when one channel droped out

I transcribed a few 1000 songs from LP's to digital, sometimes there can be these really odd juxtapositions

Ethel Merman followed by the ramones

It's not just the Dead. They're just one band of thousands of live recordings...............mostly sound board.

Tons of great stuff on there that never made it to the mainstream.

how great can it be with that much dead

IA just keeps expanding...

another reason to keep the internet open _{shyt wrong thread}

You wrote, "The sharper crisper look is the visual equivalent of hifi sound."

Sort of. The advantage of CD sound has more to do with convenience and robustness than being a superior media. Vinyl actually has an edge (pops and scratches aside) when it comes to quality if well pressed. However, CDs have a disadvantage, not due to the ability to reproduce sound, but to the recording mechanisms applied by the recording engineers, which use excessive amounts of musical compression to limit the dynamic range.

MP3 further exasperated the quality by reducing the sample rate and equalization changes to fit portable music players.

you wrote, "The fact is that vinyl records, even played on a horrendously expensive turntable..."

The turntable is just a small portion of the equation. The same goes with the amp. Speakers are the biggest weak link, second only to the room they are played in.

Lastly, the valve/transistor argument really has more to due with the amplifier type. Transistor is a voltage-drive amplifier, whereas valve amps are a current-drive amp.

What does this mean to sound? Well, it really has to do with the speaker, which does not have a constant impedance. The typical speaker has a resonance at the lower end of the spectrum where the impedance is highest and then flattens off in the 200 Hz and up.

A transistor amp will deliver more acoustic power when the impedance is low (i.e., 6 Ω) and proportionately less when the impedance is high (i.e., 36Ω @ 30 Hz). Valves are current-drive, so as the impedance rises, so does the power.

When transistor amps first hit the shelves people complained that the bass was weak and the highs were dull. This was because the output power falls off with higher impedance. Valves sounded more full, richer, and brighter due to the compensation effect they provided at higher impedances. That speaker impedance also rises at the high frequencies and is another reason why transistors sounded dull compared to valves.

The industry changed things with speakers to level the playing field and modern transistor amps have done a good job at scrubbing the zero-cross distortion inherent with the early designs. Today careful attention is payed to speaker impedance (Zobel networks) to reduce impedance fluctuations.

HD TV is plainly due to simply improving the resolution of the image. HiFi is a much more complex set of changes that really do not parallel well with HD TV. That is, the ability to resolve music to a higher degree has simply not materialized in the way TV has in the last decade. You can get equivalent sound quality from good vinyl on a valve amp as you can from a CD with a transistor amp, or the difference would be hardly noticeable. Not so with the analog versus HD TV.

However, I definitely agree that people will psychologically adjust (as well as the industry tuning the picture to people's tastes) over time and will look back to analog as being inferior compared to digital HD.

You wrote:-

Transistor is a voltage-drive amplifier, whereas valve amps are a current-drive amp.

???

It is all about negative feedback and how it is employed. A solid state amp is basically a comparator with two inputs (+ and -).

The classic inverting amplifier applies negative feedback from the output to the negative input as shown:

The gain is simply the ratio of R1 to Rf. The output impedance of the amp has no effect on the gain of the amp, which always remains constant, but the power to the speaker is totally dependent on the load of the speaker.

In this respect the transistor amp acts as if it is a voltage-driven amplifier (Rf is connected directly to the load).

Gain = Vin * (Rf/R1)

A valve amp looks like the current-drive amp and looks like this with R2 acting directly as the speaker load:

The gain of the amp = Vin *(1 + R2/R1)

As R2 varies, so does the gain of the amp. That is, as R2 increases, so does the amp's gain.

Does that help?

Sorry, vinyl has no edge whatever. The recording format of a CD (we are not talking about compressed formats here) is far superior to a vinyl record even when it is new. you are quite right that the CD format is robust - the clicks and scratches on a misused vinyl are one of the most painful experiences possible for those appreciating the music. The turntable was the single most important element in the signal path for vinyl, the amplifier and speakers being common to both CD and vinyl. as for your idea that
"A transistor amp will deliver more acoustic power when the impedance is low (i.e., 6 Ω) and proportionately less when the impedance is high (i.e., 36Ω @ 30 Hz). Valves are current-drive, so as the impedance rises, so does the power"
that makes no sense at all. All valve power amplifiers deliver their output via a transformer to a loudspeaker, and a transformer is not a constant current device. Nor does a transformer offer a lower impedance at high frequencies.
The key feature of the modern transistor amplifier is that it does not have an output transformer, and can therefore deliver a full range of frequencies in an even fashion more readily

The only possible edge vinyl may have is in the dynamic range compared to CD, but you have to compare apples to apples as far as the mastering, pressing, and playback equipment. Otherwise, they are about equal until wear and tear takes its toll.

You wrote, "The key feature of the modern transistor amplifier is that it does not have an output transformer..."

Actually, it is about the negative feedback. Transistor amps need this in spades.

A valve amp with no or very little negative feedback will attempt to provide a constant current at the secondary of the output transformer. When the frequency varies across the speaker terminal, so does the impedance seen at the amp. This is true regardless of amplifier type.

When the amp passes a note that is at the speaker's resonance frequency the impedance may be 4 times higher than the nominal rated speaker impedance. A valve amp will compensate by driving the output voltage 4 times higher and produce a constant power output over varying impedance loads. A transistor amp can not do this due to the negative feedback.

If a real world speaker had a flat impedance of 8Ω across the audio spectrum (i.e., emulated a true non-inductive resistor), then a transistor amp and valve amp would sound exactly the same. However, speakers' impedance varies considerably over the audio spectrum.

Lastly, it is an advantage to not use an output transformer, but not nearly as much as you might expect. It isn't too hard to design and implement a transformer that is realistically flat over the audible spectrum (20 Hz to 20 kHz). The lowest fundamental frequency on a piano is 27.5 Hz. That is far, far easier to reproduce through an amplifier than a speaker. Few HiFi speakers really achieve a flat response down to this frequency, let alone 20 Hz and lower. On top of that the room will screw up everything anyway.

I have built many valve amps that easily exceed the 20 Hz to 20 kHz spectrum with less than 1 dB variance.

What many here forget is that compression is used on vinyl as it cannot hold the the whole dynamic range needed for music. Nobody has even thought to mention it up to now!! WHY?

Look here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Its the so called RIAA curve. Depending upon the quality of curve used when recording and also depending upon the "similarity" of the RIAA curve used when playing back, you may have quite a lot of RIAA (analog) distortion........but it goes unnoticed......by most people.

A digital source like a Music CD, reproduces to my mind much better, providing the rest of the music chain is put together well.......which it sometimes is (often) not!!! A good quality valve amp connected to a high quality CD player is not a bad way to go!!!

I haven't even mentioned the output and input level/frequency/impedance matching that needs to be done, but never is, to get a good accurate music sound.......especially when connecting different units together.

I settle for a system that fills my personal requirements and reproduces music as I like to hear it, probably it also suffers from some of these problems as well, I simply don't notice anymore!!

Good point with the RIAA curve.

Thanks for your comment.

I believe I was the first to mention it. I have seen over the years many "versions" of RIAA in even quite expensive HiFi gear that hadn't a clue as to what was needed to be done......... It accounts for the "rich tone" that many like in some bad cases.....

It got worse after CDs came on the market, there are so called HiFi systems today without an input for a vinyl deck, let alone for the two basic types of pickups (moving coil and moving magnet!)

Being old means I (amongst several others) have to put such stuff here that many younger people have never heard about.....

Do you know if the dynamic range of vinyl is flat across the frequency spectrum? I suspect it would not be, but regardless, everything I have been reading is that CD digital can surpass vinyl dynamic range.

Do you mean when it finally comes out of the speakers, so-to-say?

I would say very unlikely....but that is what many like, especially the "valve" people.... because if a valve or two are in the RIAA equalization, it changes as the valves age anyway.....valves age far faster than normal quality transistors.

On a well setup modern Transistor amp, it should be pretty good over many years.....that is, it represents nearly what was originally played. But do not forget, if the LP is 60's or earlier, it may not have been RIAA equalized anyway, but to some other system......there was no set date for compliance.

Some LPs right into the 70's were not RIAA compliant!!!

Even then it was only 33 1/3 and 45 RPM vinyl anyway, older 78'S WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!!

with Lp's there's also the issue of the decreasing speed [inches per second] as you get closer to the center

78's are better in some ways, due to the higher sample rate

I don't think the speed change is an issue and probably well understood and compensated for when the master is cut. At least in better stampings.

I don't know exactly how they cut the master, but the master appears to be cut from the outside edge to the inside edge at a constant RPM. This means that there will be no playback frequency change when played back from edge to edge. There may be some loss of fidelity, but I don't know how much if at all.

That is countered by starting with what is effectively a higher linear speed than needed, the inner speed is probably on the border of a bare minimum.....

I have not personally seen a study myself of the acoustical differences between the start and the end, might be interesting!!! Anyone found anything?

Not quite so. The vinyl record itself is capable of holding the full dynamic range, but if the masters were to be cut without using the RIAA protocol the grooves would have had to be spaced more widely. The second benefit of RIAA is that the clicks and pops from dust and scratches are not reproduced as loudly as they otherwise would.

The first point you make illustrates the need for RIAA, or the disks would lose about half of their space/time of play to allow enough room between tracks (doubling space for example) to stop one track possibly "damaging" the tracks alongside it.....So thats a "no no".....

High frequency noise is attenuated as you say, but low frequency is enhanced (louder!), so its a "swings and roundabouts" on that score (pun!)......

I would not personally lay much store by that "advantage" myself.....

The problem that I have with RIAA is that many companies did not keep to the standard properly, which is why I personally like CDs best......I have converted most of my LPs to CDs and sold the LPs on....still got some to do.....

I would not sell my LPs (those few that I have) because the cover and liner notes are unique to that format.

That is the real advantage over CDs in that you get the original artwork and information that is just not there in a CD or more so in a digital download.

It is one of the reasons that LPs have seen a resurgence in sales while CDs sales are evaporating. People are discovering or rediscovering vinyl.

Nostalgia is another reason. I almost exclusively listen to digital music, but occasionally play vinyl for the fun of it. It is like the difference between eating dinner with incandescent light versus candlelight. Electricity is superior, but not nearly as romantic.

Ahaa..........by your own admission ( Electricity is superior, but not nearly as romantic.) there is a spectral content to sound coherence..........

I think I'll go warm up with some Miles Davis.............

You wrote, "I think I'll go warm up with some Miles Davis............."

That would warm me up, too!

Do remember that a good adjustment as you appear to have found out already, is the heart of the problem.

If viewing via a Sat or cable receiver, you may need to look at the options on it and change it to 16:9 or similar for a wide flat screen or similar.....many forget this!!!

Flat panel gives more flexibility than mega-tron based box CRT TV. You can change aspect ratio and you will see one which you like. Now control is in your hand and you do what is best to your test.

Yeah. It's not my TV, so I don't care too much, but one day, I'll be crossing this bridge.

I did try the different aspect ratios..................there were only 2 options, along with a zoom feature.

Maybe I'm just too picky. In my mind, a movie should fill the screen, (which is seemingly impossible without using zoom), and the picture quality should be similar to what one would see on the big screen, which, to me, would involve reducing the clarity of the picture just a tad. The effect should also be easily reversible for watching sports, nature shows, etc.

A movie mode.

You guys/gals might find this interesting.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/display_myths_shattered

Ha, going the way of the HiFi marketing scene.

These look like some good tweaks.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/systm-calibrate-your-hdtv-like-pro/9742-1_53-50005275.html

I think flat panel is not for you. Just wait 5 to 10 years and we will have holographic TV and then I am sure based on your writing you will love this one. This will not take even wall space more than few square inch, you can control size of the image and will be able to display any place in living or bed room.

At least I'm not alone. Searching the internet, I'm seeing people referring to this, as the "soap opera" effect, or the "sped up soap opera" effect.

It's interesting that some people are really bugged by it, and others don't seem to notice it at all.

With the curent offerings on TV, I'll stick with my old (paid for) tube TV. Everything is a repeat. They even re-run programs from the 50's and anything other than the history or military channel that might be worth watching is on a premium channel. Remember when TV broadcasts were free? It's a good thing I like music. My radio is still free. I wonder how long before they figure out how to charge us for radio use.

Yes; the quality of the LCD and LED screens are nice, but the quality of the programming hasn't kept up with technology.

Doesn't anybody here miss audio tape hiss and that wonderful satisfaction that only a VHS video cassette can provide?

I ended up with a flat screen LCD from Phillips after the CRT we bought from Walmart went kaplooey. It was just a couple of weeks after the 1-year warranty expired. Walmart didn't want to help, so after writing the CEO of Phillips, they finally offered us a 37" LCD. We were a bit gun shy, as they had a person assigned to handle these complaints and looking on the Net we found other people who got offered "upgrades" because of "lemon" sets from Phillips -- known issues that they, apparently didn't care to fix. We figured if they had a dedicated person to handle complaints, there must be more than a few. And who's to say we won't just get an upgraded lemon? We decided to give it a whirl.

There are definite viewing adjustments to be made. The response of the and LCD to movement is slower than a CRT. Blurring occurs on fast movement. I understand that has improved. Blacks aren't true black. And those black bars you mention can be distracting. But even on a CRT if you are watching a TCM broadcast of a widescreen version of a movie, chances are it will have those bars at the top and bottom. And that is on any TV, CRT or LCD. I have had the TV now for about 4 years and I still find that on these types of broadcasts, I do hunt and pick for a viewing format to find out the most tolerable one.

A major problem with all TVs are the lame sound reproduction they give. It is the reason, I think, that home theater systems came along. I'll never forget the first time I ran the TV audio into my stereo system about 30 years ago and was amazed at what I had been missing by not doing so. Then I recalled that the audio portion of the broadcast signal was FM. FM standards allowed for better fidelity audio. So, for years, especially on broadcasts with musical content, people were broadcasting a signal that TVs just didn't fully express. As a matter of fact, I think one of the first TV shows this was so obvious was one night I was watching the Tonight Show (Johnny Carson era) and was blown away by how good the band sounded, vs. turning the stereo off and just listening to the tinny TV speakers.

Even today, when I want to share music DVDs with people I, first ask, what kind of sound system they have for their TV. If it's just the TV speakers I lose my enthusiasm for sharing it. The bass, especially is terrible on most TV speakers; actually almost non-existent.

I'm no longer an aspiring audiophile. I never got past my first go at that with Dynaco, solid-state amp. and preamp., Dual turntable, etc. But there is such a drastic difference in listening pleasure (and my ears are now old) that I can't imagine watching TV without some external audio system. I've never had a 5.1 surround-sound system, just stereo. And I don't currently have my "good" stereo hooked up. I only have a small integrated system like you can buy for around $150 at many places. It doesn't have a great sound, but I use my good JVC headphones with it to watch a lot of TV. I find that satisfactory with no chance of disturbing any neighbors. And it's just more efficient, cutting out any competing room and/or neighborhood noises -- like lawnmowers.

(Since there seem to be some audiophiles here... Out of curiosity, does anyone have "The Audio Cyclopedia" by Howard Tremaine? I got mine around 1973. It is in storage now and has been for years, but it was considered THE bible of audio at the time. As one Amazon reviewer states, a lot of sound and acoustic theory hasn't changed. This book is a wonderful odyssey of the history of music reproduction up to it's printing.)

I think it was JBL (specifically Floyd Toole?) that performed an experiment that showed that even people with compromise hearing could distinguish between a good system and a really good sound system.

I would agree for the most part. Which brings into question the definition of good vs. "really" good. (Money, perhaps?) But I'm talking about, basically, the difference between bass and no bass, not finesse... the same difference as between a transistor radio and a decent stereo speaker. I think the same A-B type test would have almost everyone notice that difference -- and prefer the better frequency response of a decent speaker... which, it appears, even most flat-screen systems lack, not to mention CRT's.

Actually, the audiophile purist would be pursuing "accurate" reproduction, vs. appealing sound. Personally, I find that "appealing" sound emphasizes the bass and highs for most music I've listened to. Except the huge "thuds" of Rap music. That's one genre that I just never felt cozy to me. I do know that I can hear it's devotees blocks away as they ride around in their small private broadcast stations on wheels. That's a bit more bass than I find pleasurable.

Many times bass issues are more to do with the room than the system.

Earl Geddes has a solution to the bass issue by using multiples subs about the room to fix issues with nodes and anti-nodes.

However, as you noted, cheap TVs with integrated speakers usually leave a lot to be desired.

I'm just glad that they haven't included the smell of perfume in the hi-tech TVs! I get enough of that at the theaters, super markets and dept. stores!!