5 ms·

I guess the AV era is mostly gone I'm not sure. I mean, I hope it never will be. At least I think there are actually a lot of people like me: once I heard (as

by stinos 8y ago

I guess the AV era is mostly gone I'm not sure. I mean, I hope it never will be. At least I think there are actually a lot of people like me: once I heard (as a kid already) the huge difference between what even a moderately proper hi-fi system makes music sound like in comparision with e.g. some portable radio or (god forbid) laptop speakers or even highly rated headphones, I cannot imagine not wanting that. Though I admit for video I care way less. But that's just because I watch things mainly for the plot and not for the visual effects.

dpark 8y ago
The thing is you don't need an "AV system" for it to be better than shitty laptop speakers. AV receiver systems are generally a pain for most people, with the need to run audio cables, buy separate speakers, etc. Soundbars are popular because they are easy and still check the "way better than the built-in speaker" box. I do have a dedicated receiver, but I wouldn't recommend it for most people because it's not worth the hassle.
- coryfklein 8y ago
  There is a large enough quality divide between TV speakers and an AV system with wired speakers to allow for a soundbar to be both an order of magnitude better than TV speakers and also an order of magnitude worse than the AV system.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Given that audio is so subjective, I'm not sure it's meaningful to discuss orders of magnitude. There are people who think even the best sound bars are terrible compared to a set of bookshelf speakers. But there are also people who think they can tell the difference between 44.1k and 48k, and it's just not a fight I care to involve myself with.
    - coryfklein 8y ago
      Although audio is subjective to our own qualia, it is silly to suggest that you can't quantify the difference in quality of various audio setups. Even though I used the term "orders of magnitude" colloquially rather than literally, it is well within reason to use the term literally as well. It is not difficult to imagine a machine with multiple sensitive recording and analytics devices that could measure the reproduction of audio in a room and generate a score based on how well it matches the original recording itself. This device, in fact, is not even imaginary but actually exists, and can legitimately give scores to audio configurations that differ on "orders of magnitude". Certainly there is a point where this device would rate sensitivities far beyond human ability to distinguish, but I would argue that the difference between sound bars and AV+speaker setups is well within the range of standard human perception. We're not even close to the controversial $5-10k+ setups.
      - dpark 8y ago
        I did not suggest that audio cannot be measured quantitatively. However, it generally is not. I've never read a sound bar review that used any kind of objective measures except maybe SPL. It's always about whether the sound is crisp or muddy and the sound stage is wide or tall or compressed or whatever. I also did not say that the difference between sound bars and receiver setups is too close for human hearing to detect. This is clearly not the case, since it's entirely possible for humans to detect sound differences even between two sound bars or the same receiver with different speakers. However, sounding different doesn't mean one is actually better. When two setups differ in volume slightly, human listeners will consistently choose the louder one as "better" unless the sound is clearly low quality (i.e. no bass, laptop speakers), disregarding the supposed intrinsic superiority of the "better" system.
        coryfklein 8y ago
        I stand corrected - I misread your earlier comment much too quickly. After re-reading this thread again, I realized my comment was written in prejudice. > human listeners will consistently choose the louder one as "better" unless the sound is clearly low quality This is news to me, and very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
aidenn0 8y ago
My daughter had some friends over to watch a movie, and we had just moved. I had not yet unpacked my speakers, but I had some el-cheapo bookshelf speakers scavenged from a circa 2000 HTIB. I set up just the RLCs and subwoofer, and did some basic equalization. Nearly every single kid commented on how good the sound was. Several insisted it must be a surround-sound system. As far as I could tell, none of them had ever watched a movie with anything but the speakers built-in to their television.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  I don't think the vast majority of households has ever had any external speakers connected to their TV.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  As far as I could tell, none of them had ever watched a movie with anything but the speakers built-in to their television. I think it's all about the sound bars these days. I don't have one, but there seem to be dozens of them for sale every place you can buy TVs.
simias 8y ago
>or even highly rated headphones Won't that highly depend on the location you put your AV system in? You basically need a dedicated area with decent acoustics if you want to beat good quality headphones. For non-audiophiles like me a good pair of headphones seem like a much more rational investment. Of course if it's about watching movies or TV then headphones are not always practical, but then for that I admit that I don't care much about audio fidelity beyond using cheap-o dedicated speakers instead of the TV's builtin set.
- stinos 8y ago
  Thing is even the best quality headphones don't produce a similar soundstage/stereo image becasue with speakers both ears always get sound from both speakers (though I assume there's software systems mimicjing that effect for headphones, not sure) also because most music is mixed while listening to speakers not headphones, and last but not least with speakers you also feel the sound with your body. But yes if you really don't have the space for speakers it's not ideal. But still i prefer it over headphones even though they usually can yield more detail.
agumonkey 8y ago
possibly but I mean that in the 90s AV was a bit pinnacle of tech and sound, now tech == google home. A receiver without a even touchscreen .. not mass market anymore.

by stinos 8y ago

dpark 8y ago

The thing is you don't need an "AV system" for it to be better than shitty laptop speakers. AV receiver systems are generally a pain for most people, with the need to run audio cables, buy separate speakers, etc. Soundbars are popular because they are easy and still check the "way better than the built-in speaker" box. I do have a dedicated receiver, but I wouldn't recommend it for most people because it's not worth the hassle.

coryfklein 8y ago
There is a large enough quality divide between TV speakers and an AV system with wired speakers to allow for a soundbar to be both an order of magnitude better than TV speakers and also an order of magnitude worse than the AV system.
- dpark 8y ago
  Given that audio is so subjective, I'm not sure it's meaningful to discuss orders of magnitude. There are people who think even the best sound bars are terrible compared to a set of bookshelf speakers. But there are also people who think they can tell the difference between 44.1k and 48k, and it's just not a fight I care to involve myself with.
  - coryfklein 8y ago
    Although audio is subjective to our own qualia, it is silly to suggest that you can't quantify the difference in quality of various audio setups. Even though I used the term "orders of magnitude" colloquially rather than literally, it is well within reason to use the term literally as well. It is not difficult to imagine a machine with multiple sensitive recording and analytics devices that could measure the reproduction of audio in a room and generate a score based on how well it matches the original recording itself. This device, in fact, is not even imaginary but actually exists, and can legitimately give scores to audio configurations that differ on "orders of magnitude". Certainly there is a point where this device would rate sensitivities far beyond human ability to distinguish, but I would argue that the difference between sound bars and AV+speaker setups is well within the range of standard human perception. We're not even close to the controversial $5-10k+ setups.
    - dpark 8y ago
      I did not suggest that audio cannot be measured quantitatively. However, it generally is not. I've never read a sound bar review that used any kind of objective measures except maybe SPL. It's always about whether the sound is crisp or muddy and the sound stage is wide or tall or compressed or whatever. I also did not say that the difference between sound bars and receiver setups is too close for human hearing to detect. This is clearly not the case, since it's entirely possible for humans to detect sound differences even between two sound bars or the same receiver with different speakers. However, sounding different doesn't mean one is actually better. When two setups differ in volume slightly, human listeners will consistently choose the louder one as "better" unless the sound is clearly low quality (i.e. no bass, laptop speakers), disregarding the supposed intrinsic superiority of the "better" system.
      - coryfklein 8y ago
        I stand corrected - I misread your earlier comment much too quickly. After re-reading this thread again, I realized my comment was written in prejudice. > human listeners will consistently choose the louder one as "better" unless the sound is clearly low quality This is news to me, and very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

aidenn0 8y ago

My daughter had some friends over to watch a movie, and we had just moved. I had not yet unpacked my speakers, but I had some el-cheapo bookshelf speakers scavenged from a circa 2000 HTIB. I set up just the RLCs and subwoofer, and did some basic equalization. Nearly every single kid commented on how good the sound was. Several insisted it must be a surround-sound system. As far as I could tell, none of them had ever watched a movie with anything but the speakers built-in to their television.

Sharlin 8y ago
I don't think the vast majority of households has ever had any external speakers connected to their TV.
reaperducer 8y ago
As far as I could tell, none of them had ever watched a movie with anything but the speakers built-in to their television. I think it's all about the sound bars these days. I don't have one, but there seem to be dozens of them for sale every place you can buy TVs.

simias 8y ago

>or even highly rated headphones Won't that highly depend on the location you put your AV system in? You basically need a dedicated area with decent acoustics if you want to beat good quality headphones. For non-audiophiles like me a good pair of headphones seem like a much more rational investment. Of course if it's about watching movies or TV then headphones are not always practical, but then for that I admit that I don't care much about audio fidelity beyond using cheap-o dedicated speakers instead of the TV's builtin set.

stinos 8y ago
Thing is even the best quality headphones don't produce a similar soundstage/stereo image becasue with speakers both ears always get sound from both speakers (though I assume there's software systems mimicjing that effect for headphones, not sure) also because most music is mixed while listening to speakers not headphones, and last but not least with speakers you also feel the sound with your body. But yes if you really don't have the space for speakers it's not ideal. But still i prefer it over headphones even though they usually can yield more detail.

agumonkey 8y ago

possibly but I mean that in the 90s AV was a bit pinnacle of tech and sound, now tech == google home. A receiver without a even touchscreen .. not mass market anymore.