Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Today's Oddest Comment

So I was at a friend's place tonight, and he and his wife made the comment that they really didn't see what all the fuss about DVD was, VHS looks the same, doesn't it?

Bren R.

On a crappy TV, a good VHS doesn't look all that different from DVD. As the TV gets better, the difference between DVD and VHS gets more apparent.

Did you look at their TV ?

My brother-in-law just picked up a DVD player. They got the good one -- $40 -- not the $25 piece of junk

Their only reason for upgrading was because VHS tapes were becoming hard to rent. Yes he is building a home theater in his basement but we haven't had a chance to talk equipment yet. I'm assuming the $40 player will not move down to the basement.

I think you hit on something pretty important here.

Like, I am the only one-the only one!-in my family who has anything close to a full fledged home entertainment system!

My oldest daughter has a large RPTV, but continues to use the on-board speakers! My son has surround-sound; sub and all, but it's on his computer! with little bitty sats and a module "sub"! And he thinks it sound "good"! or even "Great"!

"WE" take great pride in our hobby and think it's a major part of our lives(It IS!) But "THEY" don't, and in fact they really don't seem to give a sh....a darn.

Which brings me to another question, one that maybe deserves its' own thread.

This one concerns the "Canadian Sound"

My understanding is that the Canadian sound is more accurate and perhaps a little dryer than "The American" sound(not that Canada isn't as American as the U.S. But Canada has the NRC. Know what I mean?)But(and maybe I should do some more research here)perhaps we are in the minority here in prefering the more accurate side of neutral. That the rest of the world would rather have something warmer and more colored.

I had read-and it stuck with me-back in the sixties in one of the major Hi-Fi mags that some folks like cool sound, some like warm, even mushy sound, but that the vast majority would gravitate towards the warmer side of neutral.

I read very nearly the same comment when starting to get back into audio/HT about five years ago, in a couple of on-line and paper publications. That the majority of people like a warmer sound. Like what you hear in the average movie theater?

>>That the majority of people like a warmer sound. Like what you hear in the average movie theater?

I was with you right up to the last sentence. Maybe I haven't been to enough movies recently but I never thought movie theaters had a "warmer sound". A shrill sound, a "peaked up in the midrange" sound, occasionally even a "they turned the bass drivers up too loud again" sound but I don't think I have heard many (any ?) "warm" movie theater sound systems.

I agree with bridg. I don't go to a lot of movies, but when I do, I do notice the sound. I would characterize the sound in movies theaters as being shrill, maybe a little too intense. I really don't mind it, but I do notice it and have wiggled my pinky finger in one or both of my ears more than once.

Ya know something guys? I was with me up to that point too.

When I checked to see if the thing had posted, I didn't like the way that sentence sounded either-too late to delete it though now.

So....Here's a public and profound retraction:

Disreguard that last comment, it didn't come out at all like I meant it to! In reality I was more visualizing what I remember movies sounding like when I went to the theater a lot, when I was a kid, and it made an impression on me....

In the fifties!

Rich.

In reply to:

---

In the fifties!

---

There were movies theaters back in the fifties?


Hmmmm, you learn something new everyday!

Has this person ever seen a dvd on a reasonably good tv?

Yeah! Really!! There was! And in "Color" too!!

My Dad even told me of when he worked part-time at the town theater as a projectionist.

In 1914!!

My subwoofer cabinet is a re-build of our old "Home theater" speaker cabinet.

Of 1946!!

Yup, my memories of "Going to the Show" are of $.14 matinee' and heavy tube sounding audio. An "A" movie, a cartoon, a serial feature, coming events and a "B" movie. Walk in and out any time you want to, just don't lose that ticket!

Rich.

In reply to:

---

Yup, my memories of "Going to the Show" are of $.14 matinee' and heavy tube sounding audio. An "A" movie, a cartoon, a serial feature, coming events and a "B" movie. Walk in and out any time you want to, just don't lose that ticket!

---

Hey Rich, I remember turning in Meadow Gold milk carton coupons for free passes to the movie theater, I'm thinking this was in the mid sixties, in Oklahoma City, OK. Was the first time I ever watched 'The Blob'...had me scared for weeks!

"The Blob" Steve McQueen learning that he needs to drive, not run.

Oh Yeah!! That was a goodie!! I saw "The Blob" at the show too!! I'm thinking I saw it around '59 or '60. I wonder if they have it on DVD?

The one that scared me most-I was about seven-was "Dracula"!!(They had both it and "Frankenstein" as a double feature in the late '40s or early '50s)

Shows how times have changed; we kids could walk up to the show alone on Saturdays-I was six and my little brother was four-we were given a dollar for the both of us and it got us into the show and paid for snacks! Not just us two kids, but a lot of our friends were there too, we had our own little section of the theater that had a couple of seats missing, that we seemed to call our own; nearly every Saturday afternoon! And ya know; we weren't roudy, we actually sat quietly and watched the movies!

But the biggest scare was in our new house on the lake in about '58, I was watching a very fuzzy-on-rabbit-ears "Shock Theater" on TV, I was a bit nervous being up all alone so I had my trusty B-B gun handy. To make a long story short, I dozed off just a little during a boring moment of "The Mummies Curse"(I think it was called)and woke up during the part where the Mummy was approaching the archiologist, one arm reaching, and dragging one foot behind him.

Luckily my aim was compromised having so quickly being awakened, that I fortunately only shot the lamp on top of the TV instead of the screen! Also fortunately, the lamp was one of those metal lamp shade varities that took the hit with little damage, But Rang Like a Bell at that hour of the night!!

Oh Yeah, no doubt! Memories of movies are lots of fun!

I don't even have a VCR hooked up in my house anymore. It's sitting in the closet collecting dust.

Does he wonder what all the fuss is about CD's as well? 8-Track sounds just as good, right?

Geez, I've got a cheapo 27" Zenith TV and I can tell the difference. There's no lines when I fast forward things... I still have the VCR hooked up, but the only time I used it in the last 2 years was when the TiVo went belly up. I recorded 1 (one) show.

The audio part of theaters has changed a lot, I think. But, I don't remember going to a theater in the 'fifties, since I was an infink at the time. Sorry, but I had a Popeye obsession back in the day.

It is sometimes amazing what just one component can do for a system.

I have a "fair" DVD player. Last month I was talking to my son about it and he told me that I did not have it connected to my reciver in the best way. I had the left/ right DVD audio output connected to my receiver dvd input and let the receiver do its "magic" for surround.

He said that I should connect to my reciver via the optical output to get full Dolby 5.1. Since I do have one and only one optical input on my old receiver, I tried it.

Well, last Friday evening, we watched U-571 again. When those depth charges went off, it was like being inside that submarine. Part of the difference could be the new VP-150 and M80s, but I really think the majority of the difference was the actual Dolby 5.1 feed.

In reply to:

---

Does he wonder what all the fuss is about CD's as well? 8-Track sounds just as good, right?

---

Close. He can't hear the difference between cassette and CD though.

Just reminded me that, like everything else, some people don't have the "taste" for video and audio. Hell, from my perspective, $9 "Sham-pagne" (product of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan) tastes the same as Dom Perignon (dirty feet is dirty feet!) - shouldn't surprise me that the same translates to something I have taste in.

And Chess - no, it's not a presentation problem... they have a pretty good 27" tube TV and friends/family with box store RPs and Plasmas.

Bren R.

Ok, this brings up MP3 vs. CD for me. How many have done direct comparisons between a mp3 at 128 or 160k (or even higher) to a CD track and did you notice a difference? I haven't done comparison, but I believe you can hear a difference, but have also read people saying that you can't.

I can hear the diff between 128k and CD, but other than that, not so much.

8-track!!?? All us old fogies upgraded to cassettes ages ago.

In reply to:

---

no, it's not a presentation problem... they have a pretty good 27" tube TV and friends/family with box store RPs and Plasmas.

---

I really find that astounding.
Seeing the difference b/w a vhs tape and dvd video was rather startling even on our old 23" tv. The very day we rented that first dvd we never went back. I haven't used either of our vcrs in nearly 2 years now.

On another note, it appears we will be staying in the 'Peg and not moving to Calgary after all. More info on that later.

I think this subject came up in another thread a couple of months back. I seem to recall Bren saying something about what he had discerned with mp3s.
I have yet to try testing mp3s on my Axiom (or other) system. I have only used some small monitors in my office and with the electrical noise that emanates from my tower, along with the occasional noise outside my window, even cds can sound a bit 'off'.

I've tried with ABX programs to ensure good results. On heavy metal, 128 is somewhat noticeable(darker highs). I used that since there's lots of high frequency energy in heavy metal drumming. At 160k, barely noticeable. At 192k.. I'm not even sure. I doubt there was.

I was using LAME 3.90.3 with --alt-presets to test. I forget which headphones, but I'd like to repeat the test now that I have ones which are much better. Once I get this otitis media cleared up, I'd like to do another test. The --alt-preset standard VBR mode was completely transparent on everything, so I don't worry about the audio quality of well encoded MP3s. Good enough for me, although I like to have an original copy.

I know that with Ogg Vorbis, there was little to no distinction at -q4(128k VBR). With most songs there is no difference. The problem there was that the highs were a bit raised overall, barely noticeable though. -q5(160k VBR) was completely transparent. This was with an older encoder, however, so by now it's probably much more transparent at lower bitrates. I use -q6(192k VBR) with a newer encoder to ensure that there aren't any audible artifacts with my portable player.

Ogg Vorbis performs much better on test clips, too. For naysayers who say 128k is CD quality on everything, I usually point them to this clip. If with decent headphones or good speakers you can't hear any artifacts at 128k with that clip in comparison to the original, you're probably deaf. It's a worst case scenario clip, yet, as with the rest of the similar clips, MP3 usually performs horribly in comparison to newer codecs.

careful now dont be bashing high end pc speakers I have a set of Logitech Z560's and the sub on that pounds harder than the one in my HT
Then again you cant really compare pc speakers to HT hehe

Recently I've done extinsive testing with MP3s.
iTunes MP3s at 192kbps and even higher sound like crap compared to a cd.
LAME does a much nicer job, although I can still hear a small difference at 192kbps.

Yeah, but AACs sound pretty good. If you're going to encode MP3s, iTunes wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm happy with AACs. Of course, I'm not really all that discerning...

Yea, I agree. The iTunes AAC do sound better than the their MP3s, but in my opinion still not as good as the 192kbps LAME MP3s.
I've also found that it heavily depends on what type of music your converting.
Still experimenting though.

Jason, you might find this encyclopedia article which covers MP3 history,encoders,listening tests,links etc. in a fairly unbiased way to be interesting.

JohnK
Thank you very much for that article. Gives me more to "chew" on.

Whoa, now that's timing... my GF just bought an MP3 player (Creative MuVo?) this weekend... the ripper that comes with it rips MP3s (or WMAs) at about 8x-10x speed... got bro and I into a conversation about audio compression (for those who don't follow my posts - bro and I have differing opinions on audio, I'm a technician, he's a musician) and we did some moderately scientific testing recently on MP3 vs Redbook.

Same selections played back on three different sets of transducers - my Axioms (2xM3s, VP150, 3xQS4s w/STF-2), my Edirol monitors (MA-20Ds) and his Sennheiser cans (sorry, I don't know the model) from 2 different sources - MP3s played off a CD-R in my DVD player through the TOSlink (optical) connection, Redbooks played through my H/K carousel (FL8550) over the S/PDIF (coaxial) connection. MP3s were encoded at 128Kbps with Fraunhofers CODEC & through whatever Creative's software uses and at 256Kbps through Fraunhofers CODEC.

Method: listener sat in the sweet spot eyes closed, luckily both sources were pretty close in gain so we didn't need to pad either source to match levels. Tester would randomly mute the receiver (for Axioms), turn down the Edirols (run through the stereo outs on the receiver) or the headphone level, cue up one of the tracks and play about 5 seconds of a random selection, mute, and restart.

-The Fraunhofer codec at 256K did very well against Redbook (subjectively) but was still picked out of the lineup more often than mathematically "null".
-Fraunhofer at 128K was easy to determine but subjectively didn't sound that bad until you heard it "against" redbook or the higher bitrate.
-The Creative encoder might as well have been AM radio.

Also, the Axioms seemed to be the easiest to make the determination on (though I did have to deal with bro's constant b****ing that they were too bright - sorry bro, next time bring over your 1-way paper cone 80s era towers!) with (to my surprise) the Edirols being second and the Sennheisers third... I would have thought having the music pumped directly against my eardrums would have been better than this pair of $250 powered nearfields.

Also, I had a much easier time of it than bro did (he's got hearing damage from his years on stage) and once you put the high and low bitrate/quality tracks onto the MP3 player and played them through a pair of consumer headphones (whatever Sonys GF has - not the included Creative earbuds - I can't wear them!) most of the extra quality was lost. By the time you take your heart beating in your ears into consideration while jogging (her) or cycling (me) it's probably a wash.

Again, not exactly as scientific as it could be, but more than anything, it was a way of getting a "blinder" listening test between the compression methods. Of course, since he's a Mac guy, he wants to add in AAC and a bunch of other variables if we do it again.

Bren R.

In reply to:

---

I really find that astounding.

---

At first, I did too... then I start thinking about everything else quality-wise the average person doesn't notice... consider that some people will be below even that baseline and it's not that hard to believe.

In reply to:

---

Seeing the difference b/w a vhs tape and dvd video was rather startling even on our old 23" tv. The very day we rented that first dvd we never went back. I haven't used either of our vcrs in nearly 2 years now.

---

Even my 63 year old dad, watching DVDs off a $60 Koss player into an RF modulator and into a 198x mono tube TV notices "it's a bit better" but who knows, he could just be saying that to make me feel better after spending the money and time setting them up!

Bren R.

"Even my 63 year old dad..."

I was actually feeling pretty young today, until.....

Don't worry, my Dad's only 53!

Boy, I'm a right bastard!

I remember when my Dad was 53....

It was IN '53!(early 53!)
Oh m'gosh, my Dad was alive in the 1800s! That was not in the last century, but TWO centuries back!

Yikes!!
Rich.

I feel like I was born in 1840.

Yeah, thanks to Bren & Ken....so do I.

(Woah, sounds like a Vaudeville act!)

In reply to:

---

So I was at a friend's place tonight, and he and his wife made the comment that they really didn't see what all the fuss about DVD was, VHS looks the same, doesn't it?

---

This is when you invite your friend over to watch a movie some night. After the movie you ask him how it compares to watching a movie on a 19" tv with a vcr (or whatever setup they watch movies on.

When my friends come over and ask how much better high def tv really is, I show them the normal broadcast and then show them the same channel in high def. Needless to say, everyone came over to MY house to watch the NFL playoffs and the Superbowl. And add to that a good sound system, you couldn't beat it.

The question I really want to know is "Was it your friend who asked or his wife?" Maybe he was using you to help convince his wife to let him spend some money on a quality home theatre???