|
Inept posted:I've got an LCD TV (specifically an Olevia LT42HVI), and it uses normal speaker wire to connect the speakers to the TV. The speakers themselves are okay, but nothing particularly great. I was wondering if it was at all a good idea to buy a pair of cheaper bookshelf speakers, and hook them up to the TV instead. The bigger concern is that you match the impedance. It seems like most TV speaker outs are 6 ohm whereas most home speakers are 8 ohm (nominally). What that means is that the power output of the amp in the TV will drop slightly and that's not good for a bigger speaker that probably needs more juice. If the speaker is reasonably sensitive you should still get decent output. How good it will sound is another issue entirely. It might sound fine or it might not. It might not be much of a difference from the regular speakers. That being said you could always try a set of good but easily driven speakers (such as the Paradigm Atoms) but stay open to buying a separate receiver or amp. Even an older, used receiver would sound fine with the Atoms. 
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2007 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
pennywise969 posted:I am trying to decide between two HTIBs. I am not an audiophile, Ive lived the last 25 years using only TV speakers and I want to spend less than $400. Wattage is relatively meaningless at this level. Listen to both (if you can) and buy the one you like best. Just be aware that neither of them will probably not have long service lives - inexpensive HTiBs rarely last more than a few years. Hungryjack posted:I hate it when I'm watching TV in the front room and my wife is in bed because I'm trying to hear dialogue on the center channel and then someone gets shot or an engine revs and the whole house shakes because I have to have the volume jacked up. If it's a Dolby Digital movie you might be able to use the dynamic range control (sometimes called "night mode" or something similar).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2007 21:57
|
|
|
Mermaid Autopsy posted:What's better, SACD or DVD-A? Pull a single hair from your head. Now split it.  Now I'm sure that I have enraged the audiophiles, I can tell you quite honestly that the differences between SACD and DVD-A compared to plain Jane CD audio are slim. The only nice thing is that most of the hi-res discs are remixed and remastered with musicality rather than sheer loudness in mind. What that means is that you'll get a less "bright n' boomy" presentation and there seems to be a LOT less compression/maximization. So the improvement in sound quality has a lot more to do with production values than the extra data. It's nice, but is it worth buying into two formats that are essentially dead? I can't say that I'm convinced, and I've owned a DVD-A player for almost five years. In that time I've had the dubious pleasure of waiting for decent titles (and sometimes ANY titles) to come out, higher prices and poor availability. All this for a difference in sound quality that would be miniscule in a studio listening enviroment with a direct A/B comparison. There are much better values for your money. If your listening room is untreated, buy some basic acoustic treatments to damp spurious echoes and bass nodes. It's a one-time (and relatively low cost) investment that works with all the music you already have and will have. It's a far bigger difference in sound quality and a far better expenditure of your hard-earned money. quote:What are the advantages over high-resolution DVD-Video? The uncompressed or losslessly compressed audio tracks should have more detail than Dolby Digital or DTS.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2007 22:31
|
|
|
Suqit posted:I can't disagree with the majority of your arguments; all things being equal, there are many easier ways to improve sound quality than to upgrade to SA-CD or DVDA. However, there is one major improvement to the new formats that CD can't match, and that is multi-channel capability. While some MC mixes are gimmicky and not necessarily an improvement over redbook CD, when implemented correctly, multi channel music can far surpass its two channel counterpart. Well yes, and I have heard some amazing multichannel mixes. Of course you can get those with Dolby Digital or DTS, and although part of me dislikes lossy compression the fact of the matter is that it's hard to pick out flaws with either format. Of course the flipside is that universal players are so drat cheap right now that it's pretty easy to wind up with both formats anyway. I just wouldn't go nuts buying software.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2007 22:37
|
|
|
pastis posted:I can't remember a time where I accidentally purchased a dual-disc CD + DTS or DD hybrid and thought I had picked up the CD + SACD or DVD-A instead. I'm half-deaf, and even I can hear the difference between DSD/MLP and DTS/DD. Granted, there are some stellar DTS 96/24 tracks out there, but I'd be hard-pressed to say that it's a wash between DTS/DD and SACD/DVD-A. Have you ABX'd them?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2007 02:28
|
|
|
I mean double blind. It's easy to look for differences (or imagine them) when you know what you're listening to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2007 02:54
|
|
|
pastis posted:Yes again. I really don't any other way of saying it. If your experiences are different, so be it. It's not the end of the world. No it isn't. You'll also note that I never said there isn't a differnece. It's just that the most audible differences are likely due to the different mixes and masters and are really not worht the asking price.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2007 03:12
|
|
|
Drewski posted:I've got an acoustic electric guitar. I'm a beginner and because of certain events, my university is letting me finish the semester at home. However, my guitar professor doesn't want to let me study at home because it's a 'hands on' class. Which is perfectly understandable. But I thought maybe I could record all my stuff onto my computer and email it to him. How would one go about doing this? Thanks 1)Download Audacity and LAME. Install both and point Audacity to the LAME directory in Preferences. 2)Plug in a mic and record yourself. Export as MP3. (I'm not sure if you can use the line in without a direct box or a line out of a guitar amp). Email. 3)????? 4)Profit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2007 02:28
|
|
|
Don Corleone posted:What exactly is the distinction between a Digital coaxial cable and a standard RCA audio cable? I just set up my digital box by running an RCA cable from the digital coaxial inputs. It seems to work, but I can't tell if I'm going to lose quality or risk damage to my components. No risk of damage, but a proper 75 ohm coax cable will lessen the chance of clock errors (especially with longer runs). That being said I've used plain ol' audio cables for coaxial digital with no trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2007 22:30
|
|
|
7.1 is usually only interpolated from 5.1 anyway. Basically it gives you slightly better imaging. What receiver do you have?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2007 05:48
|
|
|
It is "something from nothing" in some ways. Basically a 7.1 receiver takes the in-phase (mono) information from the Ls and Rs channels and sends the signal to two speakers of their own. this allows you to leave the Ls and Rs speakers flanking you and the "extra" speakers behind you. You get better front to to rear pans and a more stable image behind you. It's great for larger rooms and larger groups of people since you get a bigger sweet spot too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2007 14:26
|
|
|
mickey posted:Can someone name a good, cheap power amp and preamp combination that I could put in my stereo stack? Size is important, I don't want the power amp to be much bigger than the preamp. I'm thinking maybe 250 max combined. I'm thinking receiver. Denon or Onkyo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2007 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
mickey posted:I'm not into recievers, I like the minimal look of a preamp + poweramp setup without stuff like screens and tuners Have you actually seen separates for your price range? I've seen no name poo poo like Audiosource and that's it. If sound quality is your concern you're better off with a receiver for 250. If you don't like the way it looks, stick it in a cabinet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2007 23:20
|
|