|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Dec 27, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
1080p.
its nice to have but,less its a killer blu-ray/hdvd and every stage of the system is perfect, there is very little 1080p out there. i have my panel set to 720p. im a HUGE fan of that scale cause most of the content is deliverd in that format and with this type of equipment its best to keep your signal as native as possible. free and celar of any upscaling. so many poor bastards that ive helped calibrate systems with think if they get a 1080p panel then 'BOOM' you got 1080p. the worst are the awful hd-upconverting dvd players. garbage garbage garbage. upscaling is marketing,and it adds soo many atirifacts to a image.about 75% of people out there run their panels completely wrong and all fucked up.... 1080p is the future though. and even though its years away yet,the price of i panels to p panels is now fairly relative so you might aswell get a 1080p. and yes,after seeing side by side comparisons at CES and various vendor confrences there is a difference.1080p rounds out fast moving edges beutifully. but for now,if your gaming on a 1080p/i panel downscale to 720p the results might be suprising. 
|
|
Dec 27, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
I heard somewhere that plasma sets start to degrade after a few years.
Something about gas leakage...? I know the giant one at this one place looked like absolute garbage (kind of hazy/reflective). I believe it was about four years old.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
edit: i dont think either are primarily developed in 1080p but they do benefit.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
how do u know so much about hd and all that? do u work for some company? what do u think of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) ? heres an article. You can learn a lot by piecing together the links in a supplier chain. More importantly, you can make a lot of money that way. Last week, electronics giant Sony (NYSE: SNE) said that rear-projection Bravia TV sets are going the way of the passenger pigeon. Sony's last plasma screen left the factory in 2005 as the company refocused on LCDs and its own 3LCD and SXRD rear-projection technologies. The new direction this time is toward LCD and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) screens. It's hard to tell what this move means for Sony investors. After all, the company is simply refocusing its research and manufacturing resources in new places, and not really moving into or out of any particular markets. But cast a quick glance sideways and you start to see some ways to invest in this move after all. Sony makes its own projection screens, but outsources the LCDs to a joint venture with fellow electronics mammoth Samsung. Bah, humbug -- another giant that won't move very far on the success or failure of a single product line. But when it comes to OLED technology, tiny Rule Breakers pick Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL) springs to mind. It was a big deal for Universal when Sony released an 11-inch OLED screen in Japan earlier this month. Sure, it has limited production at only 2,000 units a month, and the company claims to lose money on every sale despite a steep $1,700 price tag. And to the best of my knowledge, there isn't even any Universal tech in that product. But it was the starting shot for a new era in display technology, and when Sony relegates its pried projection products to front-projection uses in favor of OLED products, it's a drum full of sports drink to help the new entrant win this race. Sumitomo Electrical bought Universal's only comparable rival earlier this year, and Eastman Kodak (NYSE: EK) is another big boy that won't feel the winds of change as strongly as Universal Display will. Nokia (NYSE: NOK) is already using Universal's patented technologies by way of Samsung-made screens in the new Prism handset. Kodak claims "over 15" unnamed licensees, and Cambridge-nee-Sumitomo has partners like Philips (NYSE: PHG) and Hitachi (NYSE: HIT). This market will eventually be massive, and easily able to support a few competing providers and technologies. And the race is on. Thanks, Sony, for the starting salvo.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
i just read the second page and i cant believe revolver just recommended monster cable :evil: im gonna have to disagree on this one cause i think most monster products r a joke
 and buying more expensive cables doesnt equal better sound. oh btw lcd ftw.:D
Last edited by se7en; Dec 28, 07 at 04:34 AM.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
its ok that you disagree but you are flat wrong. cables make all the difference in the world. monster holds numerous patents on certain time corrected winding techniques,the grade of copper they use and the type of dialectrics they use in their insulators. i can assure you i am not talking out of my ass.ive been a installer/callibrater of high-end systems for years now. i have a degree(lol) in pro audio,im ISF certified, and i hold numerous sales awards in western canada for accounts with various vendors selling a/v.... ive had 2 fully paid trips to CES in vegas and have attended numerous vendor conferences here in the lowermainland where ive seen first hand side by side comps between differnt technologies and different cables.. i can assure you.....YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKIING ABOUT. ...jeesus you phised me out pretty bad but i simply cant stand bad info when it comes to this topic :) AND dont even get me started on appliances,furniture or mattresess LOL!!!
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
so better cables would really make that much a difference? I have dynex (generic FS brand) HDMI would a better monster one really matter?
Quote:
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeesh, u guys need to chill out, im just saying my opionion. not attacking u at all and not sure y u guys r freaking out .:cheesy:
i just giving my opinion and if u dont like it, cool. no biggy. im not saying revolvers opinion/facts are wrong either.:) The Truth About Interconnects and Cables by Rod Elliott — last modified November 15, 2004 19:00 "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing." - The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams The above could just as easily be re-phrased - for example ... "I refuse to prove that my cables will make your system sound better", says the snake oil vendor, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, you will hear nothing." The tenets of faith are an absolute requirement for many of the claims that are made for many (probably most) of the "esoteric" hi-fi additions that you will find everywhere on the web. There is no real information, technical, scientific or otherwise, and the only terms you will hear will be of a subjective nature - for example "solid, sparkling, sweet, musical" will be contrasted with "muffled, veiled, grainy, harsh" - the very selection of the words is designed to sway you to their position, preferably subconsciously. The marketing is often very subtle, and extremely persuasive, and there is no confusing techno-talk in there to confuse the non technical reader. While it may seem like Nirvana, the claims are nearly all completely false. Faith (in the religious sense) is based on the premise that faith is God's proof that God's existence is truth and does not rely on facts. Indeed, if facts were available, then faith is not required - so in a sense, faith can be seen to be based on an absence of evidence - a fiction. Believers may also qualify faith as either representing truth or they will represent it as being above and beyond our understanding. Truth becomes a consequence of faith which is the believer's recognition of the absence of evidence. Truth is therefore defined according to a circular perception. I am not about to dispute the religious beliefs of anyone - these are sacrosanct, and belong to the individual alone. When the same arguments are used for audio, this is a different matter. Audio (unlike religious beliefs) is based on science. Without the efforts of scientific work and studies over many years by a great many people, we would not have audio as we know it. Now, we have charlatans and thieves claiming that science is ruining audio, and that we have to get back to the basics to enable real enjoyment. You need, nay! must have! the latest shiny rock on top of your CD player, lest the sound be harsh, grainy, and lacking bass authority, and without the latest cables at only $200 per foot, you are missing out on half of the music. But ... you must believe, for the magic will surely be dissipated instantly should you attempt even the most rudimentary scientific test, or even request any technical information. Now, consider the situation with watches. Has any ultra-high-priced watchmaker ever claimed that the "quality" of the time told by their watch is superior to that from "ordinary" watches, or that the "sense" of the time has greater depth and more "chi"? Maybe they just haven't thought of that angle yet, but I expect that this is unlikely. The simple fact is that these pieces of jewelry are finely crafted and superbly executed timekeepers, but are usually no better or worse that "lesser" brands that do exactly the same job. The situation with cables is no different - you may choose to pay outlandish prices to get something that looks amazing, and demonstrates to everyone how much money you have, but it will not make a magical difference to the sound, there will be few (if any) real differences in the electrical characteristics, and it will sound much the same as "lesser" cables, selling at perhaps 100 th of the price. If image is important to you, and you can afford it, then that is your choice - just don't expect that it will make your system better, and don't try to convince others that without "it", they are missing half their music or their sounds are being mangulated in some mysterious way that can only be "fixed" by spending vastly more than they may be able to afford. Despite what you may read in various forum pages, this entire series of articles is not intended as a "beat up the subjectivists" tale, but rather a discourse based on research that I, and a great many others before me, have done. The idea is not to ruin anyone's enjoyment of audio, but to make sure that the facts are available, without the hype and BS so commonly associated with high fidelity. The major (and well respected) audio companies did not develop their equipment using only their ears as a guide. Without exception, all the big (and very expensive in many cases) brands have been measured, probed, simulated, then measured some more - before anyone actually gets to hear one. How much of this pure research has gone into most of the overpriced cables and "accessories" currently available? I don't think I need to answer that, as we all have a pretty good idea. So much has been said about cables over the past few years that there couldn't possibly be any more to discuss. Nice theory, but the wheel has turned a full circle, and there are now people claiming that there is no difference at all between any speaker cable or interconnect. In exactly the same way as the claims that there were "huge differences" were mainly false, so too are claims that there are none. There is no "black and white" in this topic, but a great many shades of grey, and the latest update to this article attempts to clarify the position. Speaker cables in particular are still a major topic of conversation on many forum sites, and remain one of the more contentious issues. A quick summary of the topics to follow (in the cable discussion, at least) would be ... Power leads will rarely (if ever) have any effect on the sound, provided they are of reasonable construction and are not inducing noise into (unshielded) interconnects. The only exceptions are those that use filters of some sort, which will reduce the noise floor in areas where interference is a problem. Some leads are of flimsy construction, and may reduce the available power for sustained loud passages, however, the difference will rarely exceed 1dB in most cases. Speaker cables can (and sometimes do) sound different with a given amplifier and loudspeaker combination, even where they are well designed and of reasonable gauge. Excluded are very thin or extremely silly combinations - these will always do something to the sound, rarely good. Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs. This is not to say that some people will not derive great enjoyment from the fact that they have spent as much on their cables as mere mortals can afford for their whole system, but this is "enjoyment", and has nothing to do with sound quality. This is about prestige and status, neither of which affect the sound. Try This Next Time Someone Tries to Sell You Something ... Thanks to a reader for the suggestion, this is a wonderful way to prove something to yourself. Next time a salesperson tries to flog you the latest and greatest (and of course most expensive) cable they have on offer, just use this technique ... Suggest that you would like to hear the cable in action before committing yourself. As you walk to the demo room with the salesperson, come up with 'spontaneous' bright idea - suggest that you swap the cables, and if the salesperson can correctly identify the 'super cable' that s/he so desperately wants you to purchase, then you will do so. Naturally, you will want to make the swap several times, and the salesperson will have to get it right at least 75% of the time. There is every chance that the packet will never be opened, the comparison never done, and you will save a bunch of money. There is nothing dishonest about what you are doing - you simply want (and are entitled to) verification that the cable will make a difference, and if the salesperson is unwilling to participate in the test, s/he knows something that s/he hasn't told you! Beware! If there is any suggestion that the cable needs to be 'broken in' before you hear the difference, the salesperson is lying! At this point, you should immediately let them know that you know that they are lying, and leave the shop. Cable 'break-in' is a myth, and is perpetuated by those with something to hide - no-one has ever been able to show that there is any scientific justification to the claim, nor shown that the performance has changed in any way whatsoever. Cable break-in is real, and occurs between the ears of the listener - nowhere else (most certainly not in the cable). Preamble The last link entry for the ABX Home Page has been included so you can have a look at some actual ABX double blind tests that have been carried out. The listing at the ABX site is not extensive, but is excellent reference material. You will find some of the results surprising, and when viewed and interpreted sensibly, they tend to support the comments I have made in this article. In some cases, the results surprised me, in that I was expecting the listener panel to declare various items as different, and they instead thought they were the same (which is to say that the two items under test could not be identified with certainty, so any choice was pure guesswork). In this article, I shall attempt to explain some of the misconceptions and untruths that are rife in the audio industry. This article is bound to offend some, but the information is based on fact, scientific data and the results of my own (and others') testing, plus the help I have received from readers, who have provided more information on a number of topics. In contrast, much of the disinformation comes from the rantings of Hi-Fi reviewers, most of whom know so little about electronics that it is shameful (and fraudulent) for them to be in a position to tell the unsuspecting public what to buy, based on entirely subjective criteria. In almost all other areas of human interest, objective measurements are paramount. A domestic vacuum cleaner's performance is based on how much dirt it collects from the carpet - any philosophical discussion about the type of motor used, or it's rotational direction having a subtle effect on how clean the carpet feels is at best a pointless and tiresome exercise, and (I hope) has never been entered into. Discussion - indeed, heated debate - on parameters not dissimilar to those above are commonplace in the high end audio industry, and have been raging since the late 1970's. The majority of people who listen to music generally listen to a few systems at a non-specialist retail outlet, and buy a combination that sounds good (to them), has the features they want, and fits their budget. They are no more interested in the great audio debate than they would be in the philosophy of the rotating mechanical components of their vacuum cleaner. In his article "Science and Subjectivism in Audio", Douglas Self [ 1 ] wrote A short definition of the Subjectivist position on power amplifiers might read as follows: Objective measurements of an amplifier's performance are unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in informal listening tests. Should the two contradict the objective results may be dismissed out of hand. Degradation effects exist in amplifiers that are unknown to engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual measurements. Considerable latitude may be used in suggesting hypothetical mechanisms of audio impairment, such as mysterious capacitor shortcomings and subtle cable defects, without reference to the plausibility of the concept, or gathering any evidence to support it. I believe this is a reasonable statement of the situation. Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of the public buy conventional hi-fi systems, ignoring the expensive and esoteric high-end sector where the debate is fiercest. In our many following technical articles we shall dissect some of the claims made on many of the components in the audio chain, and show why they are misleading, false, and in many cases downright dishonest. Special thanks to Rod Elliott from Elliot Sound Products Last edited by se7en; Dec 28, 07 at 06:39 PM.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Exotic Materials and Cable Construction
by Gene DellaSala — last modified November 01, 2004 19:00 Brought to you by Blue Jeans Cable A lot of discussion of quality cables focuses on the materials used in cable construction. Just as with any physical product, the materials cables are made out of influence their performance characteristics, and so people want to know that the cables they're buying are made from the best possible materials. Many high-priced cables are made with materials for which special claims of high performance are made. The most common among these are silver instead of or in addition to copper, "oxygen-free" copper, and Teflon. We'll address each of these in turn and explain what they are, what their characteristics are, and whether they make sense for particular applications. Initially, it's perhaps helpful to point out that professional cables of the highest quality are routinely made without resort to any strange, exotic or expensive materials. If you look inside a typical audio or video production facility, you won't find it wired with silver-plated cables, oxygen-free copper cables, or (except, as we'll explain, in limited circumstances) Teflon-insulated cables. Broadcast studio engineers--people whose livelihood depends on the signal getting through with the lowest possible distortion and losses--rely on cables from companies like Belden and Canare, made with ordinary high-quality materials. People who spend millions of dollars on high-definition studio gear rely on these cables not because they're out to save a buck at the cost of quality, but because they are looking for the best possible product. Let's take a look at some of these materials and consider how they bear on quality cable construction. Silver or Silver-Plated CablesBroadcast-quality cables are generally made with copper conductors; but it's not uncommon, in the consumer a/v market, to run into cables made with silver, or silver-plated copper, conductors. Why is this? There is one respect in which silver is a better material for cable construction than copper: it is slightly (about 5%) less resistive (that is, more conductive) than annealed copper. "Resistance" is the property of any material which causes some of the electricity that flows through it to be converted into heat, and it's fair to say that resistance, in cables, is a bad thing--the less the better. All else being equal, lower resistance ought to be a good thing, and therefore one might think that silver would make for a better cable than copper. That would indeed be so, but there are some other factors to take into account. First, the resistive loss in high-quality copper cables is already extremely small, because copper, though marginally less conductive than silver, is an extremely conductive metal. For example, Belden 1694A's center conductor resistance is 6.4 ohms per thousand feet. In a very long home theater run of 50 feet, then, the resistance of the conductor is 0.32 ohms, representing a minuscule cause of signal loss in a 75 ohm impedance video circuit; a solid silver conductor would drop this resistance by about five percent, resulting in a truly infinitesimal improvement. This infinitesimal improvement might be worth something under extreme circumstances, all else being equal--but all else is rarely equal. First, silver is a more brittle material than copper, compromising the cable's flex-life. To solve this problem, silver is often plated over a copper wire--diminishing the conductivity benefit. Second, the conductivity benefit, as often as not, is offset by a reduction in wire gauge. Going from an 18 AWG conductor to a 20 AWG conductor, for example, results in an increase in resistance of over 50%; this swamps the conductivity benefit of silver, so that an 18 AWG copper conductor is more conductive, not less, than a 20 AWG silver or silver-plated conductor. When the comparison is between full-sized copper cables and silver-plated mini-coax of tiny gauge, like those one sees in many popular silver cable products, there's no contest; full-sized copper cables are dramatically more conductive, silver or no silver. Read our Silver Saboteurs article for more information on silver cables. Oxygen-Free CopperMany cables today are advertised as using "oxygen-free copper," copper which has been annealed in an oxygen-free atmosphere. OFC is popular in audio cables, and has begun to make inroads into the video cable market as well. We all know, of course, that oxygen is bad for things made from copper. Copper oxidizes and turns green and flaky; in so doing, it loses its high conductivity and begins to fall apart. But the amount of oxygen present in conventionally annealed, non-OFC copper is so tiny that it simply isn't a factor in cable quality. We have cut into pieces of Belden coaxial cable twenty-five years old that have been used in radio transmission applications--and found them clean and bright, completely lacking any sign of oxidation. Modern coax is better still, with nitrogen-injected foam dielectrics that keep oxygen entirely away from the center conductor. As it is with silver, there's nothing wrong with OFC; but electrically speaking, OFC wire is indistinguishable in audio and video applications from ordinary annealed copper wire. Teflon Dielectrics and InsulationTeflon is a special case, in one interesting sense: while audio and video cables made with silver or OFC are seldom used by professionals, there are plenty of professional-quality cables made with Teflon, for reasons we'll get to in a moment. Teflon, of course, is familiar to us all as a coating on cookware; but it has certain interesting electrical properties as well which account for its use in cables. Insulating materials like Teflon vary in their ability to isolate conductors electrically from one another, and this property is characterized mathematically as the "dielectric constant." The best dielectric, from a purely electrical standpoint, is a vacuum; air is very nearly as good. But of course, when we're making coaxial cable, it's hard to use pure air as a dielectric because we need something relatively solid to keep the center conductor from coming into contact with, and shorting out to, the shield. A good dielectric for cable manufacture needs to be physically stable as well as having a good dielectric constant. Two materials that meet these criteria are polyethylene, used in the vast majority of precision video cables, and Teflon. If we look at the characteristics of Teflon and polyethylene side-by-side, what becomes apparent is that Teflon has a lower dielectric constant; it is, in that sense, simply a "better" dielectric than polyethylene. If we were to make two coaxial cables, otherwise identical to one another, but produce one with polyethylene foam dielectric and the other with Teflon foam dielectric, the Teflon cable would have lower capacitance. Low capacitance being good, that'd be a good thing--right? It would indeed; but there's a problem. The dielectric constant, capacitance, and the cable's characteristic impedance are all tied up together. If, in our example, the polyethylene cable had a 75 ohm characteristic impedance, for use in video, the Teflon cable would have a higher impedance, and would present an impedance mismatch if used in a video circuit. In order to correct the problem, we need to make the dielectric and shield smaller. When we get to 75 ohms impedance, we wind up with the same capacitance we had in the polyethylene cable. In other words, just because the Teflon is a "better" dielectric doesn't mean we get a "better" cable; it just means we don't need quite as much Teflon to achieve the same cable characteristics that we get using polyethylene. We would like to thank Blue Jeans Cable for allowing us to reprint this informative article.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Watch out if a Cable Vendor or Manufacturer:Promotes that their product allegedly eliminates audio related Skin Effect and/or "Strand Jumping" problems.
Claims revolutionary breakthrough in cable technology by polarizing or biasing the dielectric using a battery. Promotes that their products eliminate "Audiogenic", "Diode Rectification" or any type of non linear distortions. See Debunking the Myth of Cable Distortion and Dielectric Biasing Physically places (+) and (-) wire leads in separate dielectrics not closely spaced in a common jacket. See: Calculating Cable Inductance of Twin Feeder Cables Claims vast improvements in sound by inserting "Cable Elevators" to raise the cables off the floor and minimize electron misfiring or static energy fields. Claims that cryogenically freezing cables improves fidelity or measurably changes electrical properties after the cable is restored to room temperature. Claims that their cables require a "Break In" period. Claims that measurements cannot quantify why their designs are superior and often misapply engineering principles in their reasoning but abandon the associated governing laws and metrics that establish them. Claims audible differences exist between stranded and non-stranded wires of same gauge rating, geometry and conductor spacing. Claims audible differences between silver and copper cables of equal design geometry and gauge. Bonus ScamsSells speaker cables or interconnects costing more than a plasma TV or a lease on a new Infinity G35 sports coupe. Claims wire is directional. Slaps RLC boxes on their cables. Claims of Speaker Cable Resonance at Audio Frequencies
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
Revolver maybe you can answer this for me:
I have a Samsung LNS4051D that I bought a year ago on boxing day. I think I read at that time that you thought it was a good model and of the TV's in the store I liked the picture quality the best for my price range. It's hooked up to a Motorola HD PVR. It looks awesome and I'm really happy with it. The only issue I have is that when there's a lot of motion on the screen (ants on a nature show, lots of moving water etc.) it tends to pixelate. Is this because of the signal from the PVR? The TV? My cables (HDMI from PVR to TV, coaxil from wall to PVR)? is there anything I can do to easily correct or improve this problem or is it the TV?
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
wow... copy and paste some more crap
Monster Cable is so much better than all the competitors.... Like Revolver said, if you spend all this money on pimping gear, why cheap out and use wiring that you were using on your old shit. Go to a reputable A/V store and they can demo the difference for you. But mind you, lighting in most stores makes the tv's look like crap. Never really understood why they do that Jono, sounds like it's your TV.. I believe it's got a 8ms response time. I think 4ms is the standard nowadays Last edited by Filo; Dec 28, 07 at 07:29 PM.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
cables are like...well, a black sheep topic in the industry. on the avs forums those tweekers flame to the death over the issue lol... Quote:
the panle: in your panels menu you should see a option called 'game mode' or something to that effect. its been a while since ive been through that models menu chain...longstory short that model has a little chip from microsoft to increase picture perfomance when gaming on a 360...turn that on and it should round out the edges. also,if your picture settings are jacked way up try turning them down. reduce your sharpness(thats a important one) and ease up on color and contrast settings. in 95% of problem cases, its signal related rather then panel related. what model of box are you running?...let me know and i might be able to help. there are all sorts of options in the late model pvr boxes that you can set wich could help. be proud of that set....its a good model.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
|||
|
|||
|
i not a profesional audio person like revolver. just a regular dude that was into audio/video abit ago. i think monster overcharge for their products thats all. ill def be asking for some audio/video advice from revolver.:)
all the stuff i copy and paste were from very cool and informative websiteProjectors, Receivers, Speakers — Audioholics Home Theater Reviews and News Last edited by se7en; Dec 28, 07 at 07:38 PM.
|
|
Dec 28, 07
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
a cheapo cable might be an issue when you go flat....
|
