Fun Technology

[PF4Eva]

I posted this on IMDb years ago on the Blu-ray Hugh Def Equipment board. I no longer have to worry about this issue, but it's a nice walk down Memory Lane.

by
PF4Eva
» Fri Dec 16 2011 11:19:04 Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2002
Post Edited:
Fri Dec 16 2011 14:05:08
I am hoping to receive a Denon AVR-1912 for Christmas. I have two different picture settings for Blu-ray/DVD/streaming (Manual - 0% overscan) and TV/cable (default "standard" mode), because of the white line on top of the image on analog-sourced TV.

To hook up both the Blu-ray and cable box to the receiver (with these separate settings intact), would an HDMI splitter work? I could just do it this way, correct?:

Blu-ray player > receiver (Input 1) > TV (HDMI2)
Cable box > HDMI splitter > a. TV (HDMI1) b. receiver (Input 3)

Correct?

Stick Stickly returns! Friday nights starting Oct. 7 on The 90s Are All That

by
hllbound-saint
» Fri Dec 30 2011 17:50:03 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2011
just be careful about the splitter you use. there is a noticeable picture quality drop with a cheap splitter including color loss. thats all the help i can give sorry.

by
x_jmt_x
» Sun Jan 1 2012 12:29:14 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since January 2005
BS. and HDMI cable either works or does not work (meaning no picture or it's so distorted that it can't be watched), in the realm of digital CABLES there is no difference in quality between 2 working cables or splitters.

I can just about remember the time, when 'human suspect' was a given, not an option.

 

[PF4Eva]

I posted this on IMDb back in 2011. Six years later, my folks are still too cheap to solve this problem. However in recent years, I've learned how to watch everything with headphones. Said headphones kick the ass of any speaker in my house, save my hi fi stereo.

by
PF4Eva
» Tue Apr 24 2012 16:17:57 Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2002
Last year, I told my non-home-theater-savvy folks I wanted to upgrade from a 5.1 Samsung HTIB (the HT-TX72 set) to a separate-component 7.1 system consisting of a standalone receiver and standalone speakers. What do they get me instead? Bose. A Bose Cinemate II.

I'm hurt. I'm pissed. I have to live with this crap unless I speak up and tell my folks to shove the system up their ass and buy a real home theater.

I confronted my folks the day they first mentioned they would be getting a Bose. I printed out everything I could find to make them think twice about what they would be doing. Later that night, they bought the Bose, against my objections.

Then I really let them have it by starting my Christmas list in OCTOBER, just so I could narrow down my speaker and receiver choices (said choices have come and gone: Pioneer 1021-k, Polk TSi, Bowers & Wilkins CM & 600). That page on my Christmas list was impossible to miss, and did I get any of it for Christmas? Hell *beep* no! I got a 26" 720p bedroom HDTV instead. The nerve!

To add even MORE insult to injury, I confronted them once more and they promised that I would help pick something better if and when finances allowed -- only to order a Bose stereo behind my back!

I have done everything I possibly can to convince my folks that my "opinion" on Bose is plain and simple fact -- numbers, facts, etc., don't lie, you know. I have printed out several webpages and shown them to my folks (AVS Forum, intellectual.net/bose.html, Yahoo! Answers, several AV forums) and nothing is getting through to them. They insist that Bose "sounds good."

MY FOLKS ARE PARODIES OF A TRUE AUDIOPHILE!!!!

It's so bad that I refuse to listen to Bose. As soon as I have the TV to myself, off the bastard thing goes and I turn up the speakers built into the TV. THOSE are technically and sonically better -- and that's a sad thing.

Here is the setup I'm currently looking at:

Receiver: Denon AVR-1912 (or whatever a custom installer recommends)
Speakers Klipsch Reference (whichever ones we can afford or whatever said custom installer recommends)

We are far from rich, but I want the best we can get without compromise if funds will allow. The only Klipsch dealers in my area that carry the Reference line are custom installers. Would this option be affordable at all? Does anyone here have any experience with a custom installer? How much would it cost to get somebody to hook up the receiver, speakers, HDMI cable (I already have one going from the Blu-ray to the TV. I would route it from the player to the receiver, so I need one to go from the receiver to the TV), 16-gauge speaker wire, etc. (hopefully in the hundreds or below)? Would it hurt to throw in a 120Hz TV with 24p playback or can that wait so that we can focus on sound first?

So many questions, and do you think I could find answers to any of them on Google? Hell no! That's why I'm asking you. I have absolutely had it. Enough is enough. I'll be Goddamned if these Boses are still in the house by year's end. It's not gonan happen. I'm gonan get 7.1 surround sound, even if it kills me.

Thank you for your help.

"#BringBackToonami We've heard you. Thank you for your passion and interest - stay tuned."

by
dangus
» Wed Apr 25 2012 20:07:59 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2003
If you're going with an installer, have your personal assistant give him a blank cheque and tell him which of your houses you want systems in.

For normal people, just get a name brand receiver; 5.1 may be perfectly adequate, but I'd want a 7.1 or 7.2 since that usually gets you internal upscaling for standard def sources and some other features I can't remember at the moment. If you need S-video inputs, those are becoming rare if not absent on current AV receivers, and there may not be many coax or Toslink (optical) inputs.

Normal people may be perfectly happy with the Energy Take Classic system, although I'm put off by the fact that it is now made in China. OTOH, it's cheaper than the original Take 5. On a bigger budget... there's a bewildering choice. I'd probably just go with whatever worthy speakers I found at a good price locally, then range farther afield to complete the set. Or, find a great close-out deal someplace. Or, visit dealers and listen to speakers and buy the ones you like.

Pants-flapping, floor-shuddering bass will impress your friends more than anything else. Invest in subwoofers by building your own, at least two of them, since more subs improves the distribution of bass in the room. $1000 on drivers and MDF and a second-hand pro power amp can get you the equivalent of maybe $5000 of storebought subwoofage. Creativesound.ca is a small outfit that distributes some very nice drivers at reasonable prices, but Partsexpress carries a wider choice and may have sales or quantity discounts. Take a look at the diy forum at AVSforum.com

by
mikekuhlman-415-393642
» Mon Jul 9 2012 09:26:37 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2012
Post Edited:
Mon Jul 9 2012 10:01:10
Your ungrateful rant aside (I don't know how old you are, but, personally, I think your folks should tell YOU to shove it up YOUR ass, and get a job, work at McDonald's or wherever, so you can pay for this stuff YOURSELF! You're hurt, you're pissed, because you didn't get the home theater system you wanted? Aww, poor kid. Did you WORK, to EARN THAT MONEY, that was required? No? Then shut up. Life's rough, kid. Gimme a break. Making out your Christmas list in October? Must be nice, to EVEN GET Christmas presents. If you haven't noticed, the world's in a bit of an economic recession. MOVE OUT, then pay rent, food, utilities, gas, insurance, etc., and let's see how much money YOU have left for a home theater system! You can KINDLY SUGGEST alternate sound systems, try to "educate" them, but, ultimately, it's their money, and they work very hard for it; you should be grateful for the roof over your head, and be a little more humble), that said...

Yeah, I agree, "older folks" (like me) tend to get easily sold on Bose, because Bose is pushed down their throats on late-night infomercials on TV as the "sound system" of choice, when it's largely two speakers in a cabinet enclosure. Bose DOES put out a really rich sound for its small size as an all-in-one unit, but, as you pointed out, it's not a "home theater", surround, clearly delineated, directional sound, system. Audiophiles, like you and me, know the difference. Now, IF THERE'S MONEY IN YOUR FOLKS' BUDGET TO PAY FOR IT AND THEY CAN AND WANT TO RETURN THE BOSE FOR A REFUND...

Infinity speakers have never let me down. I live in a small apartment, so there's no room, nor need, for 7.1, but I bought the $525 HTS-10 5.1 system with 5 small sattelites and 100-watt, self-powered subwoofer, and it rocks. The small sattelites produce very clean mid-range and highs, and the sub, which I placed in a corner of the room, rattles the walls. You could KINDLY SUGGEST something along this line as a great-sounding system that won't break their bank account (!). Be considerate of their finances.

Receiver? I'm using a "crap" Sony; can't afford the more expensive ones, because I have to pay rent, food, utilities, gas, insurance, etc., etc.

[post deleted by an admin.]

 

[PF4Eva]

by
PF4Eva
» Thu Jan 17 2013 17:53:31 Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2002
Post Edited:
Thu Jan 17 2013 17:54:25
I'm just curious is all.

The standard for both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio is:

Up to 24-bit/96kHz for 7.1
Up to 24-bit/192kHz for 5.1 and below (where does 6.1 stand?)

Is there any reason why the 7.1 standard can't be bumped up to 192k? Please explain in as much detail as possible, and be specific.

Thanks.

Toonami is back. Each and every Saturday @ 12/11 CT on [adult swim].

by
dangus
» Fri Jan 18 2013 00:19:06 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2003
Doubling the sample rate doubles the bitrate. Maybe Blu-ray sets a limit on the audio bitrate, and 5.1/24/192 fits, and 7.1/24/192 doesn't.

It really doesn't matter, though. 24/96 is good enough.

by
Speed_Daemon
» Thu Aug 8 2013 22:01:07 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2013
What dangus didn't say is that the human ear can't possibly hear the frequencies that higher sampling rates allow, and in fact those high sampling rates aren't really for extending high frequency response. Without getting too technical, using a modern delta-sigma DAC provides all the benefits of higher sampling rates without having to actually record all those extra bits. As the end user, as long as you're getting a sampling rate of 44.1 or 48 kHz along with a good quality DAC, you're doing just fine and don't need to have "number envy".

It's actually been proven that humans can hear hi-rez audio.

 

[PF4Eva]

I asked this question way back before I knew much about 24p technology or lossless audio.

Here it is straight from the IMDb archives.

by
PF4Eva
» Mon Apr 4 2011 15:37:54 Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2002
I have a few questions, and would like some help.

HDTV: Sanyo DP42840; 42" 60Hz 1080p
Blu-ray: LG BD550; 1080p
Home theater/surround: Samsung HT-TX72; 480p DVD, HDMI; 5.1

1. Are both my player and TV capable of 24p? If so, how do I go about enabling it?

2. My player has Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, but my surround sound system doesn't; it only has standard Dolby Digital and DTS. HDMI is connected, so I'm confused. Am I or am I not getting the DTHD and DTS-HD MA coming out of my speakers? Would I have to upgrade to one with those codecs to actually get the sound?

Another question, so I'm prepared: Does anyone know of any playback/firmware issues with Tron or Tron: Legacy, from reviews and such? I guess nobody will know till tomorrow, but I thought I'd ask. I'm dying to see them.

Thanks for all your help.

Daeg Faerch de-aged in another Halloween -- make it happen, pleeeze?

by
mikejonas
» Fri Apr 8 2011 06:58:29 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 1999
1. The player, yes; the TV, no. A TV would need a 120Hz refresh rate at least to be capable of 24p.

2. No, you're not--your system is using one of the signals that it *can* use. Yes, you'd need to upgrade your receiver to use hear the lossless audio.

Just a clarification: You can get the HD audio if you set your player to output PCM. It's better than nothing.

by
x_jmt_x
» Sun Apr 17 2011 01:08:10 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since January 2005
1. The player, yes; the TV, no. A TV would need a 120Hz refresh rate at least to be capable of 24p.

If that's true, then i guess no tv in europe is able to play 24p, not a single one, as the refresh-rates are 50/100/200hz. then again, miraculously, my 50hz tv does indeed accept and reproduce 24p. go figure.

2. No, you're not--your system is using one of the signals that it *can* use. Yes, you'd need to upgrade your receiver to use hear the lossless audio.

You sure about that one, either? I'd assume that the player is 2.0 profile and thus able to decode the HD-encoded audio to PCM.. which would work via HDMI. you *know* that the HT-system does not accept PCM, then?

I find your answers to be a bit suspect.

I can just about remember the time, when 'human suspect' was a given, not an option.

[post deleted by admin.]

by
Ace_of_Sevens
» Sun Apr 8 2012 00:11:18 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2002
You are mixing up frame rate and refresh rate of the TV. Most movies are shot at 24 fps and this is all Blu-ray supports in 1080p. You basic TV refresh rate is 60 Hz for NTSC or 50 for PAL. These standards are on their way out, but their refresh rates have stuck around for compatibility reasons.

When your player converts a 24 fps movie to 60 fps for viewing, all it does is show one frame twice, then the next three times. Having some frames up for 50% longer than others can make it look slightly jerky on playback. This is most obvious on smooth motion, like credits scrolling. On a 120 Hz TV, it can show each frame five times, meaning each frame gets an equal amount of time and the motion is smooth.

You are thinking of motion plus or intelligent frame creation or whatever else manufactures call it. This takes a 24 fps source and converts it to 120 Hz by making up frames to show between the ones on the disc instead of just repeating them. You'll want to turn this off, but the TV is goign to run at 120 Hz regardless.

Like commentaries? http://www.ratethatcommentary.com/

 

[PF4Eva]

by
Ian_Rhethy
» Fri Mar 1 2013 14:18:08 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since November 2009
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/THX_12_posts/The_Future_of_THX/ 11238

Does THX-certified sound systems even make a difference?

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´

ÏÁN RH37HÝ

by
dangus
» Fri Mar 1 2013 17:21:59 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2003
It defines a certain level of performance. It's not going to be the best available, and not everyone agrees with their choices when it comes to speakers. It would be great if TVs came with a preset that came reasonably close to ISF or THX calibration.

I think they'd be smarter to just keep promoting it as a quality benchmark and cash the royalty checks from licensees. Manufacturing and distributing actual things entails a lot more effort and risk. Unless these will just be "badge-engineered" products made by someone else and just tweaked a little.

by
Speed_Daemon
» Thu Aug 8 2013 22:05:56 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2013
Do you own a movie theater and charge admission for people to watch big feature films? If so, then THX certification is something that you'll want to pay attention to.

If you're a home movie watcher, not really.

If you listen primarily to music, then avoid THX like the Plague!

 

[PF4Eva]

This was originally posted nearly seven years ago.

by
BloodBarn
» Sat Jun 19 2010 23:22:54 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2005
Ok so I bought a nice pair of Kef C45 for a good price but, the problem is, one of the woofers buzz at particular frequencies. I just found out tough, that when I apply a small pressure with my finger on the membrane, the buzz is gone.

Speakers are not really my field, anyone knows what the problem might be ? there's no tear or any rupture of the speaker itself and I'd like to repair it since I can't find any replacement.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

Here's what the Speaker Wizard said:

by
Cullomatic_2000
» Mon Jun 21 2010 13:29:21 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since November 2006
The foam is old or dislodged from the speaker edge so it's vibrating too fast and acting like a tweeter at a certain frequency. Common, are they used and about seven years old?

Get a kit and refoam them, if they are around 7 years old or older the other one is about to go or has totally went, you may not hear a buzz but the bass is gone.

Call someone like this, it's not hard to do.

http://www.simplyspeakers.com/2doityourself.htm

VOTE 10/10 FOR THIS MASTERPIECE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490668/

by
BloodBarn
» Tue Jun 22 2010 07:54:10 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2005
Post Edited:
Tue Jun 22 2010 07:59:09
Thank you, that's exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for !

and thanks for the link, they seem to have what I need.

Your poetry will now be written with blood

Lots of good technical info that would be a tragedy to lose.

 

[PF4Eva]

Not only is there some good information here, but also a history lesson.

by
critic-2
» Tue Mar 9 2010 11:20:22 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since January 2001
I have noticed that on a lot of DVD's of pre-stereo era films, like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Show Boat", the sound is listed as being in stereo. Just how is this done? I don't have anything against it at all, but I can remember from some LP's that I had in the 1960's that some 1940's albums like the 1947 "Brigadoon" and the 1949 "South Pacific", which had been made only in mono, now suddenly appeared in "Electronically Enhanced for Stereo" editions, and they sounded sh***y that way.

And now I have DVD's of "The Wizard of Oz" and of the Baryshnikov 1977 "Nutcracker", both shown originally in mono, but available on DVD in stereo, and they sound great, not state-of-the art, but still good. (Well, the reason for "The Nutcracker" sounding great is that although the soundtrack was actually recorded in stereo, it had to be transmitted in mono because back then, there were no stereo TV's.)

But on films recorded in mono, how can this possibly be done without distorting the soundtrack, as used to happen? (The 1967 "fake stereo" LP of "Gone With the Wind" sounded truly awful.)

by
artcurus-1
» Tue Mar 9 2010 18:46:26 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since January 2005
Post Edited:
Tue Mar 9 2010 18:50:56
It was reprocessed. During the early 60's, mono albums were rerecorded, usually sending certain parts of the band(like the drums) to the left or right side, and in some extreme cases, even the vocals were sent to the right or left side.

If the song had keyboards, the keyboard would have a reverb effect added, and sent to both speakers.

RCA was especially bad about this.

Another extreme version of this was some early 60's country. Check out Jeannie C Riley's Harper Valley PTA. The drums are one side, the guitar is on the other. However, this might have been done intenitonally to take advantage of the console stereos that existed at the time. Many of these stereos consisted of a single bass in the middle, with smaller speakers handling the high and midrange on the sides. However it was true stereo, and generally the voices were centered on these.

 

[PF4Eva]

Can some explain to me what exactly....
by
brandomarlon2003
» Thu Mar 12 2009 09:19:16 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2006
an EQ is with a sound system? My friend is a sound system expert and I just want to learn more about this stuff so I can better communicate w/ him and understand his world more.

by
dangus
» Thu Mar 12 2009 14:56:50 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2003
It's a sort of tone control. A graphic equalizer boosts or cuts certain fixed frequency ranges. A parametric equalizer also boosts or cuts, but the center frequency and bandwidth (Q) can be adjusted as well. So, for example, you could use a parametric equalizer with narrow bandwidth to remove 60 Hz hum from a poor recording.

There's also fixed equalizers used for preemphasis in FM broadcasting, and in tape and vinyl reproduction.

[post deleted by admin.]

by
TrekkerScout
» Fri Apr 3 2009 17:09:57 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since February 2002
I guess the sound engineers and musicians I know that use equalizers on there really expensive equipment are doing so because they wasted there money on pure junk. I think not.

Gort, Klaatu barada nikto

[post deleted by admin.]

by
Avatar1974
» Tue Apr 21 2009 07:44:56 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2003
No, they're using EQ to control what actually ends up getting recorded.

If it's garbage in, it's garbage out... an EQ on the playback end isn't going to substantially change that.


Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken
http://www.cinemalogue.com

EQ is equalization. It refers to cutting or boosting bass, mids, or treble. For playback purposes, it's usually best to set everything flat (or, at the middle/12:00 position); that way, nothing is being cut or boosted, and it sounds the most natural.

 

[PF4Eva]

by
critic-2
» Thu Dec 25 2008 10:36:37 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since January 2001
I just got a DVD that has regular stereo and DTS sound. The stereo soundtrack plays fine, but the DTS one is completely silent! Why? Is the disc defective?

by
TrekkerScout
» Thu Dec 25 2008 10:52:47 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since February 2002
Your system probably does not support DTS (Digital Theater System).

Gort, Klaatu barada nikto

Most systems nowadays (2017) should be able to support DTS, especially Blu-ray players, which support DTS-X and earlier (lossless DTS-HD Master Audio, DTS-HD High Resolution, and regular lossy DTS).

by
babe
» Sun Dec 28 2008 10:18:50 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2001
Post Edited:
Sun Dec 28 2008 12:36:49
If yours does in fact support DTS and if its like my Denon unit you have to choose the DTS option on the amp before it will play. On my unit it will not automatically choose either the regular or DTS options.

Babe

by
babe
» Sun Dec 28 2008 10:18:50 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2001
Post Edited:
Sun Dec 28 2008 12:36:49
If yours does in fact support DTS and if its like my Denon unit you have to choose the DTS option on the amp before it will play. On my unit it will not automatically choose either the regular or DTS options.

Bab

I'm actually a big fan of DTS (especially theatrical and DTS Master Audio). Dolby is nice, too, but I usually have to turn up Dolby TrueHD louder than I do DTS-MA. TrueHD is typically mixed lower than Master Audio.

 

[PF4Eva]

In 2010, Toy Story 3 became the first theatrical release to utilize discrete 7.1 surround sound. How does it compare to 5.1? Let's find out.

by
AndreiPavlov
» Mon May 12 2008 01:46:49 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2005
Is 7.1 much better than 5.1 when human ears are concerned? Is there any difference to the human ear, to speak frankly?
What's your opinion and what's the official one?

Regards

by
MasterShake_2015
» Mon May 12 2008 07:02:27 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2005
Post Edited:
Mon May 12 2008 07:04:20
I have two 7.1 setups, for Dolby Digital it's a waste most of the time and the matrix often reduces the rear image, DOLBY TRUE HD and sources meant for 7.1 are the reason to do it, I actually leave it off most of the time and stick with 5.1.

For standard DVD 5.1 is almost always the official one as that is the only information in the mix, the two far rears are just matrixed off the more forward rears.

Andromeda KKKs – The Eva Braun for a New Millennium!

[post deleted by admin.]

5.1 uses the standard six channels and can go up to 192kHz. 7.1 uses two extra rear channels (thus, eight channels), and maxes out at 96kHz.That's the only real difference between the two. One is not necessarily better than the other; Christopher Nolan uses 5.1 to this day.

 

[Zelena]

In 2010, Toy Story 3 became the first theatrical release to utilize discrete 7.1 surround sound. How does it compare to 5.1? Let's find out.





[post deleted by admin.]

5.1 uses the standard six channels and can go up to 192kHz. 7.1 uses two extra rear channels (thus, eight channels), and maxes out at 96kHz.That's the only real difference between the two. One is not necessarily better than the other; Christopher Nolan uses 5.1 to this day.

Woody Allen cuts his films in mono to this day. Just sayin' :cool:

I think it's much more significant how much effort and creativity is put into the sound design and mix, than what format is used. These days, all films have very complex and professional mixes, but if the director doesn't really get into sound design (and all great directors are into sound -- topic for another thread) then it's just a mish-mash of recycled garbage from other film mixes. I guess it's not redundant to say that Apocalypse Now was the granddaddy of 5.1 films, and few releases since really deserve or need to be put through a proper 5.1 system.

 

[Doctor Omega]

Was the Betamax player and tapes really better than the VHS player and tapes?

Or was this just a myth?

And if it is true, why was this so?

 

[duzit]

Never had a Beta, but I blew thru my share of V H S recorders. My friend had a Beta, but it was in the shop more than it was out.◆◆◆♡♡♡

 

[TheSowIsMine]

Some say Video 2000 was the best system.

 

[Doctor Omega]

Why don't perpetual motion machines ever work?

 

[PF4Eva]

Being an audiophile, I recently compared lossy DTS to Dolby Digital (and PCM)… just out of curiosity.

I used all three audio tracks from Led Zeppelin DVD (apples to apples and all). I sampled "We're Gonna Groove," "I Can't Quit You Baby," and "Dazed & Confused." Here's which audio came out on top:

PCM - The top of the food chain. Uncompressed. It sounded (and felt) so live.
DTS - The second-best. Jimmy Page's guitar and John Bonham's drums still pack one hell of a punch. John Paul Jones's bass is still discernable from Jimmy's guitar. Robert Plant's voice is still dynamic. You can still tell each instrument apart and everything still has life.
Dolby Digital - Not bad, but it doesn't quite cut it. A tad muddy compared to DTS and especially PCM. Jimmy's guitar is somewhat lacking. Instrument separation is still good. The sound is average, at best.

I didn't find any of the tracks to be brickwalled or dynamically compressed.

Comparing DTS to Dolby Digital might seem a bit outdated in the age of Dolby TrueHD (and Atmos) and DTS-HD Master Audio (And DTS:X, etc.), but I was curious as to why Spielberg has always preferred DTS.

 

[PF4Eva]

More audiophile fun!

Have you ever wondered how far to adjust volume controls on your computer and your speakers/headphones? I've been wondering for a while, and I always thought my headphones performed better than my speakers. They're cheap Dell speakers (vs. premium Sony headphones) that came with my old Vista PC, which I still use for my Windows 10 PC, but that's besides the point for now. Have you wondered whether to adjust the computer/(Youtube, etc.) player's volume or the speaker's volume knob, or both? I think I've found the answer.

First, MAKE SURE ALL ENHANCEMENTS ARE TURNED OFF. The signal should be flat and au naturel.

The volume on your player (YouTube, Windows Media, VLC, etc.) should be maxed. Then...

1) If your speakers/headphones/amp/sound system has a volume controls...
a) use the last volume control in the chain (the aforementioned sound equipment) to control the levels to your liking.

2) If your speakers/headphones/amp/sound system DOESN'T have volume controls...
a) use the Windows volume control (the end of the chain) to your liking.

You may have to turn the volume down WAY LOW, but you should be pleased with the results. You'll definitely notice the dynamic range. The resolution should be improved, even with YouTube quality sound.

From what I've read, you have to feed as much signal as possible (think of an electric guitar, for example). And also, this is a big deal, reducing the volume earlier in the chain (via software; that is, the player or the OS) reduces the bitrate.

But whatever you do, be VERY CAUTIOUS about your ears. The last thing you want is to go deaf. I would turn your speaks down to the minimum, play something, and then raise it to one's liking. Hope this helps.

 

[PF4Eva]

Similarly, I've been experimenting with using a headphone amp. Technically, it's an alarm clock stereo, but I'm using it as an amp. Pairing it with my PC as above seems to be making a big difference for my already-great headphones. Even YouTube sounds full and open, with awesome dynamic range. And when I play CD or hi res FLAC (up to 192), these babies really sing.

 

[PF4Eva]

Have you ever noticed your speakers sounding a little "off," such as poor bass or even (gasp) barely any vocals? They might be wired out of phase. The fix is simple. Make sure both speakers are connected to your stereo/amp/system/whatever

red to red
and
black to black

on both the back of the speakers and the back of the central unit. Make sure everything matches. Play music you know well enough to know when something is "off." In-phase speakers should have a perfect phantom center in between the two speakers. The center should be coming from "behind" the speakers. The entire soundstage should sound transparent. It should transcend the speakers, assuming you've got a decent pair.

To celebrate the album's 20th anniversary, I played Baby One More Time in its entirety on my 17-year-old Sanyo CWM-460.

Ever since I moved in 2017, I've had quite an adventure getting decent sound out of anything other than my headphones. I knew something was odd when, on "The Beat Goes On," the music completely buried the vocals on the verses.

I discovered that the right speaker was wired correctly, but the left wasn't. This is because the stereo uses proprietary connections. The wires are built into the speakers, so it was correct on that end, but reversed on the stereo system end. I corrected my mistake and voila! Deep, rich bass. Sweet, beautiful vocals. Perfectly balanced sound — bass, mids, treble, stereo separation, phantom center.

So, always check your wiring and phase when hooking up speakers, especially if they have proprietary connections.

 

[PF4Eva]

More audiophile fun!

Have you ever wondered how far to adjust volume controls on your computer and your speakers/headphones? I've been wondering for a while, and I always thought my headphones performed better than my speakers. They're cheap Dell speakers (vs. premium Sony headphones) that came with my old Vista PC, which I still use for my Windows 10 PC, but that's besides the point for now. Have you wondered whether to adjust the computer/(Youtube, etc.) player's volume or the speaker's volume knob, or both? I think I've found the answer.

First, MAKE SURE ALL ENHANCEMENTS ARE TURNED OFF. The signal should be flat and au naturel.

The volume on your player (YouTube, Windows Media, VLC, etc.) should be maxed. Then...

1) If your speakers/headphones/amp/sound system has a volume controls...
a) use the last volume control in the chain (the aforementioned sound equipment) to control the levels to your liking.

2) If your speakers/headphones/amp/sound system DOESN'T have volume controls...
a) use the Windows volume control (the end of the chain) to your liking.

You may have to turn the volume down WAY LOW, but you should be pleased with the results. You'll definitely notice the dynamic range. The resolution should be improved, even with YouTube quality sound.

From what I've read, you have to feed as much signal as possible (think of an electric guitar, for example). And also, this is a big deal, reducing the volume earlier in the chain (via software; that is, the player or the OS) reduces the bitrate.

But whatever you do, be VERY CAUTIOUS about your ears. The last thing you want is to go deaf. I would turn your speaks down to the minimum, play something, and then raise it to one's liking. Hope this helps.

I've been doing more experimenting with audio and volume control. Here's a new video from Paul McGowan of PS Audio: