Shopping for a receiver

It is harder and harder for me to understand speech on TV audio. I would like to be able to insert an equalizer into the audio playback. Old receivers used to run the pre-amp output and the amp input out the back. As shipped, the outputs and inputs were shorted together but the short could be removed and an equalizer inserted into the loop. Are there any HDMI compatible receivers that offer that feature?

Also, I have been looking for a receiver that offers HD radio and I haven't found any.

Any suggestions? Thanks.

Reply to
root
Loading thread data ...

Many TVs now have equalizers built in. Check the audio menu for one, alot of people have it and don't even know it.

If you live in an area where TV has gone digital and you have an older TV, if it has video jacks and your convertor or cable box has video out, the equalizer can go right between there.

Another thing is that most TV speakers suck. If you have a regular stereo for music, try hooking that up. There should be some source of audio smewhere, even if you have to dig ut an ancient VCR that has an NTSC tuner or something like that.

Another big problem with TV sound is the mixing. The music is too loud and the dialogue too soft, and there is too much ambience. Sometimes it helps to switch it to mono.

Reply to
jurb6006

You might consider watching TV on your computah. Buy an ATSC tuner card or USB dongle for the receiver part. The audio can be processed by the computer using the usual sound card software, which generally includes an equalizer.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

people have it and don't even know it.

it has video jacks and your convertor or cable box has video out, the equalizer can go right between there.

music, try hooking that up. There should be some source of audio smewhere, even if you have to dig ut an ancient VCR that has an NTSC tuner or something like that.

dialogue too soft, and there is too much ambience. Sometimes it helps to switch it to mono.

Thanks for responding. The sound goes into my receiver which is connected to a full-blown surround sound system. You are correct, sometimes it is easier to hear speech with mono or two channel stereo.

Reply to
root

I am watching TV on the computer, the TV is acting as a monitor only. The hdmi signal goes to the receiver and thence to the TV.

I have a workaround for problem sources: I am using mplayer (linux) for a player and I can specify the audio out to go either through the sound card or through the video card via hdmi. The sound card connects to the receiver through an equalizer. For problem sources I just send the sound through the sound card as you suggest. I have to send the video directly to a different input on the TV. For that I have ordered an hdmi splitter from Monoprice.

Thanks for responding.

Reply to
root

snip

The sound engineering on today's movies and TV programs just plain sucks.

tm

Reply to
tm

That may possibly produce some additional audio delay and possibly produce lip sync problems: That's why I suggested an ATSC tuner, instead of breaking the audio out through the computah. MPEG has PTS and DTS time stamps, which can usually be used by the software to provide the necessary lip sync. Breaking out the audio separately and running it through an equalizer, will add some additional audio delay. It won't be much as video delays are much larger, but it might be noticeable if the audio processing is complex. Audacity (on Windoze XP) gives me about 200 msec latency with no filters and as much as several seconds latency with a random assortment of filters and effects enabled. 200 msec might not be a problem. Several seconds will be fatal:

Also, I've been experimenting with different cheap computah speakers, mostly Logitech. Nothing scientific, just testing by ear using mostly Pandora. None of them sound as good as the much larger speakers on my hi-fi. Built in TV speakers are worse. If you want quality audio, build your system starting with good speakers, and work backwards towards the TV.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Get hearing aids.

At least, see if you need them.

Otherwise you're just compensating for bad hearing.

The hearing aids will help generally, not just for tv.

Michael

Reply to
Michael Black

+1!
Reply to
Allodoxaphobia

"Allodoxaphobia"

** -1 from me.

The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs and movies on TV is excellent.

I am referring to digital sources and normal stereo heard through hi-fi speakers an a room that has little reverberation.

If you are watching in an almost bare room, running 5.1 surround et alia and use cheap crappy speakers ( eg Bose) - then YOU have the created problem.

All bets are OFF if you are using the speakers included with flat screens - as they fire downwards or backwards and sound like pox.

... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

A matter of opinion. CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of.

Reply to
William Sommerwerck

Onkyo makes receivers with HD radio and internet radio built in. Check them out. I'm very satisfied with mine.

Reply to
Klaatu

"Klaatu"

** William cannot read or think with any clarity at all.

Context is an unknown term to him, following a thread is also impossible.

That he why he massively over-snips and blithely changes the subject to one of HIS f****it hobby horses.

These "horses" all look like dead donkeys to me.

As do you.

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

as they fire downwards or backwards and sound like pox.

No respect for Doctor Bose at all what.

T
Reply to
jurb6006

s on TV is excellent. A matter of opinion. CDs -- including classical CDs -

- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of."

Fact is if your speakers didn't cost at least two grand, they are the weake st link in the system. They cheat on the frequency response measurements be cause when you put in 30 Hz they count the 60 Hz output. That is distortion , oh, the distortion is the other idiocy. You strive to get amps that only have 0.0000000000000001% distortion while your speakers run about 1% distor tion even at one watt. Ridiculous, they sold you a bill of goods. Buncha sh it really.

Reply to
jurb6006

on TV is excellent. A matter of opinion. CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere near the sound quality the medium is capable of."

link in the system. They cheat on the frequency response measurements because when you put in 30 Hz they count the 60 Hz output. That is distortion, oh, the distortion is the other idiocy. You strive to get amps that only have

0.0000000000000001% distortion while your speakers run about 1% distortion even at one watt. Ridiculous, they sold you a bill of goods. Buncha shit really.

It's good to know that there is only one kind if distortion, and that it isn't additive. It's a good thing that you don't design electronics. :(

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

at

True, electrostatic speakers seem to provide the best performance for the buck. Back in the 70's there was an engineer that lived in the eastbay, Fremont, CA area that made sets of electrostatic speakers using readily available materials, standard tools, and kitchen appliances. His resulting speakers were 'metalized' mylar shrunk in his oven over a framework. Can't remember his name, and lost all archival records in the 8 HD crashes we went through. Anybody know who this man was?

As part of his development during the project, he had taken his speakers to JBL(?) in the midwest for testing in their lab and found that at most levels distortion was barely measurable, at 120dB(?) something like 0.1%, and at 140dB just above 1%. The main problem he ran into was the 'beaming' effect caused by the size of the diaphragm. To minimize that beaming, he actually split the audio into several spectral bands and then drove strips of different widths on the speakers in order to minimize the effect. Higher frequency narrow strip.

These speakers in combination with 'direct' recordings gave you an incredible listening experience. It literally was like sitting next to the original musician(s) while they werre playing, but they had recorded many years prior.

Sadly, I never saw the speakers marketed, nor any DIY projects for building them yourself. Anybody see such?

Reply to
Robert Macy

True, electrostatic speakers seem to provide the best performance for the buck. Back in the 70's there was an engineer that lived in the eastbay, Fremont, CA area that made sets of electrostatic speakers using readily available materials, standard tools, and kitchen appliances. His resulting speakers were 'metalized' mylar shrunk in his oven over a framework. Can't remember his name, and lost all archival records in the 8 HD crashes we went through. Anybody know who this man was?

As part of his development during the project, he had taken his speakers to JBL(?) in the midwest for testing in their lab and found that at most levels distortion was barely measurable, at 120dB(?) something like 0.1%, and at 140dB just above 1%. The main problem he ran into was the 'beaming' effect caused by the size of the diaphragm. To minimize that beaming, he actually split the audio into several spectral bands and then drove strips of different widths on the speakers in order to minimize the effect. Higher frequency narrow strip.

These speakers in combination with 'direct' recordings gave you an incredible listening experience. It literally was like sitting next to the original musician(s) while they werre playing, but they had recorded many years prior.

Sadly, I never saw the speakers marketed, nor any DIY projects for building them yourself. Anybody see such?

"The Audio Amateur" ran many articles on building your own electrostatic speakers. (Graphite was used to make the Mylar conductive.) I believe I have about 20 years of back copies, if anyone wants to buy them en mass.

The problem with "beaming" has largely been solved. Acoustat used multiple angled panels. Koss made a four- or five-way system. QUAD subdivides the panel and uses delay lines to create a quasi-spherical "launch". Martin-Logan developed a practical way to make a curved panel.

Reply to
William Sommerwerck

"Robert Macy"

True, electrostatic speakers seem to provide the best performance for the buck. Back in the 70's there was an engineer that lived in the eastbay, Fremont, CA area that made sets of electrostatic speakers using readily available materials, standard tools, and kitchen appliances. His resulting speakers were 'metalized' mylar shrunk in his oven over a framework.

-------------------------------------------------

** The diaphragm of an ESL needs to have a VERY high resistance coating - so that charge spreads slowly across the surface and does not move when an external electric field at audio frequency is applied.

The resistance needed is in the hundreds of megohms per square.

----------------------------------------------------------- As part of his development during the project, he had taken his speakers to JBL(?) in the midwest for testing in their lab and found that at most levels distortion was barely measurable, at 120dB(?) something like 0.1%, and at 140dB just above 1%. The main problem he ran into was the 'beaming' effect caused by the size of the diaphragm. To minimize that beaming, he actually split the audio into several spectral bands and then drove strips of different widths on the speakers in order to minimize the effect. Higher frequency narrow strip.

---------------------------------------------------

** Ever see a Quad ESL57 ?

The tweeter is a 3cm wide strip, mids come from a similar pair of strips each side and there are two, fairly large rectangular bass panels outside them. Horizontal dispersion is at least 15 degrees at the highest frequencies but vertical dispersion is much narrower.

Crossovers are simple 6dB/octave and there is some overlapping - despite which transient response is near perfect at any frequency.

... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

te

The man I met had NOT known to make strips and his first units had an 'interesting' effect with that beaming. If you placed a flat panel ESL on each side of a person speaking into a microphone; the microphone was in a dead zone so there was no squeal. Then the beaming effect literally projected the sound straight in front of the speaker for a great distance with little noticeable drop in sound level. In other words, perfect as a PA. The person in the front heard about the same level as a person 100 feet further away in the back. Actually a strange effect to witness.

Reply to
Robert Macy

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.