Shopping for a receiver

[root]

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.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

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.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:36:25 +0000 (UTC), root <NoE...@home.org>
wrote:

>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.

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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[root]

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.

[root]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:36:25 +0000 (UTC), root <NoE...@home.org>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> 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.
>

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.

[tm]

<jurb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:72a847c2-1b5f-4ecc...@googlegroups.com...

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

snip

> 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.
>

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

tm

[Phoena]

What you can't just reassign an unused input on the receiver
to the output of the equalizer. Not every motherfucker outputs audio on
HDMI and still must use either analog outputs or coaxial or optical.
Particularly when you are doing a DVI to HDMI conversion. For example
you can reassign the tape deck input to whatever HDMI input the video
card is connected to, because in my opinion if you are still using
cassette tapes in 2013 then you must have been raped by a Catholic
priest as a child.

I've seen plenty of receivers that have this functionality and the TV I
had allowed you to reassign the analog audio input from any composite,
S-Video or component input to one of the HDMI inputs of your choice.
This TV also had alalog output which could have also been fed into said
qualizer. That is, the TV i had before I bashed it to pieces.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 19:18:08 +0000 (UTC), root <NoE...@home.org>

That may possibly produce some additional audio delay and possibly
produce lip sync problems:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_to_video_synchronization>
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:
<http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Latency_Test>

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.

[Michael Black]

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

[Allodoxaphobia]

+1!

[Phoena]

Not just the sound engineering but the picture engineering and the
script engineering and just about everything else engineering.

The only thing that TVs and DVD players are good for these days is a
good crack with a baseball bat.

[Phil Allison]

"Allodoxaphobia"

>
>> The sound engineering on today's movies and TV programs just plain sucks.
>
> +1!

** -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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker Fuckwit TROLL"

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

** As it can only ever be.

But neither is it an isolated or uninformed one.

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

** So fucking what ?

CDs are capable of a much higher technical performance than is NEEDED for
the reproduction of music.

TV sound is not CD related anyhow.


... Phil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message news:b0kque...@mid.individual.net...

"William Sommerwanker Fuckwit TROLL"

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

>> A matter of opinion.

> ** As it can only ever be.
> But neither is it an isolated or uninformed one.

It is. See below.

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

> ** So fucking what ?
> CDs are capable of a much higher technical performance than is
> NEEDED for the reproduction of music.

You're really displaying your ignorance.

Ever made live recordings? Of course not.

The sound of most CDs is a travesty of live sound. In fact, it is often so
poor that one can make a more-natural-sounding recording with a Compact
Cassette deck. (I know, because I've done it.)

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker Fuckwit TROLL"
>
>>>> The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs
>>>> and movies on TV is excellent.
>
>>> A matter of opinion.
>
>> ** As it can only ever be.
>> But neither is it an isolated or uninformed one.
>
> It is.

** Get fucked - you stinking, ASD fucked MORON !

>
>>> CDs -- including classical CDs -- don't have anywhere
>>> near the sound quality the medium is capable of.
>
>> ** So fucking what ?
>
>> CDs are capable of a much higher technical performance than is
>> NEEDED for the reproduction of music.
>
> You're really displaying your ignorance.
>

** Get fucked - you stinking, ASD fucked MORON !

Then DROP FUCKING DEAD !!

[Klaatu]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ko3cp6$ukm$1...@dont-email.me...

I have to agree completely William. Natural sounding analog recordings are
why I still use an old S-VHS Zenith HiFi vcr with defeatable level control
and individual left/right gain controls to make great sounding recordings of
local bands. Good frequency response, no tape hiss, and 2 hour recording on
one tape. Analog audio to digital and back to analog has always sounded
cold, brittle and harsh to me. The VHS HiFi recordings sound better (to me)
than compact cassette, even using a dbx II compander. Dolby sucks. The old
JVC ANRS system worked well, but only on metal cassette tape. And as we all
know, high grade 1/4" reel to reel tape is impossible to find. YMMV.

[Klaatu]

"root" <NoE...@home.org> wrote in message
news:ko0229$5bv$1...@news.albasani.net...

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

[Phil Allison]

"Klaatu"
>
> "William Sommerwanker Fuckwit TROLL"

>>
>
> I have to agree completely William.

** 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 fuckwit hobby horses.

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

As do you.



.... Phil

[jurb...@gmail.com]

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

No respect for Doctor Bose at all what.

T

[jurb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:30:41 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > The sound quality on the vast majority of DVDs, TV programs > and movies 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 weakest 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.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Natural sounding analog recordings are
why I still use an old S-VHS Zenith HiFi vcr with defeatable level control
and individual left/right gain controls to make great sounding recordings of
local bands"

No you don't, it is a JVC. The later ones made by Goldstar had no such option. I suggest holding on to that this and maybe checking it for capacitor crap from time to time.

I used to make live recordings of a band on a Beta HIFI. Get this, I used a pair of headphones as microphones with a Shure mic preamp. Sony MDR-CD5. Just hung them up on the wall. Later when dubbing to cassette I used the pre outs of a Marantz reciever with the quadradial control to expand the stereo image, and it worked of course. I has to re-equalize a bit, but so what. It really didn't sound that bad. It sounded better than some King Biscuit Flower Hour. i also had to run it through Dolby B encode twice just to get it to fit in the dynamic range of a cassette tape, even with HX.

Those are clunky ass old slow running machines those Zeniths, but you know what ? They do the job and are reliable. I used to work on VCRs for a living and you know what ? The ones I have the most experience on are the junkiest. I cannot think of any common problems on those right now. I also do not remember the equivalent JVC model nummber, but the FCC ID should not start with AK8. It maybe is AJU or maybe B something, I am not sure anymore. When I was doing VCRs I got so much into the FCC ID I asked for it one the phone before even going, or it coming in. Damn I used to know them by heart. Panasonics, Hitachis, whatever. I would know if I had the parts in stock. Well at least belts and idlers.

I did not fuck around in business.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The sound of most CDs is a travesty of live sound. In fact, it is often so
>> poor that one can make a more-natural-sounding recording with a Compact
>> Cassette deck. (I know, because I've done it.)

> I have to agree completely William. Natural sounding analog recordings are
> why I still use an old S-VHS Zenith HiFi vcr with defeatable level control
> and individual left/right gain controls to make great sounding recordings of
> local bands. Good frequency response, no tape hiss, and 2 hour recording on
> one tape. Analog audio to digital and back to analog has always sounded
> cold, brittle and harsh to me. The VHS HiFi recordings sound better (to me)
> than compact cassette, even using a dbx II compander. Dolby sucks. The old
> JVC ANRS system worked well, but only on metal cassette tape. And as we all
> know, high grade 1/4" reel to reel tape is impossible to find. YMMV.

You partly misunderstood. I was not in any way defending analog recording.
Note that I said "most" CDs sound poor. There are superb-sounding CDs. Listen,
for example, to the CD layer of any hybrid SACD that has good SACD sound. The
CD should be nearly as good.

One of the reasons SACD "sounds better" than CD, is that producers and
engineers know these recordings are going to be listened to by audiophiles on
good equipment, so they don't bugger the sound as much.

One advantage of video HiFi recording is that it's FM, and not subject to many
of the problems of direct analog recording.

[Michael A. Terrell]

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.
:(

[Phil Allison]

<jurb...@gmail.com>

** Beware the above idiot TROLL !

> Fact is if your speakers didn't cost at least two grand, they are the
> weakest link in the system.

** Fact is, speakers are always the weakest link in an audio system.

Long as you exclude recordings and the room.

>They cheat on the frequency response measurements because when you put in
>30 Hz they count the 60 Hz output.

** Wot bollocks !!

Response testing is done at low power level so harmonics never add anything
to the dB readings.

>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.

** Few amps test better than 0.01% THD, over the audio band.

Most cone speakers have about 0.25% THD ( 2H and 3H) at the 1 watt input
level.

Good electrostatic speakers ( eg Quad) can have THD levels of 0.03%, even at
96dB SPL at 1 metre.



... Phil

[Robert Macy]

On May 29, 10:21 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> ...snip...

> Good electrostatic speakers ( eg Quad) can have THD levels of 0.03%, even at
> 96dB SPL at 1 metre.
>
> ...  Phil

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?

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[amdx]

I did VCR repair from 1980 to 1990, worked in a great shop with
warranty service for every brand the owner could get. This usually
included service manuals for all those brands. I was in Michigan at
the time and the big box retailers were growing on VCR sales.
ABC Appliance, Fretter's and Highland appliance were stores that sent
us customers and we did their store sold service contracts. In the early
years the manufacturers paid good rates, loved Fisher, $70.00
(early 80's) no matter what you did. Then as years passed and VCR prices
dropped, so did there repair rates.
I started early in the boom and got out when VCR's could be found
at around $200. I have records for over 11,000 repairs. Lots of common
problems made it easy to read the complaint and now what the repair was.
I worked on a commission basis, and could set my own hours, but had
all my equipment at his shop in my own room.
I enjoyed going to Manufacturer's service classes, always left
with a feeling that, these things are amazing!
When I came to realize the VCR gravy train was coming to an end,
DVD's were just coming becoming popular and were still expensive, I
thought about learning about repairing them or move to Florida.
I moved to Florida and glad I didn't start DVD repair, the prices
dropped fast on them.
The good old days! Just tried to call the old TV tech, he was a big
Red Wings Fan, I wanted to console him on the Red Wings loss. Phone
message says they are closed for a week, what's that about?
Mikek

[Phil Allison]

"Robert Macy"
> "Phil Allison"

>
> Good electrostatic speakers ( eg Quad) can have THD levels of 0.03%, even
> at
> 96dB SPL at 1 metre.

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

[Robert Macy]

On May 30, 6:11 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> ...snip....

> ** 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

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.

[Shaun]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message news:b0o5v1...@mid.individual.net...

Phil Allison is the TROLL! on the USEnet Electronics newsgroups. He always
accuses others of being a TROLL, but he is one too.

Stay away from Phil, He is full of shit! and has nothing better to do that
go through these newsgroups and try to get people fitting!

Loser Phil Allison!

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>" 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.
:(
"

You know damn well that's not what I said.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Most cone speakers have about 0.25% THD ( 2H and 3H) at the 1 watt input
level.
"

Show me some with ratings that good. In fact show me speakers with a distortion rating at all and then take a look at the price tag. They do not come from Bestbuy usually.

I will let that slide though because you are not in the US. This really is the land of junk. Look around for real audiophile equipment and you will be a-travelin'.

Oh, and those ratings are probably at 1 watt or 2.83 volts RMS. Well I happen to like things LOUD sometimes.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"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. "

I read of a similar test used on production models but do not remember the company. The guy making them story also sounds familiar but that was a long time ago I believe. I don't even remember where I lived back then lol.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Response testing is done at low power level so harmonics never add anything
to the dB readings"

Well I want it done at high levels.

[mrfloydin]

Interesting use of a 1970's era Marantz quad unit.