![]() |
Inmate Central Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Which TV brand to buy on the Labour Day sale? posted by pictureguy on September 1, 2022 at 23:19:16:
...just like all sources are not created equal. Neither is the accuracy of your senses.
Just like with audio, video can be highly subjective. What sounds or looks good to you, might not to me--or anyone else for that matter.
I've listened to extremely high-end audio gear in dedicated custom environments that have been calibrated with thousands of dollars of equipment and room treatments to absolutely "flatten" the entire audible audio spectrum from the "prime" listening position. On paper (spec-wise), and according to the measurements taken with calibrated "listening" equipment, the measurable output is as close to the input as technically possible. From a scientific perspective (and I am a scientist) it was quite impressive. As a music-lover, it wasn't necessarily all that impressive--for a number of reasons.
My hearing ability/range was not technically "calibrated" to a specific laboratory standard at birth, and has certainly changed/degraded with age. All sources are not created equal--the old "garbage in = garbage out" theory. I listen to a wide variety of music, but have a fondness for 60's/70's/80's rock--especially live performances (I have pretty-much the entire collection of "Live at the Fillmore" recordings on albums). I love the energy and "interpretive license" of many of the performances. But the sound quality is far from perfect--in many cases, I could do better with my phone standing in the audience.
I managed to crawl back out of the audio "rabbit-hole" years ago, and have learned to settle for "good enough". I set my sights on a "highly resolving" target for a system, but rapidly learned that is a double-edged sword. A phenomenal recording played on a highly-resolving system can bring me to tears, but a marginal recording played on that same system can also bring me to tears--and not in the same way. All you end-up hearing is every flaw and short-coming of the recording, and lose the enjoyment of the music.
Video is no different. Not everyone's visual acuity is the same. My cousin was somewhat colorblind--not entirely, but his perception of color, brightness, and saturation were outside the "normal" range. Many legally-blind folks can "see"--they just don't see the same as the rest of us.
Source is also a factor. A 1950's or 60's newsreel is not going to look the same as a recent movie or TV show digitally recorded in whatever level of hi-rez used.
Then there's just plain old personal preference. I know people that think that there's not enough treble until your ears begin to bleed, or not enough bass unless you can feel your internal organs resonate independently from the rest of your body. Same with video--I've seen TVs adjusted to the point of a color image looking damned-near sepia or B&W, or set so bright and saturated that someone wearing red lipstick will be permanently etched into your retinas.
If the intended purpose is watching soap operas (low quality content), anything that looks half-ways decent and has an acceptable reliability record will be fine.
"And today is for sale and it's all you can afford. Buy your own admission. The whole things got you bored. Well the Lord chooses the good ones, and the bad ones use the Lord"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Technical calibration and personal preference are two entirely different animals... - dark_dave56 09/2/2204:06:08 09/2/22 (4)
- RE: Technical calibration and personal preference are two entirely different animals... - pictureguy 18:13:29 09/2/22 (3)
- Re: Measurement repeatability - Dave_K 06:03:29 09/3/22 (0)
- So, we went to look for TV today - Wojciech 20:23:53 09/2/22 (1)
- RE: So, we went to look for TV today - pictureguy 22:57:09 09/2/22 (0)