Logitech Touch Media Player

April 21st, 2011

Advantages (many):

Put your CDs in storage

Lots of audio formats supported:

MP3, FLAC, WAV, AIFF, WMA, Ogg Vorbis, HE-AACv2, HD-AAC, Apple Lossless

WMA Lossless, APE, MPC and WavPack supported through transcoding

Some formats may require additional software installation (e.g. QuickTime), depending on platform

Crystal clear radio reception for every station on the AM/FM dial, via the internet

Receive Sirius satellite radio

Receive internet-based music services  (e.g. Rhapsody, Pandora, Slacker, and others)

Plenty of add-on features available (e.g. see artist biographies, get cover art) and the list is growing

Unit measures only 3.57 x 5.90 x 3.18

Unit costs $300 and includes Squeezebox server software

No computer required to operate

Passes the following streams through its digital out:

16 bit / 44.1 kHz, 16 bit / 48 kHz, 16 bit / 88.2 kHz, 16 bit / 96 kHz
24 bit / 44.1 kHz, 24 bit / 48 kHz, 24 bit / 88.2 kHz, 24 bit / 96 kHz

Will play higher sample rate files than above, by halving the sample rate.  So, you can listen to 192/24 files.

Mutltiple units may be used to pipe the music throughout the house

Disadvantages (few):

It doesn’t come with a wireless touch screen controller

I own the Touch.  The reason I wanted a media player at all was to play audio files off of a hard drive.  My hard drive happens to be a network attached storage device, otherwise known as a NAS.  You could use the hard drive in your computer or an external hard drive or whatever storage device you want.  My audio files came from the CDs I copied to the NAS.  I copied my CDs to a NAS mainly because I thought that being able to browse my titles on my computer would help me rediscover what I own.  And, in particular, I envisioned listening in shuffle mode so that music would play that I forgot I had.  I was right.

Since I started using it in 2008, I’ve banged my head against a lot of wall on account of Logitech’s Squeezebox software.  This is the software one uses to control the various Logitech media players—the Touch included.  You see, there’s a right way and a wrong way to use Logitech media players and software.  Perhaps what I’m about to tell you is good advice for other media player solutions as well.  I’d play it safe and assume so.

First, when you copy CDs to a hard drive, make sure you create files that will preserve the meta data (e.g. track name, artist name, album name) should you ever copy those files.  For instance, .wav files, once copied from, say, your overflowing computer hard drive to an outboard hard drive, will lose their meta data.  So, when you copy your CDs to whatever storage device, don’t create .wav files.  I settled on .aif files as they’re compatible with both Logitech and iTunes and they maintain the meta data when they’re copied.

I used iTunes to copy my CDs to the NAS.  It doesn’t matter what software you use to copy your CDs to a storage device.  Just pick a file type that will preserve the meta data when that file is copied.  Squeezebox software is not for copying your CDs to a hard drive, by the way.

Second, load the Squeezebox software onto the same drive as the music.  This is huge.  I started out with the Squeezebox software running on my laptop and the music stored on my NAS.  Lots of headaches ensued.  They usually involved the software not syncing with my NAS.  So, no music.  And, many computer restarts and many hours on the phone with tech support.  The tech support is pretty bad, by the way.

Third, assign a fixed IP address to your Logitech Touch and, if you’re using one, to your external storage device.

Having the Logitech Touch, now that I implemented the three lessons above, is like having a microwave oven. You never want to go back to not having one.  I use the Touch for Rhapsody.  Rhapsody is awesome if you’re a music lover.  For $10 a month you can listen to just about anything you want and it sounds pretty damn good.  And, I play vinyl for its superior sound quality, so I’m picky about sound.  Indeed, if I fall in love with a record I buy the vinyl or the CD because I hope it will sound better than it did on Rhapsody.  But, the quality of Rhapsody is enough to let me enjoy the music.  If I don’t fall in love with the record but I want to hear it I can play it anytime I want as long as I keep giving Rhapsody $10 a month.  What’s not to like?

I love Sirius satellite radio.  Deep Tracks is the best radio station I’ve ever heard.  This is the radio station I always wanted, probably because I’m a 43 year old white guy who likes classic rock.  Deep Tracks mercifully avoids all the songs you’ll hear on the classic rock stations and plays the other cuts and, at least as important, the other bands from roughly 1965 to 1975.  I’ve been turned on to great music by the James Gang, Loggins and Messina, Renassaince, Stephen Stills, Robin Trower, Poco, and the list just goes on and on.  What a rich era.  I always knew it was, and there was never such an easy way to get exposed to it all.  The Logitech Touch serves it up.  Oh yeah, and Sirius has a couple hundred other stations—providing music and talk radio for a variety of tastes.

Having Squeezebox and the Touch also gives you access to any terrestrial radio station anywhere.  Or, at least, that was it seems like.  Want to hear what radio is traveling through the air in Portland, New Orleans, Madison, LA, NY, Honolulu, London, Paris, Istanbul?   I don’t think any of that is a problem.  So, no more worries about ugly antennas and static.

You get still more music sources, and other niceties, as well.  There’s a live music archive.  You won’t necessarily find the big name bands here, but there are tons of live recordings to check out.  There’s Pandora and Slacker, Last.FM, a podcast player.  And, both Logitech and 3rd parties write plug-ins for the Squeezebox software.  I’ve downloaded ones that find cover art and that give me bios of the artists.  And, way cool, is software that I got for $10, called iPeng, that puts all of the above sources and plugins onto my iPhone.  I use my iPhone4 to control my Touch.  It works great.

So, to get all this you need $300 for the Logitech Touch.  Once you have it you get the software for free.  The Touch can be connected directly to your stereo with either analog or digital cables.  If you want better sound you’ll use the digital output into a good digital to analog converter.  While you can choose want you want to hear by touching the Touch—this device is basically all touch screen on the front with inputs on the back—its need to be wired to your stereo prevents most people from having it at their side when they’re sitting on the couch.  (The Touch does, by the way, connect wirelessly to your hard drive and to the internet, if you like.  I like to go wired when I can, and that’s how mine runs.)  So, use a laptop for the most comfortable control of your Touch, or use the iPhone if you’re good with one of those.

For more info, check out:

http://www.logitech.com/en-us/speakers-audio/wireless-music-systems/devices/5745

To get a Touch installed in the greater NYC metro area contact DH Audio and Home Theater, (908) 686-4913.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Audio Formats, Internet Music, Music Server, Radio, Stereo | No Comments »

Director Werner Herzog’s 3D Documentary of 32,000 Year Old Cave Art

April 20th, 2011

Once again, I found myself staying in my car after getting back home because there’s something on the radio I don’t want to miss.  Attached is a link to Terry Gross interviewing Werner Herzog, where he speaks about his documentary, The Cave of Forgotten Dreams.  The subject matter is fascinating (i.e. cave paintings from 32,000 years ago) and he spends a bit of time talking about 3D filmaking in general.  Enjoy.  Herzog Enters \’The Cave Of Forgotten Dreams\’

Share on Facebook

Posted in 3D | No Comments »

Notes on Beatles 9-9-09 Abbey Road (for the hardcore)

April 1st, 2011

9:09 this morning I’m on line at my local Best Buy, to pay for the remastered Abbey Road CD. This morning at 9AM is when the Beatles remastered catalog went on sale. The promise of the remastered CDs is better sound than the last Beatles CDs, which were released in the 80′s. There’s one customer in front of me paying for the Beatles mono and stereo CD box sets. I ask him what he’s paying for the mono set, as I pre-ordered it from Amazon and wanted to see if there was any advantage in my doing so. Turns out, the prices are about the same but he tells me he got the last box sets in the store. Huh? Five minutes after the store opened? A clerk I asked said they had about 10 of each box set and they sold out immediately. I guess it’s good that I ordered ahead. By the way, Amazon sent me an email a couple of days ago saying that more mono box sets than originally planned for would be produced.

So, I get the stereo Abbey Road CD spinning–after warming up the system for 45 minutes, of course–and compare it to the ’87 CD release. The Beatles made Abbey Road in stereo only and so it’s not included in the mono box set–ditto Yellow Submarine and Let It Be. The results of the comparison are mixed. The new CD sounds cleaner, which is good, and it’s louder, which is neutral. But, something in the performance has been lost, resulting in a less engaging sound.

These differences were apparent immediately. On “Something,” you can hear on the very first notes of electric guitar that it’s lost a bit of bite and edge–as if it’s been squelched a bit. At 1:48 into the song you also notice that McCartney’s bass seems to stop short of the depth and resonance it reaches on the ’87 CD. I suspect that it’s largely this lack of snap and definition and dynamics in the bass that makes this new release of Abbey Road fall short. It’s apparent everywhere. The music loses some propulsion.

It’s always a pleasure to hear the overall sound of a recording become less murky. It’s like looking through a window after a thin film has been wiped away. I could imagine that if the bass didn’t suffer so, this new CD would be an overall improvement over the ’86 release because of its cleaner sound. Instead, the new CD has an overall flatter sound that is less attention-getting. If you’re in the market for one of these CDs then, based on how they compare in my sound system, I’d say the ’86 release will be more entertaining.

I’m fortunate to have the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (MFSL) pressing of Abbey Road on vinyl. Now that’s high resolution! This LP sounds as different from the CDs as they do from one another, and it’s certainly more musically involving than either. Neither CD has anything on it. There’s a rumor that remastered vinyl of the Beatles’ albums is on the way. I hope it’s at least as good as MFSL’s Abbey Road.

By the way, by all accounts, the Beatles’ mono remastered CDs are where the real sonic improvement, over the ’80′s CDs, is to be found. I should be getting that box set in a few days. Stay tuned!

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,
Posted in Audio Formats, Mono, Music Review, Stereo | No Comments »

Flat Panel Plasma, LCD, LED, 240mhz, Help!

March 30th, 2011
Purchasing a new flat panel TV is unnecessarily confusing for many.  Almost as much as price and size matter, knowing the viewer’s preferred picture matters as well.  Of course, that viewer may be you.

After satisfying their size, budget, and longevity concerns, many buyers will say that they want the best picture.  It’s this last point where the confusion can be avoided.  How?  They should figure out if “best” is for them.   For our purposes here, “best” will be defined as the TV having the most accurate image as determined by standard display testing using test equipment.  There are some relatively easy ways to decide if “best” is for you.  First, consider that the best picture has little to do with how vibrant the image looks in a room with electric or natural light. At roughly 4 times the resolution of even your best flat panel TV, the finest picture resolution by far is what you’re seeing at your better movie theaters (i.e. Some movie theaters show beat-up prints or digital movies, so we can’t count those.)  Well, that’s a pretty bad picture the theaters have got going—until the lights go down.  With the lights up, it’s washed out.

Like in the movie theater, if you go for the absolute best picture in your home then you need to watch with the lights very low.  This is because if your TV is adjusted to show maximum resolution, it won’t look too good with the lights up.  Right off the bat, our group of people who truly want the best picture has gotten a lot smaller.  If you’re someone so ruled out, then worrying over the absolute best picture performance might be a waste.

Of course, the best approach to buying a TV is to buy  from an experienced audio/video systems designer.   But, if you also like to learn on your own, a relatively fast (i.e. about 1 hour) and easy way to learn how to discriminate among displays, and to learn if “best” really interests you, is to watch the video portion of a particular test DVD.   I have personal experience using Joe Kane’s Video Essentials, so I can recommend that one.  For purposes of learning what makes a good picture, it doesn’t matter which version of Video Essentials, but if you think you will use the disc to maximize the picture on your new TV, then get the Blu-ray version.

If you’re so inclined, you could supplement the above knowledge by reading flat panel display reviews in Widescreen Review, Sound and Vision and Home Theater Magazine.  I’ve found that all of these offer good information.  (I’ve seen misleading information in the New York Times and Consumer Reports—so beware.)  After reading two issues worth of reviews from each of these you’ll come away a bit smarter.  But, you really won’t know what they’re talking about without doing the test DVD exercise I mentioned.  And, unless something dramatic changes, I’ll bet you a steak dinner that if you read these reviews start to finish you’ll realize that the best displays are mostly plasmas.  (This is a heated issue for people who aren’t videophiles—but videophiles, and testers–know it to be true.)

If you want to spend still more time, and poorly, deciding which display to buy then:

  1. read the manufacturer’s performance specifications.  (For maximal waste of time, look at the contrast ratio.)
  2. compare displays by viewing them at a large retail chain.
  3. skim TV equipment reviews and don’t read between the lines for the acknowledgment that the piece under review isn’t the best.

I’ve found that most people would be much happier had they spent less on their TV and put the extra money towards an automated remote.  One button press and you’re watching TV, one button press and you’re watching DVD, one button press and you’re listening to music.  A system that is so easy to use is the stuff of make-believe in most people’s minds.  But, give them such a remote, and they’ll never go back.  Give them the “best” picture, and they may resent the fact that it’s achievable only in low light.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Displays | No Comments »

Vinyl, Sweet and Cheap

March 4th, 2011

My wife says to me, “What’s up with that storefront that says ‘Records’? We were travelling through our town on our way back home from a trip. Immediately I thought there must be some misleading signage—there’s no record store in Vauxhall, NJ that I ever saw, and if one opened I probably would have seen it.  She told me roughly where she saw it so I headed over later that day.
 

Well, what do you know? I see a storefront that says “We Buy Records.”  I went in and it’s nothing but boxes of unsorted used LPs. Some boxes were on tables, at least as many were under the tables. Someone had grouped the boxes by genre.  This was enough to make me very happy.

 
I scored Rare Earth’s Ecology, James Gang’s Yer Blues, the Byrds’ Untitled, John Lennon’s, Walls and Bridges and Rock ‘n’ Roll. All were original pressings and prices ranged from $3 to $8.  Those are great titles at great prices and there were plenty more good titles to choose from.  I’ll certainly be back.

 

Steve, the owner, said if you come to his store and mention me, Dennis Hartwick, then he’ll knock 10% off of purchases $25 or higher.   The record store is called Big City Records and it’s at 2181 Springfield Ave, Vauxhall, NJ 07088-1233. (908) 688-1402. There’s another one at 521 East 12th Street, New York, NY 10009. (212) 539-0208.  Happy hunting!

 

By the way, if you’re playing records, and especially if you’re buying used ones, you’ll get much better sound if you wet-clean the records.  VPI makes record cleaning machines that are considered the standard in the industry. I use one and it’s fantastic.  You’ll also be extending the life of your needle. Do not use the fluid that you squirt on the record or brush.  You are leaving mud in your grooves and mucking up your cartridge!

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Bargain Media, Stereo, Vinyl | No Comments »

Careful With That Cable, Eugene.

June 30th, 2010

HDMI cables promise so much.  Instead of 3 component video cables and audio cables running to your a/v receiver or to your high definition TV, one HDMI cable will do.  Instead of a 1080i image resolution limit, as with component video, HDMI was designed for 1080P and higher.  Instead of 6 audio channels at lower-than-CD resolution, HDMI gives them at greater-than-CD resolution.  Instead of having to run a separate ethernet cable, future HDMI enabled devices will be networked via the same HDMI cable that carries audio and video.  And, the copy protection that Hollywood enjoys courtesy of the HDMI interface, the entire reason HDMI came about in the first place, is no doubt why the studios are willing to give us movies in high-definition.  They weren’t going to let high definition DVD (e.g. Blu-ray) happen via the component video outputs. Component video didn’t provide a satisfactory copy protection solution.

Yet, anyone who makes his living designing or installing audio/video systems knows that HDMI can add days of unpaid installation time, can cause massive frustration, and can leave customers wondering about who they hired and the wisdom of their a/v investment.  In a massively frustrating and seemingly unknowable way, HDMI often doesn’t work!

Consider what goes wrong with HDMI cables; problems which, by the way, our old component video and audio cables don’t have.  Cable boxes don’t display on TVs when HDMI is used to directly link the two.  Video doesn’t show up on TV screens when HDMI is run through a switcher (e.g. an A/V receiver) on its way to the TV.  Or, consider this teaser, which cost me personally about 8 hours of troubleshooting.  A cable box runs HDMI to a receiver, as does a Blu-ray player. Then, from the receiver, HDMI is run to the TV.   If the customer wants to watch the cable box, the only way is to first bring up the picture from the DVD player!  The knowledgeable folks at Denon recently informed me that this is a known problem.

It’s a rare installer of HDMI who hasn’t had these problems.  Of course, he checks the source component, checks the switcher, checks the display device, and he checks the cable and they all check out fine when used with other associated equipment!  It’s certain combinations of equipment—for the most part unknowable until you try them—that don’t work!  As I was recently informed while attending the above referenced Denon training, a lot of this has to do with poorly manufactured HDMI cables.  They’re not made to the standards that they need to be and, as of now, there is almost no way for the buyer to know.  (Kudos to DPL Labs (www.dpllabs.com) for establishing HDMI ratings for HDMI enabled equipment and for HDMI cables.  Consumers need more manufacturers to sign on to this program.)

Aside from needing quality cables, consumers often need firmware updates to get HDMI to work.  I’ve seen such an update work for a Time Warner cable box.  That customer was lucky Time Warner had an update available.  Just this week I saw a homeowner pay out an additional $580 for a component video and analog audio solution because the necessary firmware update, to get HDMI to work between his Fios box and his TV, isn’t yet available.  The customer is out $580 while the installer spent 8 hours of unpaid labor trying an HDMI amplifier, failed firmware updates, the suggestions of three tech support departments, and various other solutions since repressed by his tormented mind.

But wait—it gets better.  Indications are that component video outputs—which reliably give high-definition (i.e. 1080i) resolution—are being phased out.  This means you may not see them anymore on DVD players or cable boxes or satellite boxes or on A/V receivers.  Furthermore, even if they are present on future products, they will not output HD signals!  And, if you do install HDMI cable and if it does work now, it’s likely still not the kind of HDMI cable that you need to pass full resolution 3D video—OK, you may not care—or that you need to carry the Internet.  I know of only one vendor of such cable.  For those of you pre-wiring your walls, one solution to all this mess is to make sure your a/v designer specs high quality data cable to handle your high resolution audio and video needs, as well as your networking needs.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in 3D, Audio Formats, Displays, HDMI, Low voltage pre-wire, Surround Sound | No Comments »

Is 3D Video What Surround Sound Has Been Waiting For?

June 11th, 2010

Seeing Avatar in 3D in Imax—film not digital, I didn’t want to chance it—was a singular event in my visual entertainment experience.  Seated about 25 feet from a 72.6ft x 52.8ft screen, the experience was akin to being in the scenes myself.  More accurately, it was good enough for the willing suspension of disbelief.  No other 3D I’ve seen is close to being that good.  The technology got out of the way so that the illusion was maintained.  No projectiles were flying at me, for one thing.  This was not gimmicky 3D.  And no aspect of what I was seeing, 3D wise, didn’t seem true.  Minor distortion on fast moving objects was the only visual cue that fell short—and I was looking hard for something to fault.  I did feel dizzy for about 2 minutes when I first donned the 3D glasses, and the image went dark for about a second when I first put the glasses on.

So unobtrusive seemed the 3D that I thought I could easily slip into the same presentation for any drama or documentary.  That is, this wasn’t 3D solely for movement and action– this was better than that.  This was simply a better way to get into a story, because I felt like I was at the story.  I want more of it.

About 3 weeks ago I saw a Mitsubishi DLP display a 3D video game.  It was a good 3D effect, but nothing like the theatrical experience that I had.  The screen needs to be a lot bigger, is what I thought—it was about 65”.  Some days later I saw a 3D demo disc playing on a 65” Panasonic plasma.  Impressive though it was when compared to 2D TV, it was artificial in pretty much the same way as a stereoscope (e.g. the View-Master toy).   I’m not saying I wouldn’t want to watch programming that way, but it was way behind Avatar in Imax 3D.

How far out into the future are we talking about, to get the Avatar experience in the home?  I’ve not seen any other theatrically projected 3D, but by all accounts Avatar is uniquely good.  I think I’d feel better for the prospects of the Avatar experience in our homes if Avatar wasn’t so alone in its quality.  Home projector manufacturers are also disturbingly short on information about when they’ll be selling 3D machines.

Are there some steps in the right direction?  Sure.  Widescreen Review magazine reports that Hollywood already released 16 major 3D titles in 2009.   A search of 3D movies at Blu-ray.com turns up about 19 3D titles, representing a mix of discs available now or available for pre-order or scheduled for release sometime this year.  DirecTV just updated their customers’ receivers—automatically—to receive HD.  DirecTV says they will be showing 25 World Cup games in 3D.  They say that this month will see the launch of 4 3D channels.  Comcast says they’ll be showing up to 25 World Cup games in 3D via ESPN3D—presumably the same games and network as DirecTV is offering.  And, 3D flat panel TVs and Blu-ray players are for sale now, and at prices lower than when flat panel and Blu-ray debuted.

Wouldn’t that be something if video reproduction got as realistic as audio reproduction?  Am I the only one who thinks the juxtaposition of surround sound with a 2D screen is so incongruous that it’s distracting?

I know—them’s fightin’ words!

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , ,
Posted in 3D, Audio Formats, Displays, Stereo | No Comments »

Beatles Remastered Vinyl On Its Way

January 3rd, 2010

Beatles remastered vinyl is on its way!  (http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/beatles_vinyl_remasters_on_the.html)  Consider that the Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MFSL) vinyl pressing of Magical Mystery Tour trumps the remastered mono CD of 2009.  I compared them today.  Speak with your hands cupped around your mouth–like you’re trying to beam your voice–and that’s the sound of the new mono CD.  Speak without your hands at your mouth–that’s the sound of the record.  Maybe with the new vinyl pressings we can get sound at least as good as the MFSL vinyl pressings, but the mono versions.  That would be something.  I wonder if it’s even possible, given how the master tapes have aged.  The MFSL pressings were done in the 80′s, when the tapes were 20 plus years younger.

For more on the Beatles remasters go to http://www.dhaudioandhometheater.com/blog/category/music-review/

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Audio Formats, Mono, Music Review, Stereo | No Comments »

“You’ll put those speakers in here over my dead body!”

September 14th, 2009

For about 90% of the custom installations I’ve seen, hiding the gear is the name of the game. When you think about it, one of the reasons flat TVs are so popular is because they’re “hiding” that deep TV tube we all used to put up with.  Similarly, most people would like the cable box, DVD player, A/V receiver, and whatever else, hidden.  Oh sure, there’s the exception.  There are the folks who want to enjoy the pretty lights on their A/V receiver, or those who want to savor the fine finish on their speakers.  But, in the custom installation marketplace, these people are rare.  So, for those of you in the vast majority, following are some solutions for making all that gear disappear from view.

 

stereo
This traditional set-up, with speakers out in the open and a deep TV, is not for everyone.

 

Hiding Components (e.g. DVD players, CD players, radio tuners, amplifiers, A/V receivers, cable boxes, etc.)

A common solution is to hide the components in a cabinet with doors.

 

cabinetwithdoors

 

Some users will avoid this because they’re worried that their remotes will no longer work.  But, remote operation is maintained with remote repeater systems, starting at around $300.

Closets or basements may also be used to hide gear.  Just remember, if you have to load it (e.g. DVD player) or read it (e.g. Sirius tuner) then provide a convenient location.  This might mean a putting a DVD player close to the TV but hiding a receiver in a nearby closet.

 

Siriushometuner
Many tuners will display station numbers and song information, and so should be placed where they can be seen.

 

Hiding Speakers

Between the listener and the loudspeakers there should be nothing.  Within the confines of that one rule, you have a huge number of placement options.  For those who want absolutely no visibility, speakers that are designed to live behind paint or wallpaper are the solution.  (www.stealthacoustics.com) More often, homeowners are happy enough with flush mounted speakers in their walls or ceilings.  These come with white grills that may be painted or stained.

 

In-ceiling speaker with frame.
In-ceiling speaker with frame.

 

Some grills are even frameless, for an extremely clean look.  (www.sonance.com)

 

Frameless in-ceiling speaker.
Frameless in-ceiling speaker.

 

System designers will often use ceiling speakers that are the same size as the ceiling can lights, for a symmetrical, orderly look to the ceiling.  Still other speakers look like works of art, so they may be “hidden” in plain sight.

 

gallofloorstanding
http://www.roundsound.com/reference-strada.htm

 

Other speakers look like planters.

 

MadisonFieldingplanter
http://www.planterspeakers.com/

 

And still other speakers are recessed into furniture, shelves, or walls, and covered with acoustically transparent fabric.

 

On-wall speakers with color matched fabric.
On-wall speakers with color matched fabric.
On-wall shelf with built-in speakers.
On-wall shelf with built-in speakers.
Built-in speakers beneath art. The art is made of braids and is hiding a projection screen. Cabinet by www.rngcabinetshop.com
Built-in speakers beneath art. The art is made of braids and is hiding a projection screen. Cabinet by www.rngcabinetshop.com

 

Subwoofers are made that go in floors, walls, and ceilings.  However, the best performing subwoofers sit out on the floor.  This can make some people unhappy.  Once again, a good carpenter can come to the rescue.

subwooferwithcustomcover

Custom cabinet concealing a subwoofer.

 

TVs, Projectors, Screens

Cabinets with doors or with built-in lifts have long been popular for concealing TVs.

 

 

TV lift in a cabinet.
TV lift in a cabinet.

 

 

And, if you’ve got the room above your ceiling, you can put your TV or your projector on a lift.

 

 

Ceiling TV lift.
Ceiling TV lift.

 

TV’s may also be hidden on pop-up lifts that live under your bed.

 

TV lift under bed.
TV lift under bed. www.mk1studio.com

 

Mirrors or paintings may also be used to hide TVs.

 

TV/Mirror
TV/Mirror. www.ad-notam.com

 

This bathroom mirror (above) conceals the TV when the TV is off.

The TV (below) gets concealed by a motorized painting.  Or, paintings may be put on hinges and swung out of the way for viewing.

 

 

Three consecutive photos show how the painting drops down to hide the TV screen.
Three consecutive photos show how the painting drops down to hide the TV screen.

 

Projector screens might be hidden behind walls or above the ceiling (see below).

 

Screens may be recessed into ceilings.
Screens may be recessed into ceilings.

 

Often, screen casings will be mounted to the wall or ceiling but be concealed behind some decorative fabric suspended from the ceiling.

REMOTE CONTROLS

As long as they remain hand-operated, remote controls must be out in the open because they need to be touched.   There is no real hiding this part of your system.  But, the programmable remote controls enable one to hide many other things.  For instance, instead of several remotes sitting on the coffee table, there can be one programmable remote. You can hide the other remotes in a drawer.

 

UniversalRemote
Universal Remote Control

 

Instead of a bank of light switches and a security system keypad and an audio system keypad, there can be one in-wall touch screen controller that acts as all of those things.

 

This wall is cluttered with switches and controls.
This wall is cluttered with switches and controls.

 

One automated touchscreen controller can replace a host of unsightly controls.
One touchscreen controller can replace a host of buttons and knobs.

 

Then, those devices that would have been making your walls ugly may get hidden in a closet wall.

As you can imagine, a lot of planning is required to implement the above solutions effectively.  Contact your local audio/visual specialist (www.dhaudioandhometheater.com) for help.  ■

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Automation, Displays, Home Automation, Stereo, Surround Sound | No Comments »

Surround Sound or Stereo?

July 14th, 2009

Often I’ll meet clients who say that they want surround sound.  After probing further I realize that they don’t know what surround sound is.  Fair enough. Surround sound is simply what’s been sold to them.  They get bombarded with advertising touting surround sound, and it gets promoted very well in the movie theaters right before the picture starts.  You may have seen this.  THX, a company involved in establishing surround sound standards, runs strikingly bold and clear sound clips coming from all around the theater, or maybe just to the side or just behind you.  There is an organ like sound that ramps up in volume and contains a low rumble, there is the sound of glass breaking, and the one I find most impressive, the baby crying.  The first time I heard it I thought that there was a real baby in the movie theater.  Anyway, it’s only natural that clients assume surround sound is what they’ll be buying.  Stereo is their other option, and so I explain that as well.

Surround sound is designed to provide a sound-field in front of you, to your sides, and behind you.  It can also recreate a sound above you.  (This is used to creepy effect in the movie, The Others, where footsteps can be heard as if coming from the room above you.)   Most all modern movie soundtracks are recorded for surround sound.  Very little music is recorded in surround sound.

Typically, a surround sound system uses five speakers and a subwoofer, and when the room is long, seven speakers and a subwoofer.  Three speakers are installed along the wall with the TV–this wall is referred to as the front wall. These include a center speaker, which is above or below the screen, and then a speaker to the left (i.e. the viewer’s left) and a speaker to the right of the screen.   One or two pair of speakers are installed along the side and/or rear walls.  The goal of surrounding you with sound in all directions is to immerse you in the sonic environment that is suggested by what you’re seeing on the screen.  That is, if a character shoots an arrow into the camera, the whooshing sound of the arrow traveling towards the camera and then continuing behind the camera will be handled by the surround system. To the listener, it sounds like the arrow travels from the front of the room to the rear of the room.  Such blatant use of surround sound happens frequently in action movies, while in dramas its application is subtle.  For a scene of a couple strolling through a city park, for instance, the surround system might play traffic and bird noises in the surround speakers (i.e. side wall and rear wall speakers), again to immerse you in the sonic environment that is suggested by the film’s scene.  If explosions (i.e. action movie) or bird chirps (i.e. drama) happening behind you sounds fun, surround sound may be for you.  Most avid action movie fans get surround sound.

The alternative to surround sound is stereo sound.  Stereo systems require a front left and front right speaker.  Stereo creates a sound-field that, more or less, is shaped like a performance stage that is situated in front of you–as if you’re sitting in a stage theater.  (Surround sound recreates this same performance stage, but it adds the ability to place sounds to the sides and behind the listener.) The front edge of the stereo soundstage corresponds to an imaginary line drawn between the fronts of your two speakers.  The left side of the stage corresponds to an imaginary line drawn from the left side of your left speaker straight back through your front wall. The right side of the imaginary stage corresponds to an imaginary line drawn from the right side of your right speaker straight back through your front wall.

For a listener sitting equidistant between the left and right speakers, and at least as far away from the speakers as the speakers are from each other, a three-dimensional sound-field is reproduced.   That is, sounds are recreated pretty much anywhere within the boundaries of the imaginary stage.  The voice of an actress standing in the center of the screen will sound as if it’s coming from right between your speakers.  If she should step ten feet straight back and three feet to the left then her voice will sound like it’s ten feet behind your speakers—yes, even if your front wall is only 3 feet behind the speakers—and three feet left of center.

Now, for listeners not seated equidistant from the left and right speakers, sounds still seem to come from this imaginary stage area, but the sounds’ locations are skewed towards whichever speaker is closer.  These locations are not the ones the recording engineer intended.  Think again about the actor speaking from center-stage.  The listener who is seated equidistant between the speakers will hear that voice coming from center stage—as intended.  Listeners seated closer to the right speaker will hear that actors voice coming from somewhere to right of where the actor is standing.  Truth be told, only audiophiles care about this sort of spatial accuracy.

Most people could have their speakers on the left wall and their TV in front of them and it wouldn’t detract from their enjoyment.  At drive-in movie theaters the speaker is hung on the car window and the screen is a couple of hundred feet in front of the windshield.  It sounds weird for about the first minute—if that—and then the viewer’s brain puts the sound where the visual is.  Our brains are good that way.

By the way, if you’re one of the few who do care about spatial location then you’ll want to be sure and have a listening spot that is precisely located—even for a surround sound system.  Ask your system designer to find that spot for you if you’re not sure.  Interestingly, when in this spot, a stereo system will place surround effects (e.g. as in action movies) behind you.

OK, so there you have an explanation of surround sound and stereo sound. These systems are all about manipulating where we perceive the sound coming from.  These systems have nothing to do with the inherent realism of the sound.  (i.e. whether a violin sounds like a violin or a voice like a voice).   A system’s ability to properly place sound is not important to most people in the market for home theater.  Here are some facts that they do find interesting.

Given a particular budget, the stereo system will be higher quality than the surround sound system.*  We’re talking about bass that is deeper and more articulate, the ability for the system to sound clear at low and high volumes, and the ability of the system to recreate the musical dynamics faithfully (i.e. let the sound rise and fall in volume in proper proportion, rather than in a compressed fashion).  That the stereo should sound better than the comparably priced surround system is opposite what many consumers think.

For one, it’s assumed that surround sound is inherently superior to stereo sound.  This assumption is natural, because surround sound has more speakers and more is assumed to be better.  And, in fairness, more is better, in theory.  But, remember the condition about the fixed budget. If you have $500 to spend on stereo speakers, you are spending $250 per speaker.  If you have $500 to spend on surround speakers, you have $100 to spend on each speaker.  Which speaker do you think stands to be better, the one that cost $250 or the one that cost $100?

Now, one might argue that surrounding the listener with five $100 speakers makes up for the fact that they are inferior to the two $250 speakers, which are only in front of the listener.  One might argue that while the $100 speaker doesn’t recreate as natural sounding a human voice as the $250 speaker, the fact that there is a rear speaker at all, one that can create the illusion of the voice coming from behind you as the director of that haunted house movie wanted, makes the five $100 speaker system better than the two $250 speaker system.  That’s a valid point of view, at least for such movies (e.g. thrillers, action movies).

For music playback, not so much.  Nearly all music is recorded for playback in stereo (i.e. with a front left and a front right speaker only).  For dramas, not so much either, as the surround speakers (i.e. the ones on our side and rear walls) are going to be playing ambient noises only.  Unless you value those ambient noises more than the absolute true-to-life fidelity of the sound in general, you’d want the two $250 speakers over the five $100 speakers.

This particular equipment difference, that of two speakers for a stereo system versus five for a surround system, isn’t the only difference.  Your dollar is also getting spread thinner in the surround sound system because you have to buy amplification for five speakers instead of amplification for two speakers.  Again, given the arbitrary amount of $500 for amplification—amplification is often addressed when one buys the audio/video receiver, for instance—which amplifier do you think will be higher quality, the amplifier that has to power five speakers or the one that has to power two speakers?  In the case of the surround system, we have $100 of amplification for each speaker.  In the case of the stereo system we have $250 of amplification for each speaker.  Chances are, that stereo amplifier is going to sound better than that surround sound amplifier.

Oh yes, the surround sound system requires that your budget be spread thinner still, as it requires a surround sound decoder—again, this is being paid for when you buy the audio/video receiver.  There is no such expense in the stereo system.  In the stereo system these dollars are therefore available for better speakers, amplification, DVD player, etc.

Also, the labor cost of installing a surround sound speaker system is at least 2.5x greater than it is for installing a stereo system.  Five speakers are 2.5x greater in number than two speakers.  Also, you have to pay an installer to calibrate a surround sound decoder.  There is no surround sound decoder in a stereo system.

After I explain the pros and cons of stereo and surround, I’d say about one-half of the people who come to me thinking that they’re going to be buying a surround sound system wind up buying a stereo.  Either way, the goal is to make sure that you’re spending your own dollars to your best advantage.  An audio/video company with experienced system designers can help you do this.

*One area where stereo’s superiority is called into question is in the area of dialog intelligibility.   While I have personally have not had a problem in this area, some believe that when a 5.1 sound track (i.e. most modern movies on DVD) is played back through stereo speakers, dialog intelligibility suffers as compared to when a center speaker is used.  For those so concerned, but who still want quality sound over surround sound, a solution is to invest in the surround sound receiver, but buy only a left, center, and right speaker (i.e. no rear speakers).

I suspect that this issue is more likely to arise when the soundtrack contains sound happening simulaneously with the dialog.  Action movies fit this bill, which could be why I don’t have this problem.  If you’re an action movie fan, you probably want surround sound anyway.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Stereo, Surround Sound | No Comments »

Newer Entries »