Why does my TV sound more real?

[Kingrex]

My misunderstanding. I thought you were saying the TV was better than the stereo. That surprised me. But I can see a TV sounding good on its own. My Bose was better than my TV. But when Inwent chasing more expensive options, I was less satisfied and went back to just the TV.

 

[Another Johnson]

Recently, after listening to some Youtube videos of top equipment playing at shows, as well as Youtube videos of SET's (45, 2A3, 300B, 845, 211 and 4212), on my computer, then listening to my own system playing Original Source Deutsche Grammophon records, I shut everything down and went downstairs to watch some TV.

I flipped through the channels and found a channel playing a live concert somewhere and started listening. Damned if those instruments playing on the TV didn't sound more real in tone than everything that I had listened to upstairs (with the one exception being 4212 amplifiers that Uesugi Ken of Otomon Laboratory put on Youtube, but where can you find NOS 4212 valves?). Why is that? What format does Television cameras record sound to? What processors and layout, filters, power supply? What microphones? How is it that music on the TV can sound better?

Your own plain English.

 

[Another Johnson]

My misunderstanding. I thought you were saying the TV was better than the stereo. That surprised me.

That’s exactly what he said. There was no misunderstanding, although I concede that he might not have meant what he literally wrote.

 

[Al M.]

That’s exactly what he said. There was no misunderstanding,

True.

although I concede that he might not have meant what he literally wrote.

 

[mtemur]

That is the complain of two of my friends for years. They say their television and macbook pros sound better than their hi-end setups. Especially piano and vocals. They were trying to figure out the reasons and found out a couple.

- One of the most important reason as @Al M. pointed out is your brain matches sound with vision when you watched it over television. Eyes are the most reliable sensor for brain and when you see the violin plays your brain calibrates what you hear.

- Another reason is lack of bass on tv speakers. When bass is removed from hi-end, full range speakers most of the acoustic instruments start to sound more realistic. For example piano and violin in this case but not drums. I remember my friend's reaction when piano played more real over Watt of his Watt/Puppy 5.1 speakers. Removing Puppy from the chain also removes the bass that covers the midrange like a blanket.

- Another important reason is voicing of hi-end speakers. They're smoothed for long listening. They are voiced to produce better detail on low volume levels which kills impact and presence. Those are two important factors for an instrument to sound real. If you don't believe this try to listen gunshots, car chases, movie dialogs etc over your stereo setup. If you hear easy to believe replication of those sounds with proper impact and presence than your stereo is fine. But it's highly unlikely.

 

[PYP]

The Sonos soundbar on our TV sounds very, very good. It has a program that is run to adjust the sound to the room. What I notice is that it emphasizes midrange bloom, which I believe many of us don't find offensive. In fact, perhaps our ears/brains key into this sound and find it very pleasing (like smoothing the voice of someone who otherwise we find annoying). Meanwhile, the HF is rolled off, thus making lesser material sound less strident than otherwise. The bass just needs to be present in such a setup (we don't use a sub).

Agree that the visual adds a lot because it distracts us from only listening, when we are more discerning and critical of the sound. Some audiophiles say they turn off the lights, shut their eyes, etc. while listening. That is fine, of course, but perhaps you are raising the bar on judging the sound quality (not saying you should instead stare into a blinding white light, for example ).

I haven't tried DSP on my main rig, but the Sonos has made me curious about whether this direction could work well. Maybe not. Without the visual, perhaps my ears would pick up on anything that sounds artificial. When watching the TV, which is not what folks would call critical listening, who cares about artificiality?

If you are going to have a setup with realistic HF and LF, those are difficult to achieve without the room participating with the speakers and room treatments. Most of us, I would think, are limited by our rooms.

In our bedroom, we have a simple Denon receiver/CD player + speakers included by Denon as a set, which is connected to a Logitech Touch (my wife's favorite interface). Whether streaming or playing a CD, my wife preferred this system to our big rig for quite some time. That really helped my understand what was lacking in my setup. And it was a happy day when she no longer listened to the Denon and instead listened to the main setup (and learned how to build playlists in Roon to listen to her favorite music). Of course, when you compare the cost of the Denon to the cost of the main setup, the difference is staggering. But, we have never listened to so much music, therefore it is worth it.

 

[Kingrex]

I once direct coupled my voxativ to my amp. OMG. Best violin I ever heard. Then the piano started and it fell apart. There is more to it as the chokes, caps and resistors are gone. But I get the point.

I believe what your saying about brain and vision. When I close my eyes, Im hyper focused on the music and details. When watching a movies, the music is secondary to the vsion. Or at least my attention is split.

Interesting point on how a TV speaker is focused on the midrange. Accurate voices. And that's right in the violin frequency. And it does not take a lot of energy. The piano and drums are where the TV falls apart. It does not have the range or percussive energy.

I don't think I agree on the hifi speaker being smoothed for long listening. I would take more convincing on that one.

 

[Kingrex]

I haven't tried DSP on my main rig, but the Sonos has made me curious about whether this direction could work well. Maybe not. Without the visual, perhaps my ears would pick up on anything that sounds artificial. When watching the TV, which is not what folks would call critical listening, who cares about artificiality?

Try a BACCH for Mac Mini. With the new ORC software, it's outstanding. Im on the audiophile junkies whatapp group. I hear everyone say it's incredibly simple and extremely effective. Light years past the older Mini DSP SHD type software. And all sorts of curves you can pick. Match your taste. If you have spent any time getting your room correct, it will easily fill in the small issues. A subtle gain, but heard. If you have a nightmare such as a living room with speakers shoved against the wall, it will be night and day better.

 

[Another Johnson]

Seriously, he likes his TV better because the TV has self corrected for the room when it was set up. Bravia does this very well. His main two channel system is very likely poorly matched to the room where it resides.

Q.E.D.

 

[PYP]

Try a BACCH for Mac Mini. With the new ORC software, it's outstanding. Im on the audiophile junkies whatapp group. I hear everyone say it's incredibly simple and extremely effective. Light years past the older Mini DSP SHD type software. And all sorts of curves you can pick. Match your taste. If you have spent any time getting your room correct, it will easily fill in the small issues. A subtle gain, but heard. If you have a nightmare such as a living room with speakers shoved against the wall, it will be night and day better.

Thanks. Not sure how that would work with my Grimm MU1 (server/streamer/Roon endpoint). The most convenient solution might be their plug-in if it ever works with Roon.

I'm quite happy with my current setup but am about to try some new equipment (preamp, MU2 streamer + DAC). Need to make those decisions first (perhaps they both go back to the dealer and I'd consider software).

I've learned that my preferences are: extremely transparent sound (which to me means truthful timbre and tone - to my ears of course) and an effortlessness that allows me to forget the gear and truly listen to the musical conversation taking place. If the BACCH system somehow increased those two, then it would be worth a demo at some point.

 

[cjfrbw]

DAC chips in tv's aren't all that shabby these days, if that is what the TV music is going through, or the digital signal going to an AV receiver.

There was a discussion somewhere about Spotify and how much dynamic range compression as well as bit compression they used for their bandwidth. It seemed to be quite a bit. Somebody compared a concert that was recorded live on You Tube and compared the dynamic range compression and bit compression of a Spotify version of the same, and there was quite a difference. The non-Spotify version from graphs clearly showed much greater dynamic range without the Spotify algorithms.

Somebody said one of the best places to get the least dynamically compressed sound was from You Tube videos of live performances, because they were not generally post processed.

I suppose the same could apply to TV, that you are hearing sound that is not as dynamically compressed as mastering studio sound, and you like it.

So, that was a nice tip, listen to concert performances from You Tube at its highest resolution if you are hunting for non-dynamically compressed performances to hear what that is like.

 

[JackD201]

Youtube and Youtube music use 300ish mbps MP3 which is really more than enough for casual listening. It is tuned to be fuller down low and a bit rolled off up top compared to other non 16/44.1 or higher streaming services. The OP did say he compared a live concert recorded and shown on TV vs youtube SYSTEM videos not videos of live concerts streamed over youtube. I'm not surprised one bit that the concert on TV beats out a phone shot video of a stereo system. Compare these phone shot videos for example against show videos shot my say Moiz Audio who uses dedicated microphones and recorders, huge difference even over laptop speakers.

How can one compare phone microphones which are tiny, face in one direction with heaven knows what polar pattern with that of a full professional production? That and the fact that the peak for any recording engineer, carreer wise, would be to qualify to work on live concert recordings and movie scores.

On the TV end, source aside, you've got bandwidth limited speakers that will interact very little with the room. I still ascribe to the truism that no bass is better than bad bass. That appears to be the case here where formants are mostly what you get and nothing much else. It SHOULD sound more intelligible as the whole industry follows AES/EBU standards which were in turn predated by standards for voice telecommunication. That's not to mention the heavy use of normalization applied to the broadcast signal's source. It may not sound "better " per se, but easier to hear, most definitely!

 

[Folsom]

- Another important reason is voicing of hi-end speakers. They're smoothed for long listening. They are voiced to produce better detail on low volume levels which kills impact and presence. Those are two important factors for an instrument to sound real. If you don't believe this try to listen gunshots, car chases, movie dialogs etc over your stereo setup. If you hear easy to believe replication of those sounds with proper impact and presence than your stereo is fine. But it's highly unlikely.

Movies sometimes are less compressed. It is true they can show whether or not your stereo can take some dynamics, but also not everything dynamic actually sounds loud.

The notion that they are "smoothed" purely for tolerance is ridiculous. A more flat frequency response is accuracy and sounds correct. As far as voicing I do not adhere to the assumption that low level means everything else is sacrificed.

 

[Al M.]

The notion that they are "smoothed" purely for tolerance is ridiculous.

I think some speakers are. Some of the worst offenders were Avalon speakers in the 1990s, with complex high-order crossovers and very low sensitivity. "Correct timbre" but bland as hell. Music as acoustic wallpaper.

I would, however, say that more frequently it is the TV that is "smoothed" courtesy of its dynamic compression and limited frequency response, centered towards the midrange.

more flat frequency response is accuracy and sounds correct.

Of course, in principle, but extension at frequency extremes can also reveal problems with inadequate design and/or room response where sometimes less could be more. The correct route though is obviously fixing the problems, not masking them.

As far as voicing I do not adhere to the assumption that low level means everything else is sacrificed.

Agreed.

 

[Rensselaer]

Your own plain English.

That’s right, it is in plain English. YouTube on the iMac and Original Source on my (apparently crappy) hi fi .

The tone of violins and even piano from my Sony Bravia was more real sounding (truer to tone, not as harsh as the YouTube, more present than the Original Source) from the TV. I posted to see if anyone else out there had noticed similar and knew why, but if you want to take the opportunity to tell us that your system is great and mine is rubbish, fine.

 

[mtemur]

The notion that they are "smoothed" purely for tolerance is ridiculous. A more flat frequency response is accuracy and sounds correct.

A speaker with flat frequency response can also be smooth sounding or smoothed. Two different things. I don't know what makes you think that I meant non-flat frequency response by the word "smoothed".

 

[Rensselaer]

I said all the YouTube vids sounded worse (as far as tone realness) than my t.v., that is except for a 4212 SET amp built by Ken Uesugi and demonstrated on his Otomon labs website :

That video of the 4212 SET amps playing a recording of electric piano and cello, despite being recorded to a phone and posted on youtube, sounds more real in tone to me than the rest of his videos, and to nearly every other youtube vid I have heard (better than any t.v. I have heard too).

Disclaimer: Please note, I am not saying it sounds better than anyone’s home stereo, including mine.

 

[mtemur]

I said all the YouTube vids sounded worse (as far as tone realness) than my t.v., that is except for a 4212 SET amp built by Ken Uesugi and demonstrated on his Otomon labs website :

That video of the 4212 SET amps playing a recording of electric piano and cello, despite being recorded to a phone and posted on youtube, sounds more real in tone to me than the rest of his videos, and to nearly every other youtube vid I have heard (better than any t.v. I have heard too).

Disclaimer: Please note, I am not saying it sounds better than anyone’s home stereo, including mine.

I listened 212 SET amps for many hours with different speakers. And with old stock STC 4212 tubes. They're different make and model than the ones in the video and they sounded impressive but I wouldn't lust for them. Actually I prefer audio tubes over transmitting tubes.

 

[Kingrex]

Thanks. Not sure how that would work with my Grimm MU1 (server/streamer/Roon endpoint). The most convenient solution might be their plug-in if it ever works with Roon.

I'm quite happy with my current setup but am about to try some new equipment (preamp, MU2 streamer + DAC). Need to make those decisions first (perhaps they both go back to the dealer and I'd consider software).

I've learned that my preferences are: extremely transparent sound (which to me means truthful timbre and tone - to my ears of course) and an effortlessness that allows me to forget the gear and truly listen to the musical conversation taking place. If the BACCH system somehow increased those two, then it would be worth a demo at some point.

There is a device that comes with it called a Babyface Pro. You plug the Grim into it. The DAC into it. The BACCH is also tied to it.
It will be more clean and clear with better soundstage. The ORC software will reduce all phase and timing issues. The BACCH will expand the soundstage by eliminating the crosstalk. A lot of people use it with vinyl. I'm not sure about that. But its a no brainer with digital. Complete its about $7k. Not a lot.

 

[wil]

There is a device that comes with it called a Babyface Pro. You plug the Grim into it. The DAC into it. The BACCH is also tied to it.
It will be more clean and clear with better soundstage. The ORC software will reduce all phase and timing issues. The BACCH will expand the soundstage by eliminating the crosstalk. A lot of people use it with vinyl. I'm not sure about that. But its a no brainer with digital. Complete its about $7k. Not a lot.

As I understand, beingz that the Baach is Mac only software, you would have to run it through a Mac mini and then the babyface and then your dac.

So, a much more complicated system with many more connections that might have sonic costs involved.

The Baach plus ORC is interesting, but adding more interfaces and conversions is a bridge too far for me.

If they ever produce a Windows version I might want to check it out.