Why does my TV sound more real?

[Kingrex]

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.

That's exactly what everyone's concern is. I stumbled on this too. A good friend has it. Does not hear it. 20 people on the whatsapp thread have it. Non so far say they hear it. Hear, as in it drawing down their sound. Those that are a little better funded and feel their system is beyond the Mac Mini version step up to the Adio or higher. Most every one of those people sell their Playback design or some such DAC as the internal one is better in the Adio and higher. So now your at a server to the Adio to your preamp. Lots of people have sold their MSB Select.

If you are able to hear the BACCH4MAC the fact that the phase, timing, room impulse and frequency are far more correct overshadow any perceived additional interface. Sub integration is far easier too. You basically turn off the controls on the sub and let the software in the BACCH handle it. The software is light years ahead of anything that was made in the past.
When I get my new house and room built out, I will get one. I held off in the past as I have a business that benefits 0 by having it. And I knew this move was coming and wanted to keep my life simple in anticipation of the move. I have been selling off all I can that I don't use now.

 

[PYP]

That's exactly what everyone's concern is. I stumbled on this too. A good friend has it. Does not hear it. 20 people on the whatsapp thread have it. Non so far say they hear it. Hear, as in it drawing down their sound. Those that are a little better funded and feel their system is beyond the Mac Mini version step up to the Adio or higher. Most every one of those people sell their Playback design or some such DAC as the internal one is better in the Adio and higher. So now your at a server to the Adio to your preamp. Lots of people have sold their MSB Select.

If you are able to hear the BACCH4MAC the fact that the phase, timing, room impulse and frequency are far more correct overshadow any perceived additional interface. Sub integration is far easier too. You basically turn off the controls on the sub and let the software in the BACCH handle it. The software is light years ahead of anything that was made in the past.
When I get my new house and room built out, I will get one. I held off in the past as I have a business that benefits 0 by having it. And I knew this move was coming and wanted to keep my life simple in anticipation of the move. I have been selling off all I can that I don't use now.

I suppose I would need to hear it to understand whether it would work for me. What I've been reading seems to indicate that the software creates a more realistic soundstage, almost a kind of surround sound experience. That doesn't interest me because that, per se, doesn't pull me into the music (perhaps I'm one of the few who are wired this way). Rather, anything that allows me to hear the true timbre of an instrument and the communication among musicians (mostly listening to jazz) would be desirable.

 

[Kingrex]

I suppose I would need to hear it to understand whether it would work for me. What I've been reading seems to indicate that the software creates a more realistic soundstage, almost a kind of surround sound experience. That doesn't interest me because that, per se, doesn't pull me into the music (perhaps I'm one of the few who are wired this way). Rather, anything that allows me to hear the true timbre of an instrument and the communication among musicians (mostly listening to jazz) would be desirable.

Agree. That is also a part of why I did not jump on a early adopter. The ORC room correction software was a add that came about a month ago. My friend Bob has done extensive work to his room. He is good at tuning. He has a beam under the floor to stiffen it. Audio curtains. ASC tube traps. 2 SVS premium subs. Extensive work with vibration control under his gear. He said the room correction cleaned up some frequency issues he could not correct with room and speaker adjustments.

I am bias. I would correct the electrical power first. That does something equipment can not do. I would also work on the room and racking. After I had the system tuned as well as possible, I would try the BACCH. Having said that. If you can not tune the room due to it being a living room, then the BACCH is going to be more a positive impact. If you get everyting as good as can be, then it's going to be more an icing.

I personally will get it to run my subs. From there I will experiment with the rest of the system. I don't know how far it will go in my system. It might stop there. It may go to the digital. It may go the the vinyl. Not sure till I have one.

 

[thedudeabides]

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.

Hi,

IMO, I think it is inappropriate and presumptuous to come to any negative conclusions based on the OP's comments. Unfortunately, we live in a society where jugement of other's words and actions are far to common. This attitude is rampant on internet forums, including WBF. A little kindness, respect and empathy can go a long way and help make the world a better place to be. Post No. 25 is a superb example. Something you may wish to think about.

 

[Another Johnson]

Hi,

IMO, I think it is inappropriate and presumptuous to come to any negative conclusions based on the OP's comments. Unfortunately, we live in a society where jugement of other's words and actions are far to common. This attitude is rampant on internet forums, including WBF. A little kindness, respect and empathy can go a long way and help make the world a better place to be. Post No. 25 is a superb example. Something you may wish to think about.

Judgement and reading comprehension aren’t the same in this case.

You could take some of your own advice rather than virtue signal.

As for the OP, I really think the Bravia’s room compensation is probably a factor … but this only reinforces the idea that working on the two channel system makes sense.

 

[Rensselaer]

Judgement and reading comprehension aren’t the same in this case.

You could take some of your own advice rather than virtue signal.

As for the OP, I really think the Bravia’s room compensation is probably a factor … but this only reinforces the idea that working on the two channel system makes sense.

You‘re like a dog with a bone, or is that a Troll with a bone?

 

[thedudeabides]

Judgement and reading comprehension aren’t the same in this case.

Never said anything about reading comprehension. Whatever. I try not to argue. A negative thing to do in my simple view. Be happy.

 

[Rexp]

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?

I remember watching Susan Boyle singing Wild Horses on a UK talent show years ago, the performance really touched me. I was never able to recreate that emotion via the CD at home (no surprise) but like you, I was astonished live TV sound could be so good. The performance is on YouTube but like all YouTube content it doesn't have the resolution to be truly engaging.

 

[Rensselaer]

I remember watching Susan Boyle singing Wild Horses on a UK talent show years ago, the performance really touched me. I was never able to recreate that emotion via the CD at home (no surprise) but like you, I was astonished live TV sound could be so good. The performance is on YouTube but like all YouTube content it doesn't have the resolution to be truly engaging.

I believe Al M. #3 response could very well be onto something when he says that the visual part of TV has an effect on the mind that allows it to fill in what isn’t there. Guesswork here, but it sounds logical as a contributing factor.

 

[Rexp]

I believe Al M. #3 response could very well be onto something when he says that the visual part of TV has an effect on the mind that allows it to fill in what isn’t there. Guesswork here, but it sounds logical as a contributing factor.

No I don't think so, you heard superior sound, right? And the in example I gave, I watched both the live show and the YouTube recording so ...

If you can find a recording on YouTube of the live show you watched (which was it btw) that would be an interesting comparison.

 

[Rensselaer]

I remember watching Susan Boyle singing Wild Horses on a UK talent show years ago, the performance really touched me. I was never able to recreate that emotion via the CD at home (no surprise) but like you, I was astonished live TV sound could be so good. The performance is on YouTube but like all YouTube content it doesn't have the resolution to be truly engaging.

What is the difference in “resolution” between TV and Youtube?

JackD201 pointed out that Youtube sound was 300ish mbps MP3 (I think he meant to say 300ish kbps but we know what he meant). CD puts out 1411ish kbps, but I never thought the sound from CD any more “real” sounding than MP-3. I never thought digitally manipulated music sounded “real”, until I heard the more recent MoFi Ultradiscs recorded in 256 DSD (Or higher). I am not saying that these match pure analogue in spacial clues and emotion, but they can at times reproduce a very “real”-sounding tone and timbre.

This is what I had noticed from my TV at times. I know the TV is digital of some sort, but what sort and what sampling rate (and other tricks) are employed to make the tone of voice and instruments sound more “real” and emotive?

Another Johnson, in addition to his unhelpful suggestion that if I am not getting “real“-sounding tones from my Original Source records (I believe secondary to their processing down from quadraphonic to stereo) because there is something wrong with my two channel rig, makes a potentially useful point that the Bravia I own is good at adjusting the sound for the room when first set up. I think that might help prevent smearing from cancellations secondary to room reflections, but would that make accoustic instrument and human voice tones more “real” and emotive?

Others have either agreed (or mentioned friends who believe) that violins and such can sound very “real” from modern TV, better than Youtube videos (despite one being able to see the musician playing on both), and so no longer a question of “does anybody else notice this” but rather “what accounts for this”?

 

[Rexp]

What is the difference in “resolution” between TV and Youtube?

JackD201 pointed out that Youtube sound was 300ish mbps MP3 (I think he meant to say 300ish kbps but we know what he meant). CD puts out 1411ish kbps, but I never thought the sound from CD any more “real” sounding than MP-3. I never thought digitally manipulated music sounded “real”, until I heard the more recent MoFi Ultradiscs recorded in 256 DSD (Or higher). I am not saying that these match pure analogue in spacial clues and emotion, but they can at times reproduce a very “real”-sounding tone and timbre.

This is what I had noticed from my TV at times. I know the TV is digital of some sort, but what sort and what sampling rate (and other tricks) are employed to make the tone of voice and instruments sound more “real” and emotive?

Another Johnson, in addition to his unhelpful suggestion that if I am not getting “real“-sounding tones from my Original Source records (I believe secondary to their processing down from quadraphonic to stereo) because there is something wrong with my two channel rig, makes a potentially useful point that the Bravia I own is good at adjusting the sound for the room when first set up. I think that might help prevent smearing from cancellations secondary to room reflections, but would that make accoustic instrument and human voice tones more “real” and emotive?

Others have either agreed (or mentioned friends who believe) that violins and such can sound very “real” from modern TV, better than Youtube videos (despite one being able to see the musician playing on both), and so no longer a question of “does anybody else notice this” but rather “what accounts for this”?

Some TV stations stream at 320 kbps, whereas YouTube is 128 kbps. I haven't done a AB comparison but that maybe a big factor. The other major factor is the TV programme is live so the sound hasn't been messed up by a mixing/mastering engineer.

 

[Kingrex]

All the huff made me dial up Vivaldi 4 seasons on my stereo and on youtube on my TV. There is no comparison at all. My stereo is light years better. The TV is a Panasonic Plasma. Still going. The TV is compressed and lacks dynamics as well as frequency extension. The TV is fine for vocals. But sucks for music. There isn't much for anyone to speculate about. Try it for yourself. If someone has a TV that rivals their stereo, I would like to know the model. I may need a new one soon. In truth, I will probably get a projector for my new room. I want to be able to set the stereo where it wants to sit. Far easier to mount a screen to the ceiling where I want rather than setting a flatscreen some space.

 

[PYP]

All the huff made me dial up Vivaldi 4 seasons on my stereo and on youtube on my TV. There is no comparison at all. My stereo is light years better. The TV is a Panasonic Plasma. Still going. The TV is compressed and lacks dynamics as well as frequency extension. The TV is fine for vocals. But sucks for music. There isn't much for anyone to speculate about. Try it for yourself. If someone has a TV that rivals their stereo, I would like to know the model. I may need a new one soon. In truth, I will probably get a projector for my new room. I want to be able to set the stereo where it wants to sit. Far easier to mount a screen to the ceiling where I want rather than setting a flatscreen some space.

I wonder if the different experiences boils down whether the TV or soundbar has a DSP function. And whether the built-in/soundbar speakers provide enough midrange bloom, softened HF and somewhat indistinct bass to gloss over any problems in the sound delivered. Perhaps when our brains are actively engaged in the visual image and key in on the midrange, chances are improved for an enjoyable experience.

If one wants "nice" sound, perhaps that is good enough. But does it really sound like a real instrument? Consider the sound of the flute, for example. On the TV does it sound rounded? To get a realistic sound takes a lot of work, if that is your objective. And if you don't get it just right, you might prefer the rounded version.

 

[thedudeabides]

No I don't think so, you heard superior sound, right? And the in example I gave, I watched both the live show and the YouTube recording so ...

If you can find a recording on YouTube of the live show you watched (which was it btw) that would be an interesting comparison.

So are you saying you will not be more emotionally connected when you see a video with artist playing versus listening to same material without video? Confused.

 

[mtemur]

This is what I had noticed from my TV at times. I know the TV is digital of some sort, but what sort and what sampling rate (and other tricks) are employed to make the tone of voice and instruments sound more “real” and emotive?

I knew this is going to end up at sampling frequency as it has always been the case when digital in question. I know we are not questioning digital here cause this has nothing to do with digital or analog as well as sampling frequency, bit rate etc. I don’t think higher sampling frequency will solve this issue.

Another Johnson, in addition to his unhelpful suggestion that if I am not getting “real“-sounding tones from my Original Source records (I believe secondary to their processing down from quadraphonic to stereo) because there is something wrong with my two channel rig, makes a potentially useful point that the Bravia I own is good at adjusting the sound for the room when first set up. I think that might help prevent smearing from cancellations secondary to room reflections, but would that make accoustic instrument and human voice tones more “real” and emotive?

I don’t think anything is wrong with your two channel rig. I mean I don’t think your’s is more wrong than our’s, the rest of the people here. I also don’t think Bravia’s room equalizer adjustments help either. I believe the problem is; you having two good ears and courage to admit your tv sounds better than your stereo.

I complained about the out of tune piano sound of Original Source series for a long time and shared it on OS topic. I thought the problem is me cause nobody else complained and I don’t believe I hear better than the others. But since you complained too, now I think there could be something wrong with OS series or at least some of the releases.

I understand how you feel because I feel the same way every time I hear 2021 macbook pro 16”. It renders instruments faithfully.

 

[Rexp]

So are you saying you will not be more emotionally connected when you see a video with artist playing versus listening to same material without video? Confused.

No, I will be affected by the visual element but it's not always the determining factor and to check this one can listen to a video without watching it.

 

[Rensselaer]

I knew this is going to end up at sampling frequency as it has always been the case when digital in question. I know we are not questioning digital here cause this has nothing to do with digital or analog as well as sampling frequency, bit rate etc. I don’t think higher sampling frequency will solve this issue.

I don’t think anything is wrong with your two channel rig. I mean I don’t think your’s is more wrong than our’s, the rest of the people here. I also don’t think Bravia’s room equalizer adjustments help either. I believe the problem is; you having two good ears and courage to admit your tv sounds better than your stereo.

I complained about the out of tune piano sound of Original Source series for a long time and shared it on OS topic. I thought the problem is me cause nobody else complained and I don’t believe I hear better than the others. But since you complained too, now I think there could be something wrong with OS series or at least some of the releases.

I understand how you feel because I feel the same way every time I hear 2021 macbook pro 16”. It renders instruments faithfully.

I don’t think it is that you and I hear any better than anyone else, but differently perhaps. I am now certain that many people on this website can not hear a difference between digital and analogue, which is not to say one is any better than the other, just that to some of us, maybe a minority, the more music is processed (in any way), the more unreal it sounds.

Watch, several will now attack me for mentioning a difference between analogue and digital, but that isn’t what I am saying. What I am saying is the more music is processed, the less real it sounds.

To the best of my knowledge, those “Original Source” records are pure analogue, but I do suspect that in the “process” of converting an already edited to four channel ”quadraphonic” master, into a two channel “stereo” master, may be the fact responsible for us finding such less-than-real-sounding.

 

[mtemur]

I don’t think it is that you and I hear any better than anyone else, but differently perhaps.

I agree. Everyone's hearing ability focuses on different property of sound. Some focuses on dynamics, some focuses on depth, separation and some focuses on tone.

 

[Geoffkait]

There are quite a few reasons why TV sound might sound better than a dedicated HiFi system.

1. There are errors in the HiFi system. e.g., out of phase/polarity.
2. There are some inherent problems with playing CDs that produce unnatural tonality, loss of ambient information, loss of coherence including, but not limited to,
- scattered laser light
- internal and external vibration impact on CD system,
- wobble and flutter of the CD while spinning,
- static electric charge buildup on the CD
3. live broadcasts can have a lot of “air” and dimensionality