I've been searching for a great sounding speaker system for
computer use (Pc & MacBook Pro in the near future). I mainly want it for
music, it will also be used for movies & games since I have a 40"
connected to my pc. I've heard a bunch of systems, but nothing stands out of
the crowd (I like to hear all sounds in a track as recorded). I ended
up deciding on the (Axiom Audio Audiobytes and EPZero Subwoofer) till I read
your review of them. What is your choice since I do listen to Trance & Hip
Hop and do a little mixing? I noticed you like the Klipsch 2.1. Is that your
favorite choice? I don't mind spending around $500 if the system is well worth
it.
My preferred PC speakers are the Klipsch ProMedia 5.1, which Klipsch discontinued way back in 2003. I have
tested several systems since then, including the Axiom AudiBytes and Logitech’s
Z5500 5.1 THX system, and I still prefer the old Klipsch. The Klipsch ProMedia
2.1 system looks similar to the 5.1 in photos, but it is not even close in terms of
specifications. The speakers have different frequency response ranges,
different maximum output levels, and different materials. The 2.1 subwoofer is
much smaller and has a completely different configuration. As soon as I find a
speaker system that beats the Klipsch I’ll write about them – and probably ask
to buy the review samples – but thus far I haven’t.
Avi, We want to buy a 37" LCD TV. Is there a significant
difference between 720P and 1080P?
Yes, there is a significant difference between 720p and 1080p –
though it depends on what you’re watching on it, and even then you may not be
able to see the difference. The bottom line is that you can almost always
get away with buying a 720p set and saving the money, but nobody seems to
believe this answer, so here’s a slightly more involved one:
First, two quick definitions:
1.the
“p” in 1080P or 720P = progressive, where the signal has information in every
horizontal line, just like a computer monitor.
2.the
“i” in 1080i = interlaced, where the signal alternates horizontal lines
similar to the way an analog TV works – the information alternates fast enough
that you usually can’t tell the difference.
Now you need to answer two questions:
What are you watching? (You want to be able to display all the
information that your signal contains, but how much information is actually in
that signal?)
· If you’re watching a DVD, it’s 480p. So even a 720p TV is
overkill – either the TV or the DVD player will do some magic to “fill in” the
extra pixels it has to make up the picture.* A 1080p set has to fill in even
more pixels with guesswork.
· If you’re watching HDTV, it’s either 720p or 1080i. Some channels
use one resolution (for example, NBC uses 1080i) and some use the other (for
example, Fox uses 720p) – this happens behind the scenes when you change
channels; you don’t have to do anything. 720p and 1080i both have about the
same amount of picture information (720p tends to look better for fast motion
like sports, while 1080i tends to look better for scenes without much motion,
like dramas), both count as real HDTV, and both look spectacular when displayed
properly on an HDTV.
o When you watch a 720p channel on a 720p TV, you’re seeing
everything that’s there.
o When you watch a 1080i channel on a 720p TV, first it fills in
the interlacing by guessing what the missing line ought to be, and then drops a
bit of the resolution.
o When you watch a 720p channel on a 1080p TV, it does some magic
to “fill in” the extra pixels.
o When you watch a 1080i channel on a 1080p TV, it fills in the
interlacing by guessing what the missing line ought to be.
· If you’re watching a Blu-ray disc, congratulations, you’re
watching the only consumer format capable of displaying full 1080p.
o A 720p set throws out some of that resolution; it usually still
looks better than a DVD.
o A 1080p set displays all the information on there without any
changes.
Now, let’s assume you are going to watch Blu-ray discs 100% of
the time. Question two: can you actually see the difference between 720p and
1080p?
This will depend on several factors:
· How good is your eyesight? Seriously.
· How big is the TV, and how far away are you sitting? In smaller screen
sizes it usually doesn’t matter if you’re cramming one or two million pixels
into the set; unless you’re sitting two feet away you won’t be able to see the
difference. Higher resolution allows you to sit closer to the set and does
nothing for you if you’re farther back. For example, if you’re sitting ten to
twelve feet back from a 50” TV you literally cannot see the difference between
720p and 1080p. Some people want to get the higher resolution anyway. I am not
one of those people. My couch is about 12 feet away from my displays, and my
50” plasma is a 720p model. My projector, on the other hand, projects onto an
8’ screen that comes down in front of the plasma; the projector is a 1080p
model because when the images are projected that large, the difference between
720p and 1080p is quite obvious.
Conclusion: unless you plan to sit awfully close to that 37” set
and watch a lot of Blu-ray discs, there’s no reason to spend more on a 1080p
version. If you insist on spending money for something you can’t see, I won’t
stop you. But you’ll be much happier if you put the extra money into a good
surround sound system.
Does the upcoming change in broadcasting frequency have any
impact on the reception?
It depends. If you’re getting your TV shows from cable or
satellite, the analog/digital switchover will make no difference whatsoever.
None. You do not need to do anything at all.
If you’re getting your TV shows from an antenna, then you’ll
need either a new HDTV with a digital tuner built in, or a new tuner/converter
box. Your reception will either get much better or much worse, and it will vary
by channel, how far away you are from the station, and (in some cases) your
physical location (i.e., if you’re at the bottom of a hill or sandwiched
between big buildings). Digital channels do not degrade gradually. A rough rule
of thumb is that if you get a reasonably clear channel today, you’ll probably
get an even better looking version of it on digital. On the other hand, if you
have a snowy channel that’s just sort of watchable today, once it goes digital
you probably won’t get it at all.
Hope this helps,
-avi
*720×480 progressive, or about 350,000 pixels of actual
information per frame. This is a gross oversimplification, but it provides a good
basis for comparison. 1280 x 720 = around 900,000 pixels. Incidentally, this is
why watching analog TV channels or VHS video on an HDTV usually looks much,
much worse than it did on your old analog TV; the new TV is trying to take very
little information (VHS is roughly 240i, or 480×240 every other frame, or the
equivalent of about 60,000 pixels) and displaying it on something expecting
more than ten times that information to create the picture. Without much to go
on, the TV fudges, which, instead of looking soft and fuzzy like an analog set,
looks blocky and horrible.
I was talking to my wife this evening, telling her about the new SlingCatcher (her term for these conversations is "lectures"), and she pointed out that my terminology, "wicked cool," is really, really old. Sad thing, I'm really really old. I have no idea what current slang for that would be. Tight? Sweet? Five by five? (That last one was on Buffy. Which has been off the air for years now, sadly.) Any help appreciated.
Oh, and the SlingCatcher is now shipping. The "wicked cool" feature I was trying to describe to my wife – before she so rudely interrupted the lecture – is the ability to take anything on your laptop and send it to your TV. Anything. You use something that works like a cropping tool to select whatever you want to see on the big screen – YouTube video, Hulu TV shows, Word documents, embedded video of a dubious nature, a Facebook page, whatever, and SlingCatcher broadcasts just that portion of the screen – nicely scaled – to your TV. That's not all the SlingCatcher can do; you can also use a SlingCatcher as a "receiver" for a SlingBox elsewhere in the house, or for the more traditional PC-to-TV media uses, like playing music or viewing photos from a PC. But the screen broadcast feature is wicked cool.
I should have a review unit in shortly; I have a SlingBox HD in for review as well.
Logitech sent over Z-5 Omnidirectional notebook speakers. They're not going
to put my Klipsch THX speakers of business (not by a long shot), but you need to remember that they're powered
entirely via USB and don't take up too much desk space. Simplicity is clearly the goal here; the last USB-powered speakers I looked at, Altec Lansing's XT1's were designed with portability in mind. Compared to the XT1's, Logitech's Z-5's play extremely loud and sound
extraordinary. They should make a great holiday gift for the notebook user who listens to music through fuzzy notebook speakers.
Logitech also sent over triple.fi 10 pro's from their recent Ultimate Ears
acquisition, and I had them on hand at the recent Apple "Let's Rock" event, where I pitted them up
against Apple's upcoming $79 in-ear headphones.
You get what you pay for – on
both ends of the price spectrum. For $79, the Apple headphones sounded great –
easily competitive with the low end of Shure and etymotic's range, and they blow
away Bose's in-ear efforts (I can't comment on UE's entry level headphones, as I
haven't listened to them). But they couldn't hold a candle – on bass or midrange
– with the $399 UE's triple.fi 10 pro's. I was also annoyed that the Apple
headphones are not fully compatible with the iPhone, just the iPod touch and new
nano. (That new nano needs to be felt to be believed – it is vanishingly thin and the colors are gorgeous. Apple did a really nice job with this one.)
I'm really enjoying the triple.fi headphones, and finally had a chance to do some quick listening tests vs. one of their main competitors: Shure's $499 SE530. For natural, neutral sound quality, the
SE530's are incredible, as well they should be at that price. The UE triple.fi 10 pro is a bit less neutral and seems
to amp up the body of bass and warmth of the lower midrange – which is often
lacking on headphones. Both are equally revealing, but I would describe the
sound of the UE's as more "fun. Which is better? It's a matter of taste. While I suspect the Shure's are more accurate, listening to rock and pop with the UE's is more involving.
But my favorite headphones for the iPhone (and any phone with a 3.5mm jack, which includes most new RIM BlackBerries, Nokia's XpressMusic line, and select LG and Samsung phones) are still Shure's SE530's with the Shure iPhone microphone adapter, pictured below. They sound great
with the compressed music you have on an iPhone, have the most comfortable
shaped foam earplugs in the industry, and the modular design allows you to swap
out various cord lengths or accessories.
Blogging is strange. I can’t tell you how many times I get asked to provide links or link exchanges or even the occasional "please review our stuff and we’ll pay you for placement." Now, if this were about my day job (Research Director for Mobile Devices), it would be somewhat understandable – I am quoted by the press, and it’s my job to influence industry decision makers. But Home Theater View? Who reads this? Coverage here basically just influences my brother – my mother doesn’t even read this! Perhaps all they’re trying to do is up their Google rankings.
So, here is a link to an article I was asked to highlight on home theater seating. I didn’t write it, I don’t know the people who did, and I couldn’t even tell you if they’ve sat in all the chairs they write about. But the pictures are definitely fun to look at. No money changed hands for my inclusion of this link in this post. Enjoy your link, boys.
Next up, an electronics review site, TestFreaks. They offered to pay me for reviewing the site. I never agreed to anything, but since it makes for an interesting post about home theater blogging, here goes. I don’t like the site at all. It aggregates reviews from all over the Internet – sort of a Rotten Tomatoes for A/V gear and gadgets. That part might be useful if you couldn’t just Google the product name and get the same information. Where it could still be interesting is if there was some editorial judgement applied to the rankings so you’d see a decent list of speakers or receivers to start a comparison shopping exercise. Nope, it’s all automated, and the results appear to be completely random.
CEDIA and IFA news is filling up my inbox, but one press release jumped out at me. I’ve seen similar features from other manufacturers (Onkyo immediately comes to mind), but the emphasis on digital media features in a new receiver from Yamaha was a big enough shift for me to write about it. Here’s the headline:
NEW YAMAHA RX-Z7 7.1 CHANNEL HOME THEATER RECEIVER EXPANDS ON YAMAHA’S HIGHLY ACCLAIMED Z-SERIES, OFFERING SOPHISTICATED HOME ENTERTAINMENT AND BEST-IN-CLASS HD PERFORMANCE
Well that sounds like any other high end super receiver. But wait, here’s the subhead:
Following the Lead of the Company’s Flagship RX-Z11; The RX-Z7 Integrates iPod, Bluetooth, HDRadio, Satellite and Internet Radio, and Rhapsody Playback with Pure HD Sound and Picture in a Versatile Multi-Zone Digital Media Hub
If this makes it seem like Yamaha is not trying to differentiate the receiver with amplifier channels or surround sound decoding — the traditional reasons to buy a receiver — you’d be right. Here’s the third paragraph of the release:
Offering DLNA support and compatibility with Windows Vista, the RX-Z7 can stream music files (WAV, Mp3, WMA, AAC) stored on locally networked PCs and other devices, as well as Internet radio streams (Mp3, WMA). In addition to supporting SIRIUS Internet Radio*, the unit offers full compatibility with Rhapsody, giving users unrestricted, on-demand access to the subscription music service’s enormous selection of content spanning virtually every genre, style and taste. The RX-Z7 also integrates with Yamaha’s MusicCAST system, providing access to as many as 40,000 songs that can be stored on that system. The AV receiver can display album artwork through its GUI to take user engagement to a new level.
That sounds like a PC media extender, not a receiver. The fifth paragraph really takes it above and beyond:
The RX-Z7 is the ultimate AV receiver for iPod users. It easily connects to Apple iPods via the optional iPod docking station (Yamaha YDS-11; MSRP $99.95). Once docked, the iPod can be operated via the receiver’s remote controls. A one cable connection allows users to view the iPod’s operating status (song title, artist, album with cover art), as well as video and pictures on a television monitor. Docked iPods charge automatically, so they’re always ready for a road trip. Giving users even more ways to access their music, the RX-Z7 boasts two USB ports that adhere to the Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) for playback of Mp3, WMA, WAV and AAC audio files from a portable player or USB drive.
For those who keep music stored on their phones or other Bluetooth-enabled devices, the RX-Z7 is compatible with Yamaha’s optional YBA-10 Bluetooth Wireless Audio Receiver (SRP $129.95), which enables wirelessly streaming audio to the AV receiver.
… The RX-Z7 also supports iTunes tagging, so when users hear a favorite song on HD Radio, they can instantly bookmark it to their iTunes account.
XM Radio and HD Radio support are also on board, as are multiple channels of amplification, video scaling, HDMI switching, and multi-room support. Still, the differentiating features are all about managing PC-derived digital media.
High end receivers have always been about offering lots of features and flexibility. But when you emphasize streaming media, Vista support, Bluetooth, and extensive iPod integration, it sure sounds like a PC to me. Why not just put an HDMI switch and amplification unit in a PC? All the digital media management is already on there as is video scaling and surround sound decoding. Yes, the inside of a PC is an electrically noisy place, and putting amps inside would require a different power supply. But these are design issues that can be (and already have been) overcome in other contexts.
Logitech announced today that it is buying high end earbud vendor Ultimate Ears. UE is best known for $1000+ custom headphones for professional musicians, but it also has a line of consumer headphones in the $40 – $400 range. Its business model is incredibly similar to Shure – both come from professional audio (initially microphones in Shure’s case) and branched out into the consumer space. In contrast, etymotic’s background was in hearing aids, and V-MODA seems to have come from the fashion world.
Without the custom business, Ultimate Ears is just another headset vendor, and its brand differentiation will be difficult for Logitech to maintain. But if Logitech leaves the core custom business alone, it can definitely build up the consumer side – Ultimate Ears could definitely use better distribution and broader consumer awareness; Logitech excels in these areas – just look at what they did with Harmony (speaking of which, I just got in a Harmony One remote control; a review will follow shortly).
In terms of how Ultimate Ears actually sound, I have no idea. I have tested most of the competition – Shure, etymotic, Sennheiser, Sony, v-moda, and Bose, to name a few. I should be getting in some Ultimate Ears product soon for comparison.
I have long respected Brent’s reviews and personal integrity, and he’s listened to nearly every high end system on the market and somehow remains grounded in the real world. He stays true to form here, testing Cinepro’s speakers with the loudest demo material in his repetoire (as befits a system mated with Cinepro amplifiers) but notes that no sane person will ever reach the speakers’ limits in real world home theaters.
Of course, that’s probably the point. There is a class of buyer at the high end of the market who isn’t looking for something that’s "good enough" or a great value. No, they’re looking for something that will always have performance to spare, even if they’re using it in a modest size room well below reference level on family movie night, and, in fact, never push it to its limits. Come to think of it, that describes the ultra high end of the automotive market as well – nobody is going to drive a Lamborghini 200 miles an hour outside a test track, but the excess sure feels good when driving 2 miles an hour and handing the keys to the valet. (At least I imagine it does.)
Sonos announced several upgrades today to its whole-house audio system (my review of the original system is here).
The receiver modules have shrunk in size, have been upgraded with an upgraded version of Sonos’ proprietary wireless mesh networking technology, and the one with an internal amplifier (the ZonePlayer 120) has gotten more power. The software has been upgraded, and it now supports ridiculously large music collections (65,000 songs), OS X Leopard, and NAS devices (networked hard drives, which means you can listen to your own songs without turning on your PC).
What hasn’t changed:
The Controller 100 ($399) gets no upgrades. It was well designed to begin with, though it is a bit bulky. It also no longer has quite the same wow factor, as it mimics Apple’s last generation of music devices (the clickwheel iPods), rather than the current touchscreen models.
A separate charging cradle ($39.99) for the Controller is an essential add-on that Sonos released a while back, but there are still no in-wall versions of the cradle.
There is still no boombox option; the ZonePlayer 90 assumes you’re hooking it up to a stereo system, iPod dock, or powered speakers, while the ZonePlayer 120 assumes you have a spare pair of speakers lying around. Sonos sells a pair of inexpensive, very high quality speakers for use with the ZonePlayer 120, but I’ve always thought that Sonos ought to build self-contained units for use in kitchens, home offices, and bathrooms.
There is still no weatherproof outdoors option.
A complete Sonos system is incredibly cost effective when compared to custom installed wired multi-room alternatives. But it is still pricey overkill for filling just one or two rooms with sound; two iPods and two iPod docks runs less than half the cost of a Sonos. The direct competition is starting to catch up; Logitech’s Squeezebox Duet (pictured here on the right) undercuts Sonos on price and has a similar scroll wheel controller (the Duet costs $399 and includes a receiver; the equivalent Sonos Controller + ZP90 combo costs $748). One major difference is in ease of setup – Sonos wins hands down, in part because Sonos doesn’t require a PC or a wireless network. I have tested Logitech’s predecessor, the Squeezebox, and found its basic remote and user interface nearly unusable; I plan to test the Duet and future products in Logitech’s line shortly.
A bunch of big companies are getting together to standardize wireless home HDTV transmission. Again. The AP reports the details here. Most of the commentary I’ve seen has been fairly positive, though everyone points out that several of the big players backing WHDI are separately supporting WirelessHD as well. Could we have a standards war here?
WHDI products aren’t expected to hit the market for at least a year or two
Testing this stuff will take forever
Even if it just adds $100 to the cost of products, the rise of brands like Vizio proves that many consumers are primarily driven by price
In the short term, he’s right. Nobody is going to put off buying a new TV today because in 2 – 5 years a wireless version will be available. Those who need a wireless solution today — in the home theater industry, installers will always run into problem rooms — will be willing to pay for expensive proprietary add-on gadgets that solve the particular problem. Longer term, though, it does make sense for there to be wireless options that work across vendors. At one time, wireless PC standards (ex: WiFi) were supposed to take over in the A/V world, but the bandwidth to pass HDTV unaltered on those doesn’t exist outside the lab. I wonder whether any of these consortiums will get something to market that actually works in a reasonable timeframe – I’ve seen demos of this stuff at trade shows for years now. Because even once TVs and set top boxes have such a standard built in, you’ll need to buy a new TV AND a new set top box to see the benefit. So for the forseeable future, nothing changes, which explains why Sony and Samsung are backing multiple standards, and why Jeremy can’t bring himself to care.
Sonos announced several upgrades today to its whole-house audio system (my review of the original system is 