Audio/Video things that irritate you. (1 Viewer)

[Jesse Skeen]

I just want to say that since this thread started I've thought of posting my response, but it would just be too damn long.

 

[Seth=L]

Jesse, I don't care how long it is, just post it. I have loads of fun reading them.

Question concerning Bose: They always claim 5.1 decoding, right? Well do they even decode Dolby Digital or DTS? I have heard they have their own supposed 5.1 crap, is this true?

 

[JeremyErwin]

sound design for TV shows. Some of it is quite enveloping, but there are plenty of designers who like to give sound to every movement-- whoosh, schwing. Sometimes I wonder what von Trier's camera would sound like...

 

[Seth=L]

One of the most annoying things in the world, I was reminded by another thread, is the vast misconception that wattage decimates all. Remarks like "my Sony receiver has 700 watts of power" or when inquire "how many watts does this receiver have?" When are people going to figure it out, wattage doesn't mean jack anymore. To many consumers are wrapped up in BS wattage ratings of stupid BS companies, like Sony. How can companies get away with all this crap? The FTC really needs to crack down on these guys. If the true ratings came out then H/K would have a little more than they claim and Sony's would plummet, as well as Kenwood, KLH, and Pioneer cheapies.

"And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what grinds my gears." Peter Griffin

 

[Ravi K]

I bought some TDK VHS tapes today (Yes, I still use VHS. No I don't have TiVo.) and in the bottom left corner of the front cover it says, "Ideal Digital Source Recording" and has an icon of a satellite next to it. This isn't a D-VHS tape, just plain old VHS.

 

[Seth=L]

Now isn't that just lame, Digital (analog) VHS. I have seen those recordable tapes as well. If they can associate the thing with something digital in one form or another, then they will do it. So there is a digital broadcast coming from outer space, that somehow makes the tape digital.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Actually, some of them do-- basic dts/dolby digital is supported by the Bose Lifestyle 38, for instance.

 

[RobertR]

That's the FTC, not the FCC, Seth. And the Federal Trade Commission established rules for stating power ratings over 30 years ago.

 

[Seth=L]

Sorry.

 

[Kevin Farley]

1. Companies not getting their act together before going public on competing new standards. Yes, Sony, I'm talkin to you. Beta, Sacd, etc. Blu-Ray!
all of these will die. High Definition digital audio will never be thanks to these boneheads that couldn't agree on 24/32bit and 192 or greater resolution audio formats, so J6P is now confused, and the formats will die.

2. Apple and others charging money for 128kbps mp3s, and telling me that I can't copy them/give them away. no wav, not a copy. non issue. I want apple lossless itunes. 16/44.1 sucks eggs but at least it's = cd. My argument for sharing; it's NOT CD QUALITY IF IT'S NOT WAV/FLAC/APPLE LOSSLESS/MONKEY'S AUDIO.

3. can't get a listenable clock radio with a BIG DISPLAY. apparently good ears=great eyes.

Thank you.

 

[Ray_R]

Alot of DVD sites which still use the term "Full Screen" or misuse the Full Frame term when the DVD is Pan & Scan, dammit!

 

[Seth=L]

Anamorphic Wide Screen all the way man.

 

[Mark Kalzer]

Redundant features like the before mentioned DSP modes on Yamaha receivers, and for video camcorders, digital zoom.

Ugh, it's like a war of who can produce a higher number for digital zoom, 200, 2000?! Yet, all it is doing is zooming in on the pixels. You never get anything remotely resembling an actual physical zoom, yet people obsess over it when buying camcorders above all other features. There's also all the useless 'special effects' they like to include that are equally as redundant, and all of which I can do better in post production.

 

[MarkHastings]

If you're going to bash the technology, you should first understand what you're bashing. Apple does not sell 128k MP3's.

 

[Ray_R]

True, only if the film in question is Widescreen in the first place. Not every film should be in Widescreen actually.
Oh, and those people who gun for "WIDESCREEN ONLY!" when it's complete bullshit and should be OAR ONLY. It's Original Aspect Ratio dammit! People should be more educated that every film isn't Widescreen when in fact Full Frame was the progenitor of it. Full Frame is also the aspect ratio of alot of films before the advent of widescreen in the cinemas before the 1950's. Films such as Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz and many others should never be considered Pan & Scan because they aren't. They're considered Full Frame and should be considered as such.
Now for a film that's Pan & Scan, take any beautifully framed 2.35:1 film and hack off around 40% off the sides and that's what you get. Less picture of what was shown in the cinemas and a considerable rip-off. A bygone practice leftover from the days of VHS. All films which were shown in widescreen in theatres should always be shown in widescreen with the aspect ratio it was shown in. "Full Screen" is a complete misnomer and totally shite.
Actually it matters more of retaining the original aspect ratio though.

 

[MarkHastings]

but fullframe is just as bad a term. Fullframe does not indicate the films dimensions. With widescreen TV's being more predominant now, what about a 16x9 anamorphic film on a 16x9 TV? That fills the frame...so fullframe is a bad term (IMHO) - 4x3 is much better as it tells you exactly what the frame size is.

 

[MikeH1]

The kids at every big box store pushing Monster cables and how their convinced they are so much more superior to every other cable.

One of these clowns insisted on putting a 40 foot HDMI - DVI cable together for me using 12 foot pieces and adapters with a bill of about $400.00. I kept saying forget it and said I would buy one online from a website I knew of. But in saying that, according to him, I was going to be using inferior cables and my HT would suffer greatly. I told him I don't buy monster cables; I ended up buying the cable in one 40' piece from Blue Jeans for 25% of the cost.

Really makes me wonder how many consumers get sucked into the Monster hype.

 

[Seth=L]

I used to be sucked in, it is the name and marketing tactics. And it doesn't help that most stores are completely loyal to the company. It is just like Bose.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

OK, I'll bite with just ONE thing- not only do few people know how to properly adjust the picture on a TV, but they come set DEFAULT to ridiculously overcranked contrast and sharpness so people think that's how things are SUPPOSED to look!

Most TVs look best with the sharpness set all the way down. I remember a few years ago there was a commercial that showed someone turning up the sharpness control until the indicator on the screen broke out of the set, and kept going a few houses down. If I ever meet the person who wrote that commercial I will punch them in the face.

 

[MarkHastings]

I get sucked into it to an extent, but for me it's because of this...

For composite and S-Video cables, you really should go with higher end cabling. Some may disagree, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Since that was the case, I've grown accustomed to Monster's reliability.

Now when I go for high end components, all of these new technologies have so many damn problems, that the last thing I need to worry about is if it's the actual connector that's giving me the problem. At least if I go for a brand that I know and trust, I can be confident that if I do have a problem, that it's not the cabling.

Here's a PREFECT example...
When I got my first digital receiver, I wanted to get a high end optical cable. Someone talked me out of spending the $30 (or whatever it was) on the cabel and told me to get a coaxil cable. It was cheaper, so I bought that. When I hooked it up, I started getting all kinds of audio problems. Assuming there was something wrong with the cable, I returned it and got another one. The same thing happened. Upset about the coax, I bought an optical cable.

Guess what, the same damn thing happened. I finally brought the player in to the shop and they found that the firmware needed to be upgraded, which would cost just as much as the player, so I had to buy a new player.

Basically, I spent money on the coax AND the optical, when I should have just bought the optical to begin with - but I was trying to cheap out and it ended up costing me more due to trying to troubleshoot.

That's why I hate to cheap out on things. As it is, I have a weird issue with my old DVD player, but if I had cheaped out on the cabling, I might have blammed the problems on the cabling - after gettting a new DVD player, the problems stopped so it definitely was the old DVD player. Thank god I didn't assume it was the cabling and started replacing it (which wouldn't have solved the problem).

So while most think it's dumb, I do it to ensure I understand where problems really lie. But that's just me.