 |
|
| Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
I just read a post from someone who said most of what he owns is
inherited or repaired; because of that he is always "about two steps behind the current technology". I am writing to say I am like that as well. I do not own a plasma or LCD TV at the present time (still have two 19" CRT TVs in my apartment, one nine and the other four years old--both work quite well); it may be some time, if ever, before I do get any kind of flat-panel TV. I cannot afford $6000 (!) for a large plasma TV, not to mention the fact that my apartment is far too small for any 60" set. Heck, I didn't get my first CD player (as part of a new bookshelf stereo system) until four years ago when I moved here, I replaced my computer monitor with a flat-screen (not flat panel) model just last year when the last one (CRT) failed, and I just recently (as in about a year ago) got digital cable. However, I do not yet have a DVD player (I am one of those people who are still fiercely loyal to VHS [I have about 50 VHS cassettes, give or take a few, almost all of which have old TV shows and movies on them], and probably will be until the technology is legislated out of existence or is rendered hopelessly obsolete--that and the fact that I believe in keeping things as simple and reliable as possible. VHS VCRs, and Betamaxes before them, have been with us for over 25 years and have proven themselves to be reliable under most circumstances; DVD players have just recently become popular and still have a few bugs which must be addressed). Please note that I am not against the new technology; it's just that I cannot afford most of the new stuff at the present time, and as I mentioned above, I am a meat-and-potatoes Midwesterner who tends to stay with proven technology. When one has bills to pay, and precious little money with which to accomplish that end, it is difficult or even impossible to justify large expenditures for luxuries such as large-screen TV. I do not know anyone at this time among my relatives or friends who owns a large-screen TV or even a DVD player, but then again most of my relatives are elderly people on fixed incomes and my friends have families to support. When one is in either of those situations the necessities of life must come first. The other two big reasons I am reluctant as all get-out to get any kind of LCD or plasma TV are the longevity factor of this technology (many plasma panels do not last longer than two or three years at this stage of their development), and that plasma screens are susceptible to image burn-in. I also read a post to this group recently which stated that the projection lamps used with plasma panels and LCDs do not last very long at the present time, and cost about $400 to replace when they eventually burn out. The filaments in CRTs used in ordinary televisions often last for 20 years or more; the failure mode of CRTs is ordinarily decreased cathode emission of the electron guns or heater-cathode shorts. I have yet to hear of the phosphors on the screens of conventional CRTs wearing out; the chances of modern CRTs developing screen burns (what TV technicians used to know as ion burns) are very slim if not nonexistent these days. The only way any kind of screen can develop image burn-in is if a static image (test pattern, network logo, video game board, etc.) is left on the screen indefinitely, but then again conventional CRTs are prone to burn-in under the same conditions as well. I am sure plasma and LCD TVs will improve as time goes on, and heaven knows the prices will drop as the technology becomes more widespread, but at the present time it is far too expensive for most people to afford (and there are bugs which must be worked out such as the image burn-in problem, et al.). There are still instances, moreover, of some new projection sets (Zenith comes to mind as I write this) developing severe problems which have led to massive recalls, such as the infamous Zenith recall of some models of its projection sets a few years ago because of a tear in a gasket which caused a coolant leak. Until the design flaws which cause manufacturers to issue these often massive recalls are addressed and corrected, many consumers are going to be extremely reluctant to buy any kind of large-screen television. It is for this reason that I feel CRT-based TVs will be with us for some time yet. There will always be people who simply cannot afford thousands of dollars for a TV set, and more on top of that to keep the thing running when it eventually requires service (all TV shops charge outrageous fees just to look at a set; then there are the repair charges themselves). Add to that the cost of a satellite system or cable hookup (neither of which are cheap), and you have even more reasons why most of us are still using the time-proven 4:3 CRT technology, VHS VCRs, and in some cases getting our TV reception over antennas (as some folks on audiokarma.org's antique-TV forum have reported). Kind regards, Jeff Strieble, WB8NHV (mailto: ) Fairport Harbor, Ohio |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"Jeff Strieble" wrote in message om... I just read a post from someone who said most of what he owns is inherited or repaired; because of that he is always "about two steps behind the current technology". I am writing to say I am like that as well. I do not own a plasma or LCD TV at the present time (still have two 19" CRT TVs in my apartment, one nine and the other four years old--both work quite well); it may be some time, if ever, before I do get any kind of flat-panel TV. I cannot afford $6000 (!) for a large plasma TV, not to mention the fact that my apartment is far too small for any 60" set. Heck, I didn't get my first CD player (as part of a new bookshelf stereo system) until four years ago when I moved here, I replaced my computer monitor with a flat-screen (not flat panel) model just last year when the last one (CRT) failed, and I just recently (as in about a year ago) got digital cable. However, I do not yet have a DVD player (I am one of those people who are still fiercely loyal to VHS [I have about 50 VHS cassettes, give or take a few, almost all of which have old TV shows and movies on them], and probably will be until the technology is legislated out of existence or is rendered hopelessly obsolete--that and the fact that I believe in keeping things as simple and reliable as possible. VHS VCRs, and Betamaxes before them, have been with us for over 25 years and have proven themselves to be reliable under most circumstances; DVD players have just recently become popular and still have a few bugs which must be addressed). While I agree with much of this, DVD players are *so* cheap I have a hard time seeing why someone wouldn't want one, heck I've gotten my last 3 of them for free, a brand new one can be had for under 50 bucks. If you ever get one you'll never go back, the only thing VHS does better is record. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"tweak" wrote in message ... On 2 Feb 2004 21:24:03 -0800, (Jeff Strieble) wrote: Well said. Most youngsters don't realize that in day gone by we had just as much quality in our entertainment technology as we do today. Yes digital does do better in many respects, exceptionally in visual media. But it falls short in the audio department with 16 bit technology just not living up to the quality of the better anaog hifi gear, which can be gotten in thrift shops and second hand stores for next to nothing.(If you ever listen to a stereo system that uses valved amps you'll never pass a signal through a transistor again.) That's very subjective, I've listened to a $10k tube (valve) amp and honestly I can't say it sounded any better than my $150 Leach amp that I built from someone else's abandoned project, or a number of other large nicely made solid state amps. I guess I just don't have "golden ears" but then at least I don't have to waste my money on all the other audiophoolery. I've heard a number of relatively inexpensive tube amps as well, and they generally have sounded either a bit distorted or just weren't very powerful. Tubes have their place, and in some situations can provide a unique sound, but I can't say I prefer them overall. Some of the old analog VCR's do indeed have excellent sound, and believe me I'll hang onto my 13 year old Sony HiFi's until they crumble, but I find that having DVD players, I almost never turn on the VCR's. My only wish is for one that's built like the old stuff, but then again it'd probably cost $1500. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 06:19:54 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote: "tweak" wrote in message .. . On 2 Feb 2004 21:24:03 -0800, (Jeff Strieble) wrote: Well said. Most youngsters don't realize that in day gone by we had just as much quality in our entertainment technology as we do today. Yes digital does do better in many respects, exceptionally in visual media. But it falls short in the audio department with 16 bit technology just not living up to the quality of the better anaog hifi gear, which can be gotten in thrift shops and second hand stores for next to nothing.(If you ever listen to a stereo system that uses valved amps you'll never pass a signal through a transistor again.) That's very subjective, I've listened to a $10k tube (valve) amp and honestly I can't say it sounded any better than my $150 Leach amp that I built from someone else's abandoned project, or a number of other large nicely made solid state amps. I guess I just don't have "golden ears" but then at least I don't have to waste my money on all the other audiophoolery. I've heard a number of relatively inexpensive tube amps as well, and they generally have sounded either a bit distorted or just weren't very powerful. Tubes have their place, and in some situations can provide a unique sound, but I can't say I prefer them overall. I have some old tube stuff, Macintosh and the like that spec out on a scope much better than most of my solid state stuff. True it's a highly subjective subject but one doesn't have to have golden ears. In fact valves amp do their best work in the low and mid end of the spectrum. A lot of the descriptive terms that are used are "more robust", fuller sound, smoother etc... and I find that to be mostly true which is why I use them on my theatre setup. And hey they're lower in cost as well. Some of the old analog VCR's do indeed have excellent sound, and believe me I'll hang onto my 13 year old Sony HiFi's until they crumble, but I find that having DVD players, I almost never turn on the VCR's. My only wish is for one that's built like the old stuff, but then again it'd probably cost $1500. Not really. I have a fair amount of broadcast video gear with hifi that cost less than comparable consumer stuff. I have a Sanyo broadcast quality vhs editor that has all kinds of neat audio functions. It's a s-vhs machine with 4 channel stereo options.(instead of tracking down video signal it can burn down four fm audio channels with better specs than cd audio. 105 dbs dynamic range vs 90 for cd and signal to noise and w&f unmeasurable.) I picked it up for 270 bucks and it is built like a tank with 6 heads and something like 8 heavy duty servo motors. Check on e-bay in the professional video/audio sections. Great deals to be had. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
tweak wrote in message . ..
It's a s-vhs machine with 4 channel stereo options.(instead of tracking down video signal it can burn down four fm audio channels with better specs than cd audio. 105 dbs dynamic range vs 90 for cd and signal to noise and w&f unmeasurable.) I'm sure it kicks ass, but those numbers are just what you say - specs. The 105 number is almost certainly down to the aggressive companding used in hi-fi sound on video. Similar numbers were touted for dbx, which sounded awful, not that I'm saying your machine does. Most cd players cannot reach that theoretical dynamic range, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but almost no speakers or analogue tape recording can either. There's the little matter of the head switching too... Check on e-bay in the professional video/audio sections. Great deals to be had. I might do that... Alex |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
Well said. Most youngsters don't realize that in day gone by we had
just as much quality in our entertainment technology as we do today. I some areas yes. I other areas, I beg to differ. Yes digital does do better in many respects, exceptionally in visual media. But it falls short in the audio department with 16 bit technology just not living up to the quality of the better anaog hifi gear, which can be gotten in thrift shops and second hand stores for next to nothing. Do you understand how digital audio works at all? In CD, 16-bit quantization allows up to 65,536 possible values of voltage for a given sample. This translates roughly into 96 decibels of dyanmic range with approximately the same level in signal-noise ratio. Mind you, this is on the average for a CD player, which is far superior to even the best $5000+ LP rigs. Plus with CD you have superior channel separation, better noise floor, wider and more even frequency response, lower THD+N, and wow and flutter below measurable thresholds. In terms of frequency response, CDs are sampled at a rate of 44,100 times a second. This translates directly into a maximum frequency response of 22,050 cycles. With LPs, the master recording is rolled off at about 15-16 KHz for the record lathe. This is done because any attempts to run the lathe at frequencies exceeding the cutoff will overheat the cutter head. Also, CDs are more accurate than LPs because records have inherent even-ordered harmonic distortion. This means you have distortion that actually sounds pleasant, and this is what gives LPs their airiness and "muscality." But, regardless, LPs are not an accurate representation of the master tape purely because of this distortion. If you want to wonder why you may have a bad sounding CD, it can mean a few possibilities: 1. The CD was not made optimally in respect for CD. Digital audio is most unforgiving to any deficiencies in a session recording. Whatever the limits are that could be concealed with various analogue formats will be reproduced in a digital audio system. 2. The session recording was made with equipment not properly dithered, which means you get zero-bit noise. But improper dithering is still a problem with the recording and not the technology. 3. CD sound may be limited by the playback equipment. Most CD players use rather cheap components, especially in the analogue section. For instance, any CD player that uses JRC 4560 or 4558 operational amps in their analogue sections is simply not a hi-fi piece of equipment. I have an Onkyo six-disc that I modified by beefing up the power supply somewhat and replacing the four JRC 4560 opamps with a set of Burr-Brown OPA2604 opamps. Result: improvement in sound which not only sounds cleaner and easier with good accuracy but eliminated listener's fatigue. (If you ever listen to a stereo system that uses valved amps you'll never pass a signal through a transistor again.) Depends on the quality of the solid state equipment. A well designed solid state amplifier can yield extraordinary results with better reliability, efficiency, and accuracy than tube equipment. Of course, this also depends on other factors, such as the quality of the speakers and source equipment. Also, older tube equipment has a tendency to create even-ordered harmonic distortion. Maybe 24bit digital audio will correct that if it ever catches on. Flat screen HDTV would be nice to have, but it's got come way down in price. Be more specific when you describe a flat screen HDTV. I assume you mean plasma HDTV sets. You also have rear projection HDTV sets that have a flat screen and CRT HDTV sets that also have a flat screen. HDTV is coming down in price for rear projection and CRT models, and apparently faster than you realize. Todays intelligent consumerhas gotten to wise to the tricks of the retail industry. We all got burned with the outrageous overpricing of vcr technology when it came out and most vowed never again. When VCRs first came out, it was a new technology. No technology has ever been released cheap when it first came out. How much did you think radios cost when they first came out? How much do you think the first TVs cost when they came out? How about the first color TVs? The first personal computer? The first CD player? The first DVD player? The first tangential tracking turntable? The first Hi-Fi VCR? Most of the technology I do enjoy I got from using common sense and frugality not just running out and buying it just because everyone said so. Hey, that's how I built my system. While some components had to be new, like my audio receiver (Technics SA-DA10) and DVD player (Sony DVP-S360), a lot of my other components, such as my LaserDisc player (Pioneer DVL-700), VHS hi-fi (Sony SVO-160), Beta hi-fi (Sony SL-HF400), CED (RCA SJT-200), CD player (Onkyo DX-C106), tape deck (JVC TD-V711), turntable (Technics SL-7), stereo mains (Optimus Mach Three), and television (Sony KV-27S66) I got from looking around and buying cheap. Most of the stuff wasn't even working, so I repaired them to get them working. As for my computer, I bought many new components and I built the whole thing myself. For computers, you really ought to get what's up to date (doesn't mean highest end). Hell, I needed a computer that was powerful enough to run WindowsXP reliably. I would've went with Win98SE, but that OS runs unstable on my computer, so necessity dictates that I run WinXP. I've been a staunch supporter of the philosophy behind the Mother Jones publications all my life. people should realize that you can have a good quality of life and not be a slave to this consumeristic society we live in. Good for you! But, other people may feel differently. There are people that buy things not because others tell them to, but because they really want something and are willing to spend what they earned to get it. As for my stuff, I've no regrets. I bought what I felt I wanted and I got it, not because some other schmuck told me to get it. For instance, I swear by Sony TVs. Not because other people say they're good, but because my own experience dictates this choice. I've found them to be very reliable and high resolution TV sets, especially in the professional scene. - Reinhart |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
I have a Sanyo broadcast quality vhs editor that has all kinds of neat
audio functions. It's a s-vhs machine with 4 channel stereo options.(instead of tracking down video signal it can burn down four fm audio channels with better specs than cd audio. 105 dbs dynamic range vs 90 for cd and signal to noise and w&f unmeasurable.) And your VCR also has the inherent 60 Hz switchpoint noise, even with the audio signals replacing the video, you will still get the switchpoint noise because of how the helical scan system for any VCR works. This is one of the main reasons why AFM on videotape, regardless of format and perceived quality, is never considered ideal for audio recording. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part7/ Scroll down to section 14.18 for a good explanation why VHS and Beta hi-fi aren't so hot for serious audio recording. I'd rather stick with digital, thank you very much. - Reinhart |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
Most cd players cannot reach that theoretical dynamic range, and
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but almost no speakers or analogue tape recording can either. Actually, CDs can, or at least reach an SNR up to 106. Only problem is that this usually requires omitting a necessary function of digital audio recording: dithering. You can make a recording this way, but you'll have problems with zero-bit noise. After dithering, the SNR is about 96 decibels. But, this is still better than what can be achieved with the best LP rigs and is done without the use of any compression, unlike videotape AFM hi-fi. - Reinhart |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
I looked at Panasonics latest offering a couple of months ago, A flat screen plasma going for just under 3,000, still too costly for the average consumer. It was a bit small as well. What the home viewer want's in a flat screen is to recreate the theatre experience in their own home. Taking into consideration the distance to size ratio of the average cinescope screen that we all grew up watching in the movie houses and the average size of the home den this would require a 60" minimum size for the home sceen. This size unit is still priced at a premium. True the price will drop. It's a stand off between consumers and the industry, we learned the hard way during the 80's with over priced vcr's. As long as consumers stand firm and don't buy they'll have to bring down the price to an "honest" level. They'll bring the price down once they've sold enough to recoup the hundreds of millions spent developing them. There's a lot more out there than flatscreens, I got my 50" rear projection set for free, it's got a faint channel logo burned into one corner but the picture is still pretty good, there's plenty of deals like that out there for someone who can fix stuff. I've gotten at least a dozen 27"+ TV's for free and most have been fairly easy to fix. As for my computer, I bought many new components and I built the whole thing myself. For computers, you really ought to get what's up to date (doesn't mean highest end). Hell, I needed a computer that was powerful enough to run WindowsXP reliably. I would've went with Win98SE, but that OS runs unstable on my computer, so necessity dictates that I run WinXP. What's wrong with win2kpro? XP is the bane of my business with all it's short comings. 2K works pretty well, though unfortunatly it's not available anymore. You can find a used copy occasionally, but if you want to buy something new and be legal your choice is pretty much just XP. Thankfully you can set the UI to look pretty much like 2k, but that argument is pretty silly since XP and 2k both have such similar hardware requirements. People oft confuse need and want and tend to go for the latter. I always ask myself if I really need something. That's the only reason I have much of the electronics I do have. For business reasons(I do video/film work). While you went with a Sony dvd I purchased a Daewoo that offered more in features and performance.(It's a clone of a commercial unit made by panasonic.) at less than half the price. From the day we open our eyes the programming starts. We are trained to be consumers and always buy whatever is new when it comes out. It's been made the cornerstone of our economy. We're conditioned to feel "good" when we buy something new. Why do you think there's a car dealership on every block and a 7/11 on every corner. I don't think everyone confuses want and need, if I only spent money on things I need I'd be renting a little room somewhere and sleeping on a cot. It's nobody's business but my own what I want and choose to spend my money on, I buy stuff that brings me enjoyment, it doesn't have to be factory new for it to be "new" to me. Granted there are certainly people out there who have to constantly have the latest and greatest, but that's great because if not for those people I'd have a hard time picking up discarded stuff for free, everything used would hold it's value much better and that'd force me to buy a lot more new stuff. Can you really say that Sony is superior quality? I don't even service Sony anymore it's such a pain to get parts. I have a back storage room full of new broken down Sony. That old sales slogan "It's a Sony" is about as lame as Nikon's old bit, "It's not a camera it a Nikon". Neither have turned out the quality products that made their name famous in quite some time. I have a Sony TV that looks significantly better than most other TV's, at least to me. I've had several other Sony's that have come and gone, and I've fixed quite a few other sets. Sony isn't the one end all be all, but the older Trinitrons were very good sets, plenty of them still around and it's what I've come to prefer. For projection TV's I'd look elsewhere, Sony does seem to be very unforgiving to parts substitution, their Trinitron direct view CRT's are where they really shine. Gotta watch out for their lower end made in mexico stuff though, it's all too common today for a company to outsource to someone cheaper and slap their name on it, it's a downward spiral with everyone having to do it to compete with everyone else, I see no end in sight, and if I had the power to do the things I feel would help to fix this, I would become very unpopular very quickly. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On 03 Feb 2004 16:47:20 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote: I have a Sanyo broadcast quality vhs editor that has all kinds of neat audio functions. It's a s-vhs machine with 4 channel stereo options.(instead of tracking down video signal it can burn down four fm audio channels with better specs than cd audio. 105 dbs dynamic range vs 90 for cd and signal to noise and w&f unmeasurable.) And your VCR also has the inherent 60 Hz switchpoint noise, even with the audio signals replacing the video, you will still get the switchpoint noise because of how the helical scan system for any VCR works. Panasonic addressed this problem in their vhs format digital audio units. This is one of the main reasons why AFM on videotape, regardless of format and perceived quality, is never considered ideal for audio recording. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part7/ Scroll down to section 14.18 for a good explanation why VHS and Beta hi-fi aren't so hot for serious audio recording. I'd rather stick with digital, thank you very much. - Reinhart Yes, but 16bit still sucks. that's why I use a 24bit unit. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
You're probably refering to the 100 series of dbx(first gen slow
analog switches) that gave out the old swish and boom. These units were designed to help boost the quality of LP's a bit. That's changing the discussion. The original point made about your Sanyo VCR is that rather aggressive compression is used to achieve its ratings, particularly with signal-noise. Digital audio achieves its high ratings without compression. You have to spend a small fortune to get the equivalent in a digital setup. Bull****. that's why I'm hopeful of the DVD format, it promises a future of 24bit audio super dics. I have yet to see any on the market to date though. They are available. However, you have to look for them at larger scale record stores, hi-fi shops, or electronics stores. They can also be ordered online. - Reinhart |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:39:50 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote: I looked at Panasonics latest offering a couple of months ago, A flat screen plasma going for just under 3,000, still too costly for the average consumer. It was a bit small as well. What the home viewer want's in a flat screen is to recreate the theatre experience in their own home. Taking into consideration the distance to size ratio of the average cinescope screen that we all grew up watching in the movie houses and the average size of the home den this would require a 60" minimum size for the home sceen. This size unit is still priced at a premium. True the price will drop. It's a stand off between consumers and the industry, we learned the hard way during the 80's with over priced vcr's. As long as consumers stand firm and don't buy they'll have to bring down the price to an "honest" level. They'll bring the price down once they've sold enough to recoup the hundreds of millions spent developing them. There's a lot more out there than flatscreens, I got my 50" rear projection set for free, it's got a faint channel logo burned into one corner but the picture is still pretty good, there's plenty of deals like that out there for someone who can fix stuff. I've gotten at least a dozen 27"+ TV's for free and most have been fairly easy to fix. As for my computer, I bought many new components and I built the whole thing myself. For computers, you really ought to get what's up to date (doesn't mean highest end). Hell, I needed a computer that was powerful enough to run WindowsXP reliably. I would've went with Win98SE, but that OS runs unstable on my computer, so necessity dictates that I run WinXP. What's wrong with win2kpro? XP is the bane of my business with all it's short comings. 2K works pretty well, though unfortunatly it's not available anymore. You can find a used copy occasionally, but if you want to buy something new and be legal your choice is pretty much just XP. Thankfully you can set the UI to look pretty much like 2k, but that argument is pretty silly since XP and 2k both have such similar hardware requirements. Win2k runs lots lighter on the system, freeing up system resources for intensive apps. Also XP has all kinds of bugs regarding burning duplicate media. a friend running XP on his video editing setup has problems getting his dvd burner to run under xp when duping his dvd masters.XP sees them as copyrighted material and shuts his burner down about half the time. He's gotten it about debugged but why go through the hassle when 2k has none of these issues? XP was SO misreported when it was released that Bill oughta be ashamed. Takes up to 4 times the system required ram etc... to actually get it to perform without any hitches or dragging sooo slow. As for availablilty it's everywhere and can be had "legally" for reasonable prices. I opted to get it free since the tower I purchase originally had XP and ran really sucky with it. I consider this a bad faith violation since M$ lied like a thief about XP to begin with. Do you think they'd swap out the OS's to satisfy the customer though? My copy of XP went in the circular file pronto and I don't miss it a bit. People oft confuse need and want and tend to go for the latter. I always ask myself if I really need something. That's the only reason I have much of the electronics I do have. For business reasons(I do video/film work). While you went with a Sony dvd I purchased a Daewoo that offered more in features and performance.(It's a clone of a commercial unit made by panasonic.) at less than half the price. From the day we open our eyes the programming starts. We are trained to be consumers and always buy whatever is new when it comes out. It's been made the cornerstone of our economy. We're conditioned to feel "good" when we buy something new. Why do you think there's a car dealership on every block and a 7/11 on every corner. I don't think everyone confuses want and need, if I only spent money on things I need I'd be renting a little room somewhere and sleeping on a cot. It's nobody's business but my own what I want and choose to spend my money on, I buy stuff that brings me enjoyment, it doesn't have to be factory new for it to be "new" to me. Granted there are certainly people out there who have to constantly have the latest and greatest, but that's great because if not for those people I'd have a hard time picking up discarded stuff for free, everything used would hold it's value much better and that'd force me to buy a lot more new stuff. Not everybody, just the vast majority. Can you really say that Sony is superior quality? I don't even service Sony anymore it's such a pain to get parts. I have a back storage room full of new broken down Sony. That old sales slogan "It's a Sony" is about as lame as Nikon's old bit, "It's not a camera it a Nikon". Neither have turned out the quality products that made their name famous in quite some time. I have a Sony TV that looks significantly better than most other TV's, at least to me. I've had several other Sony's that have come and gone, and I've fixed quite a few other sets. Sony isn't the one end all be all, but the older Trinitrons were very good sets, plenty of them still around and it's what I've come to prefer. For projection TV's I'd look elsewhere, Sony does seem to be very unforgiving to parts substitution, their Trinitron direct view CRT's are where they really shine. Gotta watch out for their lower end made in mexico stuff though, it's all too common today for a company to outsource to someone cheaper and slap their name on it, it's a downward spiral with everyone having to do it to compete with everyone else, I see no end in sight, and if I had the power to do the things I feel would help to fix this, I would become very unpopular very quickly. Experts would argue that Sony's single gun "Trinitron" tube is a poor concept lacking in resolution and yielding poor color quality. (Noise is higher as well as poor specs for saturation etc...) But your preference proves that it's largely a matter of personal taste. I like JVC's myself or commercial Panasonic monitors. The Consumer JVC's give the sharpest image, yet still have good color rendition. To their minus JVC still hasen't gotten the vertical linenarity stage bugs out and with ome video signals you'll get noticeable ripple in vertical edges.(I open them up when I buy them and tweek it out of them and have no problem after that.) If you really want the best color in a consumer tv then Zenith still produces a good set for the money and the later models have addressed the issue of lack of sharpness which the older models fell down on. I have a dozenor so of those "old" Sony vcr's in a back room with one problem or another. All were high end videophile models costing in the 5-700 dollar range and all exibited problems in either the audio output stage or video input. Problems range from no audio signal to constantly shifting video signal or no chroma/burst signals. It's a shame that Sony felt it ok to produce so many crappy vhs machines. I often thought it was their attempt to drive consumers off the vhs market to beta. the fact that you've had good fortune with your units could be counted as indicative as to Sony's spotty record in production control. I alsohave a box full of walkman's from various generations that all crapped. Sony's policy with the small personal stereo products was that only they would service it. so the consumer was strapped to shipping it to japan and waiting six months to get it back.(I've heard they have repair centers stateside now but that repairs take nearly as long.) I just think that if you pay top dollar for a product it should be very reliable and it shouldn't be a crap shoot with one hoping they got a "good" unit this time.(This is what killed Campo's. They were an exclusive Sony retailer, would lie to the customer about how Sony was so rock solid. then when the consumer brought the unit back after a week or so crapped out Campo's would tell them THEY had to ship it back to Sony. Even it their last days when it was obvious that they were going under the change in policy where they'd ship it back to Sony for the customer wasn't enough for the ****ed off customer. Had an Aunt who without consulting me went out and bought a 200 dollar Sony walkman only to have it burn up after a few hours of use. Campo's all but told her to **** off. she mailed it back to sony in Japan waited 8 months got it back unrepaired. Sony issued her a rebate certificate for credit towards a new Sony product from Campo's. Campo's was OOB by then and it took her a year of wrangling to get her money back. 200 bucks for ANY personal stereo is insane in my book but most consumers not knowledgeable in electronics generally try to compensate by buying the most expensive model in the hopes of getting quality. Sony has always preyed on these types. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
Mind you, this is on the average for a CD player, which is far superior to even the best $5000+ LP rigs. Actually panasonic made a digital recorder that used vhs tapes. The first models were all 16bit and later they came out with a 24bit model. BAse cosr of these units were 1,999. What brought this up? If it's relation to my response to why AFM on VHS and Beta is not a good choice for serious music recording, then you seem to be confused. Note that I said AFM, not PCM. There's a big difference. As for VHS cassettes being used for multi-track digital recording: yes. I am aware that there are professional digital recorders that use VHS cassettes, including a couple of such decks I've observed by Alesis and Panasonic. However, the key word is DIGITAL, where the limitations of AFM ANALOGUE recording do not apply. The same can be said for any industrial quality vhs hifi deck. VHS AFM Hi-Fi will never compare to Compact Disc. The initial audio quality definitely suggests it to sound like CD quality, but if you give hi-fi decks a serious listening you'll find that it will pale in comparison to a reel-to-reel audiotape deck running at the fastest possible speed in an overall evaluation. AFM hi-fi uses heavy compression whereas digital recording doesn't rely on compression to achieve its rated specifications. The w&f on my commercial vhs editors is below .003%. Digital recording achieves w&f that is below measurable thresholds. The low w&f of AFM hi-fi is for the simple fact that the audio is turned into a frequency modulated carrier before being multiplexed either between the luma and chroma carriers with Beta hi-fi or written directly on the tape as a field before the video track is layered on top of it in VHS hi-fi. Hi-Fi does not write the audio directly on the tape like a stationary head would. It's written in exactly the same way a video signal would be written on a VCR, using the same relative write speed of the helical drum as would be used with video, which is 1800 RPM for NTSC. And anyone can tell you that fm stereo modulation gives very smooth frequency response. With fm modulation there is NO crosstalk. In the case of Hi-Fi VCRs, this is because each channel is written as a separate field. Your using vinyl lp's as the benchmark against cd's. OK But your forgetting DBX vinyl discs. Which is not in common use. Plus, the use of an aggressive compander does present its own problems, like "breathing." LP has to try and achieve higher fidelity by doing more to the audio signal than you would need to if digital recording and reproduction were used. I was at the CES show way back when a linn itok, a dbx unit abd a vavled amp beat the socks off sony's best digital entry both to the ear and the scope. And who set up these tests? You missed the point that 16bit encoding schemes just don't have what it takes to capture all the ambients in most recordings. Again, do you know what you mean by 16-bit encoding? Sony and the other pioneers of 16bit realized this limitation. Comb filters indiscriminately filter out some of the sounds as noise resulting in that "thin" or "shallow" sound you get from 16bit. Bull****. Poor sound quality can be attributed to bad analogue stages or the use of brickwall analogue filters in place of digital oversampling filters. I carefully checked every digital unit available when they first came out, since I felt that was the way studio recording was definitely going to go. "When they first came out." A-ha! Yes there is equiment out there that mimics the sound quality of tube amps. I prefer something with sound quality that is flat and accurate with minimal coloration, not something that mimics a coloration. Yes I have some "snob" level solid state amps that do stunning work, once again the average consumer can't pay 10,000 or more per channel for quality sound. And I have a $900 receiver which I bought for around $250 which also gives, at least to my ear, very clean and accurate amplification. I normally use klipsh for my home theatre and have been a firm believer that JBL make's some of the best quality drivers you can buy. What about other brands of drivers? Infinity? Cerwin-Vega? KEF? And many more that I won't care to list? Yes there are bleeding edge "low mass" woofers and god knows what else coming out these days. Stuff like KLH, Jensen, and Pioneer. But the veverage consumer can't spend in the order of 50 to 100 thousand for a home system. And one doesn't have to. In the words of Julian Hirsch, the benefits of audiophile-grade components are "less than obvious." Yes you can get some, hence the need to tweak the tubes. Of find a way to make a tube amp work faster. I looked at Panasonics latest offering a couple of months ago, A flat screen plasma going for just under 3,000, still too costly for the average consumer. First off, you ignored the point I made here. I was mentioning the price drops for ***CRT*** based HDTV devices! CRT, as in CATHODE RAY TUBE. CRTs are also called PICTURE TUBES! Sony had invented a FLAT SCREEN DIRECT VIEW CRT, called the FD Trinitron, A.K.A. VVega. Plasma, I feel, is not the wave of the future. Not just price but also for reliability and cost of service. However, there are HDTV sets that use CRTs, both direct-view and rear-projection. You also have rear-projection LCD displays which are simple and very lightweight and don't cost much more than a CRT rear-projection set. Also, Sharp manufactures their Aquos line, which are flat-panel LCD, not plasma, displays. The one company that is really devoting their efforts towards making plasma displays is Pioneer. All the others, on the other hand, are not limited to just one kind of display technology for making HDTVs. An HDTV display doesn't automatically equal a plasma display. A flat-screen display doesn't automatically equal a plasma display. It's a stand off between consumers and the industry, we learned the hard way during the 80's with over priced vcr's. With the kind of effort that was put into VCRs back then versus today, the price seems to have a justification. Try building an $80 VCR that uses a die-cast chassis, using high quality components, modular circuitry designs, parts that are usually from Japanese suppliers instead of Chinese and Taiwanese suppliers, using a design that demanded more materials than what's used with today's designs, and built using labor that's not so cheap to be virtually slave labor. Also, try integrating a lot of components into an LSI in the 1980s where such integration was not developed for practical use quite yet. Plus, the 1980s saw a lot of new introductions to VCRs. The introduction of the front loading system, the introduction of hi-fi audio, the introduction of the first one-piece camcorder, the introduction of VHS HQ, the introduction of VHS-C, the introduction of Super VHS, the introduction of ED-Beta, and the list goes on. These developments required R&D, so R&D did, indeed continued throughout the 1980s. R&D costs money, and those costs are passed on to the consumer through the products they buy. In addition, you also have marketing, business operations, and taxes which can further increase the price the customer has to pay. In addition, during the early 1980s, Sony and Universal were still at odds over the Betamax case, with the potential possibility that the Supreme Court could rule VCRs an illegal device in the USA. That kind of makes that business feel risky, perhaps to the point where you try to sell high to get back any money you may lose in case VCRs are suddenly declared illegal. Also the MPAA was debating on the implementation of a copyright tax on VCR sales if the court ruled in their favor but did not rule for an outright ban. If you had any inside knowledge of the design and manufacturing industry you'd know that even taking in R&D costs initial technology sales have always been boosted to high. Because there is risk in introducing a new product. The product may bomb, so, in a rather unusual way of thinking, they assume that charging high prices will allow them to recoup some of their losses as some people will still buy it. The vhs deck wasn't new technology when it was released, just implementation of tech that had exsisted for nearly a decade. The revovling drum had been around since the early 60's. They've been around since the 1950s, with the introduction of the Ampex VR-1000 VTR, which used four rotary heads in what is known as the Qudraplex system. Magnetic tape technology even longer. Duh! It replaced magnetic wire recorders for dictation! 1/2 inch video tape was invented by JVC under contract from Panasonic. ... by stealing key ideas from Sony's 3/4 inch U-Matic system when Matsu****a was licensed to make U-Matic equipment. They also stole the M-load idea from Sony, which Sony was considering with Beta but couldn't perfect in time, so they went with the U-load configuration which is easier on the tape, but mechanically complex to implement. Betamax came out in 1975 while VHS came out in 1977. One of Sony's primary fallacies in the failure of Betamax was not the format, but their inability to trust third parties. For instance, they turned away Hitachi because they didn't want to alienate Matsu****a. They also caused RCA to playball with VHS when Sony demanded too much in terms of licensing costs and refused RCA the ability to make changes that would allow Beta to be more marketable to the Americans. As a matter of fact, RCA did some things for VHS that JVC did not approve of, such as the introduction of the LP tape speed for the USA market (not to be confused with the LP speed for PAL VHS). But, what they did certainly helped to push the VBT-200 SelectaVision to greater sales than Betamax in the United States. For places like Europe, and particularly Great Britain, JVC had greater influence with Thorn-EMI than Sony did. Thorn-EMI, being one of the biggest media distributors in Europe, naturally favored VHS. More software was availble on VHS as a result for both rental and purchase, which led people to abandon Betamax in that market. Of course, it doesn't help that VHS came out earlier than Beta did in Europe. (It's always been the marketing strategy of Panasonic to allow Sony to rush out their half formed hardware designs then trumpimg them with something better at a lower cost.) That could also explain how they chagrined RCA when they introduced their CED system to Matsu****a, only to be countered with JVC's VHD system. The first CD players were crap. A friend ran out and bought the first Sony offering. The motors and laser crapped out in the first year. Ultra cheap materials and manufacturing. Hardly worth the 1,300 he paid for it. Again, what did you expect for a first generation unit? I would bet that if he went with Philips' first CD player, he would have had the same problem. Also, the Sony CDP-101 timeshared one DAC between two channels, which introduced a nasty 10 millisecond phaseshift to one of the channels. Denon fixed this problem by introducing a delay so a timeshared DAC design could be acceptable. You also have a dual DAC design, one DAC for each channel, which is what I would prefer. Years later I bought a Tandberg unit for use in the studio for 1,800. Swiss made and still running strong, but then it was made to squeeze the most out of the cd's played in it. How about Revox or Studer? You have to take into consideration not just the tech side of the issue but the people side as well. Corporations are run by greedy no talent *******s that want to get rich yesterday. They're the ones who ultimately decide what the release price of a product will be. And what corners will be cut in manufaturing and design. Well, duh again! That seems to be the prevailing attitude with Ford, GM, and Chrysler. RCA was like this and where did this get them: into receivership with the French. What's wrong with win2kpro? XP is the bane of my business with all it's short comings. I didn't mention Windows 2000 Pro. I said Windows98 Second Edition. I went with Windows XP because the computer it's running on is for home use. A lot of programs that I would use, like many games such as "The Sims," WILL NOT RUN on Windows NT 2000. I can't use 98SE or Millienium because my computer has over 1 gig of RAM. This requires a modification to one of the INI files to cut down the file cache size in order to allow it to run properly. Without the modification to the INI, the computer would crash everytime I tried to install the nVidia nForce2 mainboard drivers. In addition, the clock speed is in excess of 2 GHz. 98SE and ME are not designed to run on a system that fast. As a result, I had nothing but bluescreens everytime I ran the computer. With XP PRO, those problems went away. Plus, keeping my OS updated helps, as well as performing housekeeping every week, such as scandisk, defrag, virus scan, and spyware scans. People oft confuse need and want and tend to go for the latter. I always ask myself if I really need something. That's the only reason I have much of the electronics I do have. For business reasons(I do video/film work). Well, then I have to say that you are far better off than other people when it comes to saving money. While you went with a Sony dvd I purchased a Daewoo that offered more in features and performance.(It's a clone of a commercial unit made by panasonic.) And how did you come to this determination? Did the Daewoo use a custom drive assembly that uses brushless motors for both the spindle and pickup kicker motor? Was the drive interface actually proprietary instead of being standard IDE? Was the media board composed almost entirely of Matsu****a components with some Analog Devices components? Did the power supply actually use Matsu****a 105 celcius caps and used Matsuhita branded components? I've worked on a lot of so-called bargain electronics and have been appalled at the lack of quality that's built into these things. I bought a Sony not because of its name but because I knew what I was getting. So far, I'm not disappointed because four years since I bought it, it's still working like new. I believe that true frugality starts with knowing the difference between true value and being penny-wise but dollar-foolish. It's good to save money, but it's bad to be a cheapskate. Working as a professional, you ought to know that. Can you really say that Sony is superior quality? Yes. Your milage may vary. But, with professional video equipment, Sony kicks ass. They are more expensive, but they make the best displays, the best video recorders, the best camcorder rigs, and they even developed 24P DigiBeta video used to make "Star Wars: Episode 2" with specially developed Panavision lenses. ST:AOTC was filmed entirely on videotape during prinicipal photography. The money saved on film development costs, film stock costs, and time is tremendous, so this technology definitely has potential for more budget-conscious purposes when it's perfected further. My only complaint is that, yes, parts can be hard to find for Sony. The same can be said of Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Panasonic, and JVC however. Particularly Panasonic. Try to look for parts for a professional Panasonic video deck that's only a few years old. And particularly Mitsubishi. Why else did they earn the name "Mitsubitchy?" Maybe because they've had some problems with electrolytic failures in a huge slew of their own products for the longest time. Neither have turned out the quality products that made their name famous in quite some time. Depends on what you buy. If you buy their low end stuff, then yes, you are not getting something that's decent. If you buy something that's a little more upscale, then you will get something that's decent. As for audio, Sony isn't my cup of tea except for their ES line. I would rather go with Yamaha or Denon but I do like Sony ES. In terms of CD players, Sony ES had some CD players that are considered some of the best the format can offer. But, of course, you have other choices from Rotel, AMC, Audio Alchemy, Parasound, Acurus, and Shanling. - Reinhart |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
Win2k runs lots lighter on the system, freeing up system resources for
intensive apps But what about on a system that runs too fast, making it unstable? lso XP has all kinds of bugs regarding burning duplicate media. I had that problem. A registry mod fixed that problem for me, which disabled auto-insert notification for the CD writer. Besides, I don't rely on Roxio for CD writing. I rely on Nero. Experts would argue that Sony's single gun "Trinitron" tube is a poor concept lacking in resolution and yielding poor color quality. One such expert worked for Philips, which invented the invar shadow mask CRT which competes against Trinitron. Makes you think, don't it? Also, if Trinitron is so bad, then why is it used in all sorts of critical applications over all others such as professional video, film production, NASA mission control, and medical operations? I would love to read your explanations on those points, which are likely to be more bull****. If you really want the best color in a consumer tv then Zenith still produces a good set for the money and the later models have addressed the issue of lack of sharpness which the older models fell down on. Zenith I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot cattle prod. First off, Zenith never made decent sets since the 1990s. Now, their sets are produced by their corporate parent: LG Electronics. They are better, but they aren't great in comparison to other manufacturers. The repair shop I go to almost always gets a Zenith in for repairs for one reason or another. One of their biggest problems: too many frickin' surface mount parts at critical locations which costs the customer in reliability and makes servicing a pain in the ass. Sony vcr's in a back room with one problem or another. All were high end videophile models costing in the 5-700 dollar range and all exibited problems in either the audio output stage or video input. I've been using Sony VCRs for the longest. All I've got to say is "no problems here." I alsohave a box full of walkman's from various generations that all crapped. And do you seriously think Walkmans from any manufacturer are any good? But, I've got a Sony Walkman (WM-FX403) that ran daily for up to six years non-stop before the pinch roller decided to give up the ghost. - Reinhart |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
You are a bit confused about the whole thing. But, the Plasma and LCD
technology is still high priced for the average consumer. Plasma displays do not use illumination lamps. LCD panels do, the the LCD panel will not have burn in, as like a Plasma screen. CRT's can also burn in very easily, but not as easy as a Plasma display. LCD screens cannot have burnin. Their only weak point is the back plain lamps. But, in the expensive models, these are changable by the service center. The lamps are much cheaper than changing a CRT in a CRT set. A Plasma display can give an average of about 30,000 hours of service before the display starts to go weak. A CRT will last about 40,000 hours with discent emission, if it is a good qaulity made one. There are some higher failure rates of some of the drive components in these sets. This is why the manufactures give extended warranties. We see failures in all of these technologies. The heater on a CRT may last for 20 years, but the catholds in the electron-gun will not after the rated hours of use. The phosphors also wear out. I see this on rebuilt tubes, where the phosphor lack some of the illumination in relation to the gun current when under test. I have also seen rebuilt tubes with some slight discoloration in the phsophors, when doing close evaluations. As like any electronic device, we found that after about 5 to 7 years of use, there is a degrading of performance. Jerry Greenberg http://www.zoom-one.com -- (Jeff Strieble) wrote in message . com... I just read a post from someone who said most of what he owns is inherited or repaired; because of that he is always "about two steps behind the current technology". I am writing to say I am like that as well. I do not own a plasma or LCD TV at the present time (still have two 19" CRT TVs in my apartment, one nine and the other four years old--both work quite well); it may be some time, if ever, before I do get any kind of flat-panel TV. I cannot afford $6000 (!) for a large plasma TV, not to mention the fact that my apartment is far too small for any 60" set. Heck, I didn't get my first CD player (as part of a new bookshelf stereo system) until four years ago when I moved here, I replaced my computer monitor with a flat-screen (not flat panel) model just last year when the last one (CRT) failed, and I just recently (as in about a year ago) got digital cable. However, I do not yet have a DVD player (I am one of those people who are still fiercely loyal to VHS [I have about 50 VHS cassettes, give or take a few, almost all of which have old TV shows and movies on them], and probably will be until the technology is legislated out of existence or is rendered hopelessly obsolete--that and the fact that I believe in keeping things as simple and reliable as possible. VHS VCRs, and Betamaxes before them, have been with us for over 25 years and have proven themselves to be reliable under most circumstances; DVD players have just recently become popular and still have a few bugs which must be addressed). Please note that I am not against the new technology; it's just that I cannot afford most of the new stuff at the present time, and as I mentioned above, I am a meat-and-potatoes Midwesterner who tends to stay with proven technology. When one has bills to pay, and precious little money with which to accomplish that end, it is difficult or even impossible to justify large expenditures for luxuries such as large-screen TV. I do not know anyone at this time among my relatives or friends who owns a large-screen TV or even a DVD player, but then again most of my relatives are elderly people on fixed incomes and my friends have families to support. When one is in either of those situations the necessities of life must come first. The other two big reasons I am reluctant as all get-out to get any kind of LCD or plasma TV are the longevity factor of this technology (many plasma panels do not last longer than two or three years at this stage of their development), and that plasma screens are susceptible to image burn-in. I also read a post to this group recently which stated that the projection lamps used with plasma panels and LCDs do not last very long at the present time, and cost about $400 to replace when they eventually burn out. The filaments in CRTs used in ordinary televisions often last for 20 years or more; the failure mode of CRTs is ordinarily decreased cathode emission of the electron guns or heater-cathode shorts. I have yet to hear of the phosphors on the screens of conventional CRTs wearing out; the chances of modern CRTs developing screen burns (what TV technicians used to know as ion burns) are very slim if not nonexistent these days. The only way any kind of screen can develop image burn-in is if a static image (test pattern, network logo, video game board, etc.) is left on the screen indefinitely, but then again conventional CRTs are prone to burn-in under the same conditions as well. I am sure plasma and LCD TVs will improve as time goes on, and heaven knows the prices will drop as the technology becomes more widespread, but at the present time it is far too expensive for most people to afford (and there are bugs which must be worked out such as the image burn-in problem, et al.). There are still instances, moreover, of some new projection sets (Zenith comes to mind as I write this) developing severe problems which have led to massive recalls, such as the infamous Zenith recall of some models of its projection sets a few years ago because of a tear in a gasket which caused a coolant leak. Until the design flaws which cause manufacturers to issue these often massive recalls are addressed and corrected, many consumers are going to be extremely reluctant to buy any kind of large-screen television. It is for this reason that I feel CRT-based TVs will be with us for some time yet. There will always be people who simply cannot afford thousands of dollars for a TV set, and more on top of that to keep the thing running when it eventually requires service (all TV shops charge outrageous fees just to look at a set; then there are the repair charges themselves). Add to that the cost of a satellite system or cable hookup (neither of which are cheap), and you have even more reasons why most of us are still using the time-proven 4:3 CRT technology, VHS VCRs, and in some cases getting our TV reception over antennas (as some folks on audiokarma.org's antique-TV forum have reported). Kind regards, Jeff Strieble, WB8NHV (mailto: ) Fairport Harbor, Ohio |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"tweak" wrote in message news 
Your quite long winded posting contains so much bluster and bull**** that the real information that you may have to impart is lost... I normally use klipsh for my home theatre and have been a firm believer that JBL make's some of the best quality drivers you can buy. You argue about the value of 24 bit recording systems over 16 bit and of valve designs yet you listen to Klipsh and think JBL makes some of the best driver? Give me a break... I don't even service Sony anymore it's such a pain to get parts. If you think that it is hard to get parts for Sony, you obviously don't service much of anything. Among the many manufacturers Sony is far from the worst in this regard. I don't mean to imply that they couldn't be better, but in this time of disposable consumer electronics there are many other companies that are worse. Leonard Caillouet |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
Yes, but 16bit still sucks. that's why I use a 24bit unit.
Why is 24-bit better than 16-bit? - Reinhart |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"LASERandDVDfan" wrote in message ... Yes, but 16bit still sucks. that's why I use a 24bit unit. Why is 24-bit better than 16-bit? - Reinhart Well theoretically 24 bit will have much finer resolution than 16 bit, however it's certainly possible to make a good 16 bit system or a lousy 24 bit one. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:19:11 -0500, "Leonard Caillouet"
wrote: "tweak" wrote in message news
Your quite long winded posting contains so much bluster and bull**** that the real information that you may have to impart is lost... I normally use klipsh for my home theatre and have been a firm believer that JBL make's some of the best quality drivers you can buy. You argue about the value of 24 bit recording systems over 16 bit and of valve designs yet you listen to Klipsh and think JBL makes some of the best driver? Give me a break... OK if I'm so full of ****, what type of drivers do you use? And how do you think they're better than what I use? The fact that you dis JBL shows you absolute ignorance. I don't even service Sony anymore it's such a pain to get parts. If you think that it is hard to get parts for Sony, you obviously don't service much of anything. Among the many manufacturers Sony is far from the worst in this regard. I don't mean to imply that they couldn't be better, but in this time of disposable consumer electronics there are many other companies that are worse. OK if Sony parts are SO easy to get I'll send you a parts list for all the Sony crap I have in the back storage room and you find me a parts jobber for aftermarket parts. BTW I spent 40 some odd year in the repair business having grown up workin in my old man's chain of repair shops. But that was probably before your time so I'd guess that wouldn't count either since it was before you eyes ever saw the light of day. Leonard Caillouet |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On 04 Feb 2004 03:06:44 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote: Yes, but 16bit still sucks. that's why I use a 24bit unit. Why is 24-bit better than 16-bit? - Reinhart Let me try again. Here are some links to those who are the experts in audio recording. I'll scrounge up more for you in the next day or two. They can explain in precise technical terms why digital, and especially 16bit is woefully inadequate for most audio mastering. http://www.drtmastering.com/faq2.htm http://www.great-music.net/analog.htm http://lists.contesting.com/archives.../msg00211.html I'm I retired old fart who spent all of his working days in the recording and film industry so bare with me while I dig up all the facts to educate you on the complexities involved in mastering good audio. It's NOT as cut and dried as you want to believe. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"tweak" wrote in message ... The fact that you dis JBL shows you absolute ignorance. I did not intend to "dis" JBL. Your statement was vague and incorrect and that is waht I was pointing out. First, JBL makes a range of products from crap to pretty good, and which driver you use depends on the application. I would like to know what you find about the JBL drivers that make them the "best" in any particular application. If you are talking about resolving detail, as your discussion of recording techniques implies that you must, there are many loudspeakers that do a better job than nearly anything JBL makes, and few of them use JBL drivers. Individual drivers, their technology, and their build, are not the entire story in loudspeakers anyway. You have to look at the entire loudspeaker system to make meaningful comparisons. As for what I use, I have an old pair of Thiel speakers that used pretty generic drivers, nothing special. Who do I think makes better quality drivers than JBL? Well, it depends on the application, but in general B&W would be an easy example. OK if Sony parts are SO easy to get I'll send you a parts list for all the Sony crap I have in the back storage room and you find me a parts jobber for aftermarket parts. It very much depends on the product and its age. My point was not that Sony parts are always available when you want them, but that anyone who services a wide array of electronics knows that Sony is far from the worst in this regard and that there are many other manufacturers much more deserving of your derision. Post the parts you need and someone may have a solution. BTW I spent 40 some odd year in the repair business having grown up workin in my old man's chain of repair shops. But that was probably before your time so I'd guess that wouldn't count either since it was before you eyes ever saw the light of day. Perhaps, but how would you know? How does this experience relate to the situation with parts TODAY? You pass yourself off as an expert in recording and with so much experience with repairs, and imply that you are aged. What have you done recently? -- Leonard Caillouet ....I'd like to find you inner child and kick its little ass. Get over it... (The Eagles) |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:40:22 -0600 tweak wrote in
Message id: : [blah, blah, blah] BTW I spent 40 some odd year in the repair business having grown up workin in my old man's chain of repair shops. But that was probably before your time so I'd guess that wouldn't count either since it was before you eyes ever saw the light of day. Shut the **** up, you twit. You're not impressing anyone, and you couldn't prove a point even if you molded it into a Lawn Jart© and pierced the skull of a Cocker Spaniel from 30 yards away. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"Tom" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:40:22 -0600 tweak wrote in Message id: : [blah, blah, blah] BTW I spent 40 some odd year in the repair business having grown up workin in my old man's chain of repair shops. But that was probably before your time so I'd guess that wouldn't count either since it was before you eyes ever saw the light of day. Shut the **** up, you twit. You're not impressing anyone, and you couldn't prove a point even if you molded it into a Lawn Jart© and pierced the skull of a Cocker Spaniel from 30 yards away. Well, Tom, I guess that is what I was trying to say, but could not be as eloquent as this...LOL. Leonard |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"Tom" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:40:22 -0600 tweak wrote in Message id: : [blah, blah, blah] BTW I spent 40 some odd year in the repair business having grown up workin in my old man's chain of repair shops. But that was probably before your time so I'd guess that wouldn't count either since it was before you eyes ever saw the light of day. Shut the **** up, you twit. You're not impressing anyone, and you couldn't prove a point even if you molded it into a Lawn Jart© and pierced the skull of a Cocker Spaniel from 30 yards away. Jarts, man I remember playing with those when I was little, I'm surprised I never got hurt, these days I'd love to find a set of them though, I guess mostly because they're illegal to own, I can go buy a bunch of machette's and swords and throw them around in the yard all day, but I can't have Jarts? I don't get it, oh well. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:33:59 -0600, tweak wrote:
On 04 Feb 2004 03:06:44 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan) wrote: Yes, but 16bit still sucks. that's why I use a 24bit unit. Why is 24-bit better than 16-bit? - Reinhart 16bit audio was the best they could come up with in the late 70's.(Well... they did quickly come up with 24bit but Sony who was spearheading the digital technology had too much invested in 16bit encoding, also they'd paid big bucks for the development of the medium that was to usher in the digital era- CD's.) 16bit just doesn't have enough sampling rate to encompass the mass of bits != sampling rate data in complex musical scores. i.e. anything more complex than the average 5 piece rock band. Comb filters were used in the circuitry to "filter" out extraneous artifacts i.e. noise. bits != recording equipment quality and mixing quality. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
That's rich! Too fast. If a system is unstable because of too much speed it's more likely a result of "hand grenade" modification/tweeking. i.e. overclocking etc... My system is not overclocked. As a matter of fact, the processor that my machine uses hasn't even had its multiplier unlocked. How can I overclock my system if the processor's multiplier is still locked, for one? As for the RAM, it's specified to run faster than DDR400. It's set to run at DDR333 My system's bus settings are set to their recommended configurations according to AMD and nVidia. As for Win98SE and WinME. You must understand that these operating systems were designed around the DOS kernel and devised well before the advent of 1 GHz machines, much less 2 GHz and beyond. The impact of running these operating systems on such machines had not been realized yet as the technolgy to develop a 1 GHz machine hadn't even been developed in the case of Win98 or perfected in the case of WinME. These operating systems don't even work properly with 1 gigs of RAM without a modification to one of the INI files governing the max cache size! WinXP and Win2000 PRO, on the other hand, are based on the NT kernel. Especially WindowsXP, where it was written to work with systems having a clock going up to 3 GHz. Different ballgame here. One significant drawback is that WinXP is problematic with SCSI rigs, although SCSI is pretty much obsolete with the advent of SATA, for which WinXP has absolutely no problems with. You can have a computer run too fast for various kinds of software that can cause unpredictable and undesirable behavior. You can have a program run too fast, or a program that is unable to keep itself regulated because of the system speed versus program timing, or a program that will flat out not communicate with various hardware installed due to an instability brought on by the driver due to the speed. Many legacy programs will not have support to make it work with faster computers! Anyways, it's still rather amazing, that all the incarnations of Windows still runs on the traditional x86 platform that has been around during the late 1970s! Goes to show just how versatile this platform is, doesn't it? Who said I use just Roxio? If you use WinXP's integrated CD/DVD writer options, then you are using Roxio programming. Roxio developed the CD/DVD integrated writing front-end for WinXP. The point I was trying to make was why hassle with a bell and whistle laden OS that runs clunky and has to many undesirable features. If you have experience with WinXP, what was the condition of the computer that was running it? Do you use crappy software and crappy hardware? Do you apply the security updates that Microsoft issues for your OS? (This is a problem with Windows overall, not just XP.) Do you do the required housekeeping to keep your computer running at its peak without clutter and crap? Are you discriminate when it comes to installing software or are you hap-hazard about it, downloading every program you find on the internet or at the store and installing it? Do you run too many apps at the same time, or run apps that are too much of a resource hog to be useful? (Running two anti-virus programs simultaneously is idiotic. Using Norton Utilities is a real great way of having your resources hogged.) If you use anti-virus, do you keep your definitions up to date? Do you use decent anti-virus software, like Norton Anti-Virus? If you surf the internet, do you use spyware elimination software, like Lavasoft AdAware, to detect any changes that may have been made to your system registry by website software installed usually without your consent during a visit to a webpage? Do you use programs that are known to have spyware elements, like Kazza P2P? If you use Kazza Lite P2P, and know why you are using it in place of regular Kazza, then perhaps you're not a total dimwit with computers. Are your hardware drivers kept up to date? If you think the hardware alone is the determining factor when all the above mentioned industries choose what to use you are truly naive. No, I am making a point. Again, if Trinitron is so bad, as cited by your so-called experts, then why is it used in such critical applications, where you also have experts who swear by them? As for why I use Trinitron, it's because I've used the technology before. I am familiar with it, and how it works. My very own experience dictates my choice and, so far, I have never been disappointed for the years that I have used and relied on Trinitron displays, both at work and at home. Say what you must, but my own reason for using Trinitron are my own, but they are very good reasons to me. What you may say or think will not change that. Call me naive if you want to, but my experience has shown to me that Sony displays kick ass, pure and simple. I've compared other displays before, and none compare to Sony. This is, of course, after the displays are calibrated for accuracy prior to testing. I also know of a friend of mine who owns a professional video production business. He swears by Sony and JVC while lambasting Panasonic, although too much for my tastes as I've used some decent Panasonic gear before, like the AG-1980 SVHS editor. God! if you think NASA uses Sony because they believe it to be the best you're the one full of crap! Better get out and get a little life experience, especially when it comes to the workings in government agencies. And where do you think I live? I live in Central Florida in the vicinity of the Kennedy Space Center. My family had been involved with NASA for over a decade before the **** hit the fan with the privatization of the shuttle maintenance program (which, IMO, IS the primary reason why Columbia was lost). Regardless, a lot of video equpiment that's been used at the Space Center during our tenure was Sony. This was before we were laid off by Lockheed-Martin to reduce the overhead of quality assurance of the shuttle fleet. Be careful what you say. I have Zenith 27 inch that has been going strong for 9 years with only slight loss in image quality Lucky you. Meanwhile, a lot of people have had problems with their Zenith picture tubes shorting out, especially of sets in the particular vintage you've specified. Granted, but ALL brands of sets including Sony use cheap ass cases and knobs. ALL polystyrene and the cheapest LDPE. Don't be a Gorilla, cause I've seen alot of Sony with cracked cases and broken knobs too. And the only problem with cracking cases I've had was with a Sharp 25 inch TV/VCR combo. I am careful when handling electronics, not just for the sake of the case, but for the common sense reasoning that any electronic device, regardless of origin, is fragile. Yeah, Panasonic makes very good units for the price. I have a Panasonic walkman going on 14 years ans still going strong. Played almost on a daily basis for hours, 7 days a week all the way up to six years? Also a cd player that is going on 10 years now with NO problems. I find your claim for your 10 year old Discman to be a bunch of bull****. How in the hell did you manage to pay only 49 dollars for a Discman in 1994? But, Panasonic does make a decent Discman in a manner of speaking. I have a Panasonic SL-239C (costed $125) which was made in 1996, used almost continuously, and still works. Only one problem with them, though. The D/A converter has **** poor linearity, which is a design fault as, apparently, a lot of Panasonic/Technics players using their MASH converters had a design fault that had a very unusual linearity flaw that starts off a -80 dB (-2.1) and peaks suddenly at -90 dB (-6.1 all the way up to -12!). The problem seems to be Matsu****a's implementation of their own MASH system because around the same time, AMC had a CD player which also used a MASH and the linearity was kept in check all the way up to -90 dB (+0.5). It probably has been corrected at this time. Funny thing, I am using my Sony MDR-V600 headphones, which have excellent sound quality with excellent efficiency and are very durable. - Reinhart |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
16bit audio was the best they could come up with in the late
70's Irrelevant. State a more clear and definitive answer. (Well... they did quickly come up with 24bit but Sony who was spearheading the digital technology had too much invested in 16bit encoding, also they'd paid big bucks for the development of the medium that was to usher in the digital era- CD's.) First off, the concept of the CD was invented by Philips. Sony came in the game later to help with its development. If Sony hadn't been in the game, the CD would have been Philips' way, which would be 14-bit at 44 KHz, if the final product would even work reliably enough to be practical. Secondly, Sony wasn't the only company involved with digital audio which involved these specs. Pioneer, Denon, and even the British Broadcasting Company had involvement in the development of digital audio, among other companies. As for PCM, those were devised on theories and mathematical models established in the early 20th Century! 16bit just doesn't have enough sampling rate to encompass the mass of data in complex musical scores. i.e. anything more complex than the average 5 piece rock band. And what do you define as mass in this regard? Quantization is nothing more than measuring a wave's amplitude and assigning it a value. 16-bit quantization allows up to 65,536 possible amplitude values for the sound wave, as calculated with 2^16. 24-bit quantization allows up to 14,777,216 possible amplitude values for the sound wave, as calculated with 2^24. Obviously, the higher the quantization, the more values of amplitude an encoder can assign to a wave in creating a mathematical model. This is how quantization has a say in determining the dynamic range and signal-noise ratio in a digital audio system. In theory, 24-bit should sound better but, in practical use, 24-bit is hardly a quantum leap over 16-bit. First off, regardless to what you believe, the dynamics that 16-bit quantization allows is still superior to any analogue system that is out there. Analogue systems that achieve high enough levels to be comparable in regards to dynamic range and signal-noise do so by using companders, which has their own set of problems when they do what they do. Meanwhile, 16-bit can achieve anywhere from 96-98 dB of dynamics with approximately equal SNR WITHOUT the aid of companders, and their inherent audible artifacts. However, you still have to factor another important aspect of digital audio encoding, which is sampling. This determines your maximum frequency response. Digital audio for CD is sampled at a rate of 44.1 KHz, which gives it a 22,050 Hz maximum frequency response. The extra bandwidth above 20,000 Hz is to accomodate filtering with brickwalls, although digital oversampling filters do a much better job at filtering by upsampling the 44.1 KHz feed upwards to 352.8 KHz with the typical 8-times oversampling digital filter. Both quantization and sampling work in concert for digitization of audio. As for analogue recorders, they still have finite abilities in recording a sound wave since they are limited by their own capabilities. Plus, like digital audio, analogue audio recorders also do a conversion of the soundwave into another form suitable for storage on the medium they deal with. Digital audio has a grave misconception of "butchering the sound" in that it doesn't capture everything. In reality, digital is nothing more than another way of dealing with storage and reproduction of information. In the same way, you could say that a lathe butchers the sound by turning a sound wave into a mechanical interpretation cut on an LP mother using a source that is rolled off at around 15-16 KHz to keep the cutterhead from overheating. With the severe roll-off, LPs capture less than CDs, even with the use of dbx! Analogue tapes may butcher the sound because it's converting a sound wave into magnetic print patterns. It may be further butchered if you use companders in an attempt to eliminate the inherent noise in analogue linear magnetic recordings. And, again, analogue tapes using fixed heads can't capture frequencies above a certain range unless you want to run the tape at a ridiculously high linear speed, which can allow greater levels of wow and flutter. Hell, you can even say that microphones will butcher the sound because it's turning a sound wave into electrical impulses of varying amplitude and frequency of a finite nature. No microphone will ever be able to capture sound at the infinite frequency ranges with infinite possibilities of amplitude. The limits you place on sound start right when you pick it up from the mics. It even starts when you listen to sounds live with your own ears, as the range of human hearing is also finite in terms of perceiving frequencies and amplitudes. Comb filters were used in the circuitry to "filter" out extraneous artifacts i.e. noise. These aren't called comb filters, but brickwall analogue filters. Problem was when faced with more data than could be processed it used the comb filter to restrict the flow of data to prevent overrun or distortion. Bull****. The rate of process by the digital section, and therefore pitch, is governed by a quartz oscillator. The information is transferred from the serial device (the disc drive) to the digital section and is reassembled from its interleaved state, which are arranged as block sectors on the disc, into a linear form. The read is buffered, undergoes 8-14 modulation, is run through CIRC to correct any errors, oversampled (which is done on just about all but the oldest CD players), and then converted by the D/A. While analog have alot of failings fidelity wise, analog system don't filter anything out and you get everything. Bull****. In analogue tapes, companders is, guess what, a form of filtering! The very things that are used in hi-fi VCRs, for which you give praise. Companders designed to minimize the inherent noise of tape hiss as well as increasing the audio's signal-noise is a form of filtering. If you play a tape that was treated to noise reduction without the NR process engaged on playback, you'll get some crappy sound, all the way from too bright a sound with Dolby B tapes to high levels of intolerable intrinsic noise with dbx. As for LPs with dbx, same problem. I had a pro sound studio where we did alot of post production work for film in the late 70's and early 80's. I was anxious to go digital and got the then available digital studio units available to test them out. That was when they first came out. Have you ever tried the stuff that is the current state-of-the-art now? If you haven't, then, I'm afraid, you are no longer an authority. But when we listened with our ears we noticed that the bass was thready and we lost almost all ambients during busy passages. Was the encoding equipment dithered? I'll bet it wasn't. That's what can happen if you don't dither the encoding equipment. - Reinhart |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
Many motherboards have a setup option in the BIOS where you can set the
front side bus (FSB) speed for the processor. Except for Intel boards of course ;-) Try looking up why you can't simply overclock an AthlonXP processor without unlocking it first. An AthlonXP with a locked multiplier will only allow you to attempt an overclock by adjusting the FSB speed, but tweaking with this setting will push the processor's clock speed to unstable and potentially damaging levels. In my case, the multiplier in my Athlon XP 2600+ is locked at 12.5 and cannot be changed unless it is modified. If I attempt to run the FSB at the next higher setting, which is 200 MHz in my case, it will push the processor up to a clock speed at approximately 2500 MHz (the rated speed with my version CPU is rated to run at 2083 MHz), which means the processor will run unstable and will have a tendency to cook itself even with the best cooling setups short of using liquid nitrogen. Even a watercooling setup won't protect my Athlon running at THAT speed for very long! Of course, this assumes that the BIOS doesn't detect the overheat and shut the machine down automatically in reaction. Further assumption is whether or not Windows would even boot up successfully or stay running for any appreciable amount of time. You have to modify the processor in order to allow adjustable multiplier settings so you can better control the kind of speeds that you are trying to push the processor up to. Right now, since my multiplier is locked at 12.5, I'm running it at the recommended settings. - Reinhart |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
On 05 Feb 2004 06:15:22 GMT, LASERandDVDfan wrote:
That's rich! Too fast. If a system is unstable because of too much speed it's more likely a result of "hand grenade" modification/tweeking. i.e. overclocking etc... My system is not overclocked. As a matter of fact, the processor that my machine uses hasn't even had its multiplier unlocked. How can I overclock my system if the processor's multiplier is still locked, for one? The real question is "why would you want to?". Overclocking is just like running a car's engine past the redline. Sure it'll go a little (very little) faster, but at what cost? For every percent gain in speed, you'll lose 10% in reliability. If you're data means nothing and having a system that can't go 30 minutes without crashing is reasonable then by all means overclock the ****er. About the only thing the system will be able to do is run benchmarks. For a little while at a time. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
First off very well said ......
It seems with every increase in technology in our lives we see a reduction in the things that are important, the quality of our lives and the freedoms we all enjoy. If I had to choose between having the latest movie to watch on my home set or having my constitutional freedoms and not having the government invading my life I believe I'd have to give up the movie. Most of the technology I do enjoy I got from using common sense and frugality not just running out and buying it just because everyone said so. My computer tower I bought second hand at a greatly reduced price. All else was scrounged. Monitor, mouse and keyboard. My vcr's are repair jobs gotten out of dustbins or the cheapest hifi models on sale at my local Wal-Mart. I've been a staunch supporter of the philosophy behind the Mother Jones publications all my life. people should realize that you can have a good quality of life and not be a slave to this consumeristic society we live in. As you can see people here are cussing at people over electronic equipment .. go figure ? On to the topic matter . I also repair and mostly newer stuff for a salvage buyer . I have had the chance to sit down in my home with both plasma and LCD tv sets of about 37 inch screens . They look nice but you cant get as ``real`` of picture from them as you can from a CRT . The plasma is better at viewing from an angle . The LCD set ( Sharp Aquos ) had a stunning picture on new brodcasts but totaly horrible picture on old video or black & white shows very blury & pixely . The LCD also was bad at off center viewing angles . The picture in this was so bright it was impossible to watch it in a low light room , turning down the contrast e.t.c. was no good .. could not get the bright whites down without getting the whole picture to dark . The plasma was much better at finding a mellow picture for a darker room . In my ears a CD has better sound . I do have some older equipment to compare such as an old tube amp which sounds real good . A Carver or Marantz amp from the mid 70`s has about the same sound all good & all just mid quality .. nothing high end . VCRs were really good and used for years . I just bought a DVD recorder and it out runs the VCR sound and picture both by about 100% . The dvd recorder is made much like a vcr . It has cable jacks and a tuner & timer to record stuff just like the vcr worked . The disks are inexpensive and can be erased , the freshly recorded disks can be taken out of the recorder & played in any other dvd player without any messing around ..... recorder , push record & when done open the tray .. go put the recording in any player & its working . As for lasting ... good luck . Every day use will eat up these dvd machines if not the lazer its the motor it seems . I dont use any of it very often so it should last me for years . Pricing .. I see everyone wants to pay little or nothing for electronics This is what has led all of it to be made so cheaply . The consumer electronic companys are just following what the consumer wants and they `can not` produce lasting quality if you do not want to pay for it . Example .. remember the very first VCRs ? big heavy bulky 1000$ units ... i bet you could get one of those and repair it today & it will work and what its 25 years old ? try that with a 2003 APEX DVD player when its 25 years old :-) . You asked for it .. you got it .. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
The real question is "why would you want to?". Overclocking is just like
running a car's engine past the redline. Sure it'll go a little (very little) faster, but at what cost? The idea of overclocking is that processors are usually rated very conservatively. In the case of AthlonXP processors, they are considered an overclocker's dream because they typically have a lot of overclocking headroom, especially the Thorougbred B core and particularly the Barton core. After you've unlocked the CPU, you can overclock something like an AthlonXP 2500+ with the Barton core and 512Kb cache to run at close to 3000+ levels without difficulty or problems. This is because these two processors have the same core, they're just rated differently on the markings. Of course, this does not negate the fact that there is a risk when you do overclock something. Also instabilities can arise not just from the processor, but also from the bus and the components that are connected to it. For instance, if you push the bus up higher beyond the capabilities of the RAM, you can have instability problems arise out of the memory. - Reinhart |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
"LASERandDVDfan" wrote in message ... Many motherboards have a setup option in the BIOS where you can set the front side bus (FSB) speed for the processor. Except for Intel boards of course ;-) Try looking up why you can't simply overclock an AthlonXP processor without unlocking it first. An AthlonXP with a locked multiplier will only allow you to attempt an overclock by adjusting the FSB speed, but tweaking with this setting will push the processor's clock speed to unstable and potentially damaging levels. Intel and AMD CPU's have had locked multipliers since the late Pentium 1 class chips, this is nothing new. As the earlier poster said though, usually you can bump up the FSB speed, which is what is multiplied by the multiplier to get the final CPU speed. Many boards now let you bump it up in small increments, though these days I see little point in overclocking. Back in the day, I had an Intel 125MHz overdrive chip that would easily run at 166 MHz with a FSB change, that was a pretty substantial improvement and made it as fast as a chip costing more than double what I had. Now days I could probably overclock my 1.4 GHz Athlon to 1.5 or so, maybe a bit higher if I really pushed it, but that's a pretty insignificant improvement, and honestly 1.4 still feels plenty fast to me, it's the hard drive that feels like the bottleneck. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I don't have a plasma or LCD TV either
My computer tower I bought second hand at a greatly reduced price. All else was scrounged. Monitor, mouse and keyboard. My vcr's are repair jobs gotten out of dustbins or the cheapest hifi models on sale at my local Wal-Mart. I've been a staunch supporter of the philosophy behind the Mother Jones publications all my life. people should realize that you can have a good quality of life and not be a slave to this consumeristic society we live in. I don't know who mother jones is, but I would say that your ideas are a good reason not to shop at Wal Mart, they put so many family businesses out of business and pay their employees pocket change selling virtually only cheap crap imported from 3rd world contries. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Looking for info on Plasmacam and plasma cutting | Metalworking | |||
| anyone own or use one of these plasma cutters | Metalworking | |||
| Unknown plasma Cutter Help | Metalworking | |||
| Plasma cutter ? | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
