"New and (Not) Improved"--Audio/Video Tech

[edtyct]

I thought that some of you might be interested in an article that appears in today's Boston Globe business section, carrying the quoted title of this thread. It takes a look at the differences in sound quality between vacuum tubes and solid state and between vinyl and CDs/MP3s in audio and between CRTs and fixed-pixel displays in video. The author, Hiawatha Bray (honest), gives the new technologies their due so far as convenience and reliabilty are concerned but elicits comments from the owner of a high-end audio store, from Paul Semenza of iSuppli Corp., and from Shawn Britton of Mobile Fidelity as evidence that picture and sound quality has not kept pace with technology's more practical advances. SACD is noted as the rare digital format that actually comes close to what vinyl systems can accomplish.

The article is much better than most of the discussions about such topics that I've seen in the mainstream press, especially those with a business slant, which tend to get the technical and enthusiast's viewpoints all wrong. Publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are particularly bad at portraying the whys and wherefores of HDTV. Bray's take, however, is lucid and balanced. One point in the article that rang true was that regardless of CRT's unmatched ability to render chroma and lumina, fixed pixels at the top of their game have a sharpness and crispness that can become attractive, and addictive, in their own right--something that I've noticed myself, having given up my last CRT, which replaced a plasma, in favor of another microdisplay for that very reason.

Ed

[topspeed]

Thanks Ed. How 'bout a link?

[edtyct]

Topspeed, sorry, I got this article the old-fashioned way. No link.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I thought that some of you might be interested in an article that appears in today's Boston Globe business section, carrying the quoted title of this thread. It takes a look at the differences in sound quality between vacuum tubes and solid state and between vinyl and CDs/MP3s in audio and between CRTs and fixed-pixel displays in video. The author, Hiawatha Bray (honest), gives the new technologies their due so far as convenience and reliabilty are concerned but elicits comments from the owner of a high-end audio store, from Paul Semenza of iSuppli Corp., and from Shawn Britton of Mobile Fidelity as evidence that picture and sound quality has not kept pace with technology's more practical advances. SACD is noted as the rare digital format that actually comes close to what vinyl systems can accomplish.

The article is much better than most of the discussions about such topics that I've seen in the mainstream press, especially those with a business slant, which tend to get the technical and enthusiast's viewpoints all wrong. Publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are particularly bad at portraying the whys and wherefores of HDTV. Bray's take, however, is lucid and balanced. One point in the article that rang true was that regardless of CRT's unmatched ability to render chroma and lumina, fixed pixels at the top of their game have a sharpness and crispness that can become attractive, and addictive, in their own right--something that I've noticed myself, having given up my last CRT, which replaced a plasma, in favor of another microdisplay for that very reason.

Ed

Unfortunately Ed whoever wrote this article didn't talk to Joe Kane. He still believes that CRT rules king when it comes to resolution, black levels, picture dynamic, noise, and the least amount of artifacting when it comes to a scientific comparison.

What good is a sharp picture when the blacks look gray, there is noise in the color portions of the picture, and it cannot resolve details in the dark portions of the picture?

[edtyct]

Sir T,

Bray was hardly disputing anything that Joe Kane, or anyone else with a little background, and discrimination, can plainly see. On the contrary, the article came down decidedly in favor of CRT in all of the relevant respects. In spite of Joe Kane's well-earned sainthood, however, there's no reason for anyone to believe that what's good about CRTs automatically makes fixed pixels completely worthless. Fixed pixel displays' general inability to render CRT's inky blacks does not mean that they are all stuck in an unremitting grey. They aren't, and once the next step is taken to keep stray light in check, they will get even better. Nor does it mean that all fixed-pixel units have noisy colors, suffer from banding, or fail to reveal shadow detail. Their contrast ratios may not be as good, or as weighted toward black, but the baby doesn't necessarily have to go down with the bath water. In a room with a little light, a good microdisplay can do the trick well enough. Execution is still part of the battle. Some flat panels do a better job than others at particular things. But HD on a well-designed fixed pixel display still can look mighty good, and sufficiently different from a CRT to merit judgment on its own terms. And I say so as someone who has no trouble acknowledging the virtues of CRT.

Ed