Linked by David Adams on Tue 14th Feb 2012 17:24 UTC
Apple Today Samsung AV product lead Chris Moseley had comments about Apple's rumored entrance into the television marketplace that sound eerily similar to that which Palm CEO Ed Colligan's said a few years back about how Apple's ability to simply walk into this market and figure it out like they had managed to do after years of research.
Thread beginning with comment 507272
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Improvements
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Feb 2012 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Improvements"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

It won't have quality sound. Sound depends on moving lots of air, which takes up a lot of space, needs a fair amount of power and weighs a lot. Apple won't sacrifice style for sound. Fanboys will believe it sounds great no matter what.

Sound and sound quality is not about moving lots of air. Sound quality is determined by the drivers ability to accurately reproduce frequencies. And no speaker does magic tricks -- in other words,... crap in, crap out.

To the guy who said tv isn't about picture quality, you're nuts. Even for the Average Joe it's one of the central most important factors. People care more about what the picture looks like than whether or not they can perform google searched from their remote control.

As far as future-proofing.. There's no such thing as future-proofing when it comes to technology. Even if there were, it would be bad for business anyway.

Regarding Apple throwing their hat into the tv arena.. I'm reserving my judgment until there's something to judge.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Improvements
by Neolander on Wed 15th Feb 2012 18:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Improvements"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Sound and sound quality is not about moving lots of air. Sound quality is determined by the drivers ability to accurately reproduce frequencies. And no speaker does magic tricks -- in other words,... crap in, crap out.

You have to agree that current speaker designs need to be of a certain size (among other things) to render basses properly, though. Which is one of the reasons why bundled speakers in current laptops, TVs, and cellphones are doomed to suck from a sound quality point of view.

Edited 2012-02-15 18:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Improvements
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Feb 2012 20:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Improvements"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Sound and sound quality is not about moving lots of air. Sound quality is determined by the drivers ability to accurately reproduce frequencies. And no speaker does magic tricks -- in other words,... crap in, crap out.
You have to agree that current speaker designs need to be of a certain size (among other things) to render basses properly, though. Which is one of the reasons why bundled speakers in current laptops, TVs, and cellphones are doomed to suck from a sound quality point of view.

As a very general comment, yes bigger speakers have typically been needed to produce accurate bass frequencies. That's not a given though as you can easily have higher quality bass response from smaller (rather than larger) sized speakers. There are a few new designs on the horizon that will reduce it much further with better response.

When you're referring to ultra-small speakers, such as those found in cellphones and laptops... Yes, physical size limitation has an impact on the speakers ability to perform accurately. In other words, quality will always be an issue when you've scaled down that far thanks to physics.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Comment by zima
by zima on Tue 21st Feb 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Improvements"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You have to agree that current speaker designs need to be of a certain size (among other things) to render basses properly, though

Maybe a better place for woofer is in a separate box, like many ~PC speaker sets do for a long time. Maybe integrated with the power supply unit, for "tidiness" - yeah, possible interference would have to be taken care of, but it shouldn't be too hard generally: for one, I don't think modern LED-backlit TVs need any high voltages anymore.
The screens themselves will only get thinner ...TVs seem to be also about size (also thinness) / sexiness? (yeah, Apple could do good)

Either way, as you say in other post, people are generally satisfied (also about so called "HD" http://www.osnews.com/permalink?508052 )

BTW what you mention nearby: maybe it's better to not give the tool of such interference to ~filmmakers - infrasounds (easy to obtain in such setup, even not-quite-on-purpose) tend to work weird on humans, some "bad" mental states would skyrocket, together with ghost apparitions and such ;) (especially considering how TV is an evening thing, when we're tired, with more propensity for brainfarts)
And yeah, I'd also guess the two problems you mention with small headphones - sound energy should fall with ^3 after all (and maybe it's even better for headphones, comparably - after all, they work in a sort of tunnel)

Edited 2012-02-22 00:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Improvements
by zima on Tue 21st Feb 2012 23:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Improvements"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

To the guy who said tv isn't about picture quality, you're nuts. Even for the Average Joe it's one of the central most important factors. People care more about what the picture looks like [...]

Not really, no. Well, sort of. People think they want quality. Or, alternatively, what they think to be quality (image ramped up to ridiculous contrast & saturation - those are the defaults on all ~my TVs of the past 2 decades; or overkill bass and dynamic compression for audio) really isn't one.

Consider: according to research done by Ofcom, non-trivial part of the population mistakenly thinks they have HD, while they don't.

I couldn't quickly find (BBC, I believe...) article about this specific research, but: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/hd_masters_conferenc...
only 43% of UK consumers knew that they might need an HD set-top box to watch programmes in HD
[...] they mistakenly think that they are already watching HD simply because they've purchased an HD-ready TV

(it's not quite clear from the wording in this one - but yes, it was about those who got HD-ready TV, just connected it to their old signal source, and mistakenly thought they are watching HD)

Generally, the size & "sexiness" (also thinness) of TV seems to play at least as major role ...yup, I could see Apple doing good here.

Also, how people are taken and impressed by "HD" web videos ...which, really, typically offer worse quality & less detail (due to miserable bitrates) than plain DVD.

Or, related, large megapixel numbers of cheap digicams.


As far as future-proofing.. There's no such thing as future-proofing when it comes to technology. Even if there were, it would be bad for business anyway.

There does seem to be such a thing in this field - half century old TVs can generally still receive present transmissions (yes, assuming digital switchover didn't yet happen in given place - but even then, a simple & inexpensive adapter will do the trick...). Or: take a modern LCD TV back in time, to the 1950s - and it would work.

Edited 2012-02-22 00:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2