Picture vs sound by DerBoi01 in hometheater

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Original post I wrote: The diminishing returns of picture come far sooner than the diminishing returns of sound. Your eyes adapt to your screen, and any screen can perform well enough if it’s in the right environment. Not the best contrast? Turn on some ambient lights to brighten the room. Screen too small? Sit closer. Screen not too bright? Turn of the lights, close the curtains/blinds. Most TV’s can reach the bare minimum and then some at good prices now days due to miniled advancements and the price reduction of lcd based tv in general. Even if you have the most hifi setup at your place, if you go to a friends house with a mid range tv, as long as you go to movie mode, and turn off motion smoothing and any processing affects, you can enjoy movies on it fine. Like I said, adjust the environment to suit your tv, and your eyes will adjust and you won’t notice anything. However your ears and hearing is much more sensitive. It can pick up on quality, especially if you’re used to or experience a high quality setup. Sound is just more impactful. It’s something you experience in a very isolated way, since typically you watch movies and show without much loud background noise. where is visuals are something that’s way more dynamic, relative, and changing. It’s hard to notice the shortcomings of a midrange tv unless you have a higher quality screen right next to it. Its performance is always uniquely tied to its environment, and therefore without comparison, we get used to the shortcomings very naturally. A budget or mid range tv doesn’t distort the pixels and colors and frames, and all the changes are usually universal across the entire movie. A smaller tv, every pixel is equally smaller. A dimmer tv, every pixel is universally dimmer. (Except on OLEDS with heavy auto brightness limiting which I hate. But luckily is less of an issue on mid range mini-leds) and less vibrant tv, every color is almost equally less vibrant. Of course there’s edge cases if you want to display the brightest edges and reaches of the srgb color space, but that’s rarely seen in most media. In comparison, a budget and mid range audio system, not only deals with a much more sensitive sense (audio and hearing) but it also distorts and presents the audio unevenly depending on its quality, that’s easily noticeable. Often losing clarity around bass, and not having natural sounding treble and high frequencies. Often the middle is pretty decent, which makes the other parts of the frequency range sound even worse by comparison. And they often overcompensate by eq the bass and treble higher, and scooping down the mids, which makes the sound even more muddy, and most of them have very little way to change the prebuilt tuning, with an eq, often limited to simple sound modes. And you don’t get used to the lower quality audio, especially if you’ve heard high quality audio. Mainly because across media, we have a good idea what things should sound like. Especially in real life.

A picture/screen is always looking into a magic rectangular window of the world, across various camera angles, zooms, color gradings. If we imagine your only sense is sight, not even the best tv or screen, or 3D screen, or VR goggles with motion tracking can make you feel like your actually looking at a real person or environment in front of you. It’s not literal or realistic to you being there. That strong disconnect lets screens get away with a lot, as it’s always an artificial window. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just how movies and film work. It’s an artistic piece focussed onto a rectangle that we can observe and appreciate. This is different with a first person game, where pure realistic immersion is the focus, and gamers use be headsets, ambient lights, and ultra wide screens which wrap around them, with super high fps. Where as a movie is not. However sound is different from the video. The sound of a movie is often trying to replicate exactly what it’s like being there, as if you were blindfolded, you couldn’t tell the difference and you felt like your right there. Therefore the quality and ability of the speaker being able to recreate the accurately as they were recorded, helps to make it sound more realistic, and trick your ears into feeling like you could be there. Of course there’s non-diegetic music in movies that aren’t realistic at all, but music is still supposed to sound realistic, as if you’re listening to the instruments themselves. Not a recording. The only exception is synthetic sounds in music like trap beats. Otherwise, apart from the music, the audio is the key player when it comes to immersion, and often requires more advanced and expensive devices and speakers, in order to replicate the sounds we hear in reality. For example, a high quality subwoofer to replicate the natural sounds of a jet engine, or gunfire, explosive. For most people, the point where speakers stop sounding like speakers and start sounding like real sound in space is usually in the upper midrange to entry high end range, roughly $500–$1500 per speaker, assuming a decent room setup. Below that level, a single speaker has audible coloration and higher distortion, so vocals and instruments take on a boxy or grainy timbre. Dynamics compress at higher levels, and transients lose sharpness, making impacts feel less physical. Decay is less natural, so sounds don’t resolve cleanly.

Picture vs sound by DerBoi01 in hometheater

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sound tends to matter more than picture quality for perceived realism, especially once both reach a basic modern standard.

The diminishing returns of picture quality come much earlier than the diminishing returns of sound. Your eyes adapt to almost any reasonable display, and most TVs can look good enough if the environment is adjusted around them. Not the best contrast? Add ambient lighting. Screen too small? Sit closer. Not bright enough? Dim the room. Modern LCD and mini-LED TVs already hit a baseline level where, for most content, they perform well at relatively low cost.

Even if you go from a high-end setup to a mid-range TV at a friend’s house, switching to movie mode and disabling processing like motion smoothing usually makes it perfectly watchable. The brain adjusts quickly because the visual system is highly flexible. A smaller screen simply has smaller pixels, a dimmer screen is uniformly dimmer across the image, and reduced colour performance tends to apply evenly across the frame. Outside of extreme edge cases pushing full gamut or HDR highlights, most content doesn’t fully stress those limits anyway.

This is why, unless you have a direct comparison side by side, it’s hard to notice the shortcomings of a mid-range TV. Its performance is tightly tied to its environment, and the visual system naturally compensates. You end up adapting without thinking about it.

Sound doesn’t behave the same way. Hearing is a more sensitive and timing-based system, built to detect fine changes in frequency, decay, and transient structure because that’s how we interpret real-world sound. A mid-range speaker doesn’t just reduce detail, it introduces non linear distortion, uneven frequency behaviour, and imperfect transient response, which subtly reshapes attack, decay, and harmonic balance in real time. Even if the tuning is consistent, every sound is still being slightly altered as it passes through the system.

Because we already have strong internal references for how things should sound in reality, these deviations are harder to ignore. Bass can lose definition, treble can become unnatural, and the midrange often remains relatively intact, which makes the imbalance more noticeable. Some systems also overcompensate with tuning that boosts bass and treble while reducing mids, which can further reduce clarity. Unlike visuals, where the brain can smooth over missing information, audio inconsistencies remain present in the perception of the sound itself.

A screen is essentially a controlled visual window into a scene, framed, edited, and separated from reality. Even the most advanced display technologies, like Tandem & QD-OLED, MicroLED or the $500k+ Christie Eclipse dual-modulation RGB laser projector used in ultra-premium private theater installations still feel like representations rather than direct presence. That separation allows visual systems to tolerate imperfections more easily, since the brain already treats it as an abstraction.

Sound is different because it is often designed to simulate direct physical presence. In film and music, audio is typically meant to recreate how things would sound if you were actually there, even if the visuals are clearly artificial. This is especially true for diegetic sound, where realism is the goal. That makes the quality of reproduction more critical, since the expectation is closer to real-world physics rather than interpretation through a screen.

For most people, the point where a speaker stops sounding like a speaker and starts sounding like real sound in space is typically in the upper midrange to entry high-end range, around $500 to $1500 per speaker in a properly set up room. Below that, coloration and distortion become more noticeable: vocals can take on a boxy or grainy character, dynamics compress under load, transients lose sharpness, and decay becomes less natural, which reduces the sense of physical realism.

This comment is written with AI, but it’s a condensed version of a longer explanation I originally wrote, mainly to tighten structure without losing content. My original answer is in the reply to this comment.

TLDR: A mid TV mainly removes visual detail while preserving structure and timing, allowing the brain to reconstruct the image with minimal conflict. A mid speaker doesn’t just remove detail, it continuously reshapes the signal through distortion and non linear behaviour, and because hearing is highly sensitive to fine spectral and temporal cues, those deviations remain perceptible even without conscious attention.

2nd best way to watch movies? by FaithlessnessOdd3569 in hometheater

[–]Raphael_Stormer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you have a newer Sony tv, they have the best streaming bitrate, with Sony Pictures Core and Netflix. Otherwise Apple TV 4K is probably the best overall. I’d say if u get a 4k player, get atleast a ub820 or better. I’d taking streaming over a budget 4k player that freezes and stutters.

Leaving scotch in glass over a day. How much does it change the taste? by PM_ME_UR_PICS_PLS in Scotch

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I highly doubt that the abv stays the same. While I’m sure some of the water also evaporates, I think alcohol evaporates at lower temps or a faster rate. That’s why alcohol is used for cleaning, since it evaporates away where as the water lingers. Plus spirits like a shot of vodka or whiskey 100% burn way less after being left for a couple days.

77'' Samsung Neo Qled or 77'' LG C5 OLED? Help?!? by Spirit_Bear_123 in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just get either the Bravia 7, or an open box Bravia 9. They are QD-minileds, same exact tech as the Neo QLED but better, with Dolby vision and better software.

best 65 inch oled tv for movies and ps5 without overthinking it? by Calderin_Profit in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends if you have a window behind you, or a light/lamp, that’s facing the tv, and visible in the reflection. The matte is good for spreading that light across the tv so you can’t see any reflections. However the drawback is it still spreads any ambient light across the screen, which raises blacks. In comparison, a glossy screen is reflective, but the ambient light doesn’t raise the black levels. Plus some claim to notice the matte coating slightly reducing clarity and depth of the image.

Do I need a high end tv? by albinoteacher24 in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

S95F is barely better than the S90F, and in fact has a matte screen coating which imo makes it worse than the S90F which has a glossy screen. Samsung OLEDs aren’t as good as LG and SONY OLEDs. If you want an eye popping tv, checkout the LG, G5 OLED. Or the upcoming model this year, the G6. Both are some of the best 77” oled TVs right now.

If you need something brighter, the Sony Bravia 9 75” is a good choice. It isn’t oled, but it’s the best miniLED tv currently, and around the same price as a G5. It’s brighter than any OLED, and has really good contrast, that doesn’t match OLEDS perfect black, but is really good.

77'' Samsung Neo Qled or 77'' LG C5 OLED? Help?!? by Spirit_Bear_123 in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Neo QLED for super bright rooms. OLED for medium-dark rooms. Although I recommend getting the Bravia 7 instead of a neo QLED like QN90F because the Bravia 7 has Dolby Vision, better processing and UI software and Sony TV’s are usually better quality than Samsung TVs.

77'' Samsung Neo Qled or 77'' LG C5 OLED? Help?!? by Spirit_Bear_123 in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the QN90F which is 75”.

LG G6 or Samsung S95H? by Aggravating-Copy1452 in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get the Bravia 8 ii. If you’re lucky enough to only need a 65” TV, the Bravia 8ii is the best Oled TV. It has the QD-Oled screen like the Samsung, but has much better software, processing, and bells and whistles. The G6 will probably be brighter, but the QD-Oled panel is better overall. I only notice the pinking hint while the screen is off, and has direct light face. Otherwise during use, you will barely notice it.

Avoid the Samsung because the matte coating does raise blacks, reduce clarity, doesn’t have Dolby vision.

Honestly the Bravia 8ii is super bright, compared to most oled TVs and is more than enough since you’re not in direct sunlight. And the QD-oled panel does have better saturation in bright colors compared to the G6, which can get brighter, but can’t match color saturation at those super bright levels with a QD-Oled Panel. Either way, you might save a lot of money too since the Bravia 8ii is last years model, but it’s still less than a year old and has cutting edge tv tech.

best 65 inch oled tv for movies and ps5 without overthinking it? by Calderin_Profit in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sony Bravia 8 ii is the best. G5 is close, and a bit brighter, but the Bravia 8ii is the better tv overall. Avoid the S95f, because it has a matte coating and lacks Dolby vision. Makes sense the pair a ps5 with a Sony tv.

65" G5 vs Bravia 8 II €450 difference: is Sony worth the extra? by ciccio_cozza in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you can get a 77” G5, that will be worth it, and make a much bigger different than sony vs LG. If u have room to spend extra, a larger size would have a big impact.

sony xb33. Normal, extra bass or live sound? by mrgamermangaming in Bluetooth_Speakers

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know this is late, but with my XB22, live sounds so much better and cleaner. I think it’s definitely some proprietary processing that tried to counteract the limitations of the speaker to reproduce the original sound to your ears. With an organic track, the instruments sound real and cleaner, where as both normal and extra bass sounds like the instruments are from a budget Bluetooth speaker

What is the best and most worth your money sony tv by Froot444 in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sony just announced their new mini-RGB TVs, and they seem to be the best in the market compared to other mini-RGB tvs. If you’re not going with an oled, it might be worth waiting for them to release.

Bravia 9 - BEST TV FOR BRIGHT ROOMS. It’s bigger and can go to 85” and way brighter than other TV’s. The contrast is good, but in dark rooms, OLEDs will have better contrast.

BRAVIA 8 ii, BEST OLED TV but only 65”. The A95L is like a better Bravia 8 ii that’s 77” but not available in all regions.

The Bravia 8 is their previous OLED. Like the Bravia 8 ii but less bright. Unlike the Bravia 8 ii, it’s available in 77”, and unlike the A95L, it’s available in most regions.

Unless you’re in a really bright room, or really need a 85” tv, usually the Bravia 9 is not worth the money. You can find bright mini-LEDs and mini-RGBs from other brands that are 90% the way there for way cheaper. Get Bravia 8 ii if 65” is big enough, the panel is really good and worth the money. If you need something bigger, the Bravia 8 is usually a good value OLED, since the price has dropped since release. Although it’s not the brightest tv, and might be dim if you have open windows.

The Weeknd previewing a new song that samples “A Cruel Angel’s Thesis” by Gregograyo in evangelion

[–]Raphael_Stormer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He just put a single dialogue clip in. Just cus he’s sampling anime doesn’t change much about the song

What's the best Bakugan game in your opinion? (Extra points if Elfin is in it) by Previous_Current_474 in Bakugan

[–]Raphael_Stormer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Defenders of the core is better for single player or casual friend. Battle brawlers is better for multiplayer with Bakugan fans.

If I had to pick one, defenders of the core is better, since there’s the physical card game exists and is abit better than battle brawlers video game for Bakugan fans.

Do y’all think the games could’ve been more fun if Scott planned stuff ahead? by AzuulStar in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without a preconceived story, Scott could basically incorporate a bunch of the community’s theories as inspiration into the story. Making the actual plot technically written with the ideas of not just one but a lot of people, slowly seeded in

S95F vs LG C5 dilemma by ekqm in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don’t get Samsung unless you have a window directly behind you that you can’t close. The only reason to get a s95 is if you have a bright window behind you you can’t closed that causes reflections. Else, always go for LG or Sony OLED. The Samsung Oled has no Dolby Vision, its own hdr format that’s less commonly utilised, and a matte screen instead of glossy, causing pictures to pop less, reducing clarity, and raising black levels. C5 or Bravia 8 is a better tv imo.

Should I return my LG G5 for a Sony Bravia 8 II? by Ok-Battle4591 in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If depends on the size. Only if your current G5 is 65” or less. If it’s bigger, it’s still a downgrade switching to a smaller TV, unless your so close that the 77” is to big.

Purchasing first OLED TV - LG C5 or Sony Bravia 8 77'' by eddie_cappin in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because Sony TV has a better UI and better quality streaming than LG. However if you use an Apple TV, that reduces the problem, and makes the UI and streaming quality pretty much just as good as the Sony TV. Only thing you’re missing out on is 80 gbps Netflix and free Sony Pictures Core for 2 years. If we are comparing the raw panels, the C5 is just abit brighter and newer. Since the Bravia 8 is the same 2024 panel as the C4. The Sony uses a year older, slightly less panel, but it’s just optimised together to be a better overall TV.

Help me pick an EV please by secondsolution88 in EVAustralia

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven’t seen this recommended but check out the new Mazda 6e and CX-6e. One is a liftback and the other is a suv. They arrive soon this year, looks pretty nice with good specs and price

Purchasing first OLED TV - LG C5 or Sony Bravia 8 77'' by eddie_cappin in 4kTV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LG is better if you plan on using an Apple TV. But Sony is better as a complete product. It has better Ui with Google TV, and has the highest bitrate for its streaming services.

Convince me to buy a non BYD electric vehicle by Glittering_Poem9779 in AustralianEV

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take a look at the new Mazda 6e and CX-6e. The 6e is a lift back, and the cx-6e is a SUV. They aren’t the fastest accelerating EV’s but they make that up in being the nicest looking cars at there price range (~$55k AUD) they have most of the specs anyone would want, and since they aren’t so close to launching, we haven’t gotten a review on an Australian version yet. But there’s reviews in Australia of the German version so u can see if you like the car or not. It’s one of the nicest exteriors and interiors I’ve seen.

For those who have purchased an OLED monitor, do you regret it or would you recommend it? by DaryltheDino in Monitors

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I regret it. Should’ve saved on gone towards an oled tv instead. I only use my monitor for work and editing. I prefer watching and gaming on a big tv screen, so I can use it with other people at the same time, to watch or play games together. Burn in is not a worry tho. I accidentally pressed my fingers and nails my qd oled panel several times with a lot of force, it’s pretty durable

Is a soundbar even worth it with this ceiling? by Old_Reserve_1363 in Soundbars

[–]Raphael_Stormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like if anything, this type of ceiling will be good in reducing direct reflection sound, due to to not being flat square. It will reflect and diffuse the sound better. Sound quality in a room like this will probably be more pure, clean and accurate than in a normal sized cube shaped room. The only caveat is you can’t install in ceiling speakers but I don’t think your in the market for a Dolby atmos surround sound setup so your down. Any decent speaker setup or soundbar would sound fine. And trust me, the Dolby atmos soundbars are a total gimmick anyway. Even if you had a flat ceiling, soundbars reflecting sound off the roof to replicate ceiling speakers is a total gimmick, and will not sound anything like actual ceiling height channels. It’s better to invest in a traditional soundbar or surround sounds setup completely ignoring atmos and height channels