Herein I delve into home media topics with which I've had experience, attempting to relate historical perspective along with the realities of contemporary technology. I don't intend that this information be exhaustive or tutorial — that type of information is readily found elsewhere on the Web.
Now for the HDMI. The Blu-ray player was no challenge, as it's pre-4K and so was simply HD. But then there was the Apple TV box. Attaching that, the receiver oddly identified the ATV as "CD"; but would display video from the ATV. However, going into Apple TV's settings showed that it found its connection to the receiver as capable of 4K but not HDR: it reported 4K SDR. Perplexing, as there was nothing to alter in the receiver settings. It occurred to me to look at the Sony TV's settings, where I want into "External inputs" and then "HDMI signal format". The setting there was "Standard format". I switched that to "Enhanced format", which supported high quality HDMI, 4K at 60 Hz, and HDR. That required restarting the TV (Android reboot). Now, there was no picture from the Apple TV. What the ...? The element left to suspect was the HDMI cable. That was a Monster brand "Ultimate High Speed". You would expect "ultimate" to handle things just fine, right? Well, that's marketing hyperbole. I happened to have a newer (and thicker) Monster cable and put that into place instead. Picture! My perception is that while the cable had enough bandwidth for 4K, it could not handle HDR as well. This was a good lesson on how unintuitive HDMI can be, and that the issue can be with the ultimate device in the chain — the TV — rather than what the signal source (Apple TV) is directly connected to (the receiver).
The over-the-ear QC-15 headphones are stylish, comfortable, and effective, with satisfying sound. Ambient noise suppression is very good, where that is powered by a AAA battery. An annoying shortcoming of the headphones is that this noise suppression has to be turned on for the headphones to be used for listening to audio/music: fail to flip the switch on and you get nothing.
Materials and construction have had issues. My first pair of QC-15 headphones had their plastic body break, despite careful handling by their single-owner adult: I took them back to Bose (they had a local sales location at the time) for repair, but they said not repairable and offered a new generation pair at a reduced price, which I did. The new pair has held up for some 8 years, but recently the ear surrounds started coming apart. I did online research, finding that to be a common problem, where there is a small industry of replacement ear surrounds. I went for a more expensive such kit after viewing a replacement video. Getting the ear surrounds off the headphones is easy, but getting the new ones on is very difficult, where the rigid base of the surrounds has to snap under very small studs on the periphery of the headphone plastic shell, where the base of the surrounds is a very stiff material that suffers from the effort and then doesn't provide much holding power. In the effort I was surprised at how much body slough-off debris there was inside the earphone shells, which I gently brushed out. I was also surpised at how little there is inside the ear shells: the sound transducers occupy a small part of the shell. It makes me wonder if Sony's competing headphones have a lot more inside.
One horrible thing that every QC-15 owner hates is the extremely loud and annoying clicking sound that these headphones produce when the battery is getting low. Really, Bose designs headphones that intentionally do this to people's ears?? Online research finds lots of people complaining about this stupidity; and when they ask about it on Bose forums, Bose personnel pretend that they've never heard of such a thing before — though it's designed in. This is unacceptable. My next set of headphones will be another brand.
Years ago I acquired an iMac for my family room. An iMac is ideal choice as it is powerful for serving media, is integrated so as to eliminate clutter, and provides you with Internet access from your media room. Add to that a few other Apple devices, and you have a nice arrangement.
Better audio-video receivers have long had digital audio input connectors. In the audio world, the terminology for such a connector is Toslink, which was invented by Toshiba, and hence the name stem. Here is a picture of a Toslink plug. What you do, then is obtain a readily available Toslink to Mini Optical cable, to connect from your iMac's output jack to the receiver's digital optical input connector. By default, your iMac sends its audio to this output, so no adjustment needed there. All very simple and straightforward. To play music, have iTunes running, select the right audio source in your receiver, and start playing your desired tune.
Do you have to walk over to your computer to choose and control songs? Not at all: you have several remote control choices. The simplest choice is the iMac's provided software called Front Row. Using the little Apple remote control device, you control what's playing, where choices are displayed on the Mac's screen in large letters and pictures. A more sophisticated control method is to use the free Apple app called Remote, on your iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. You "pair" the handheld device to your iTunes library; then you see all your iTunes content listed on the device, whereby you can select and control the playing of your content. Very straightforward.
How well does this audio playing work? I've been using it for years, and can testify to its top-notch quality and ease of use.
What about the approach of using your iPod as a music source? Yes, there are ways to feed the audio from your iPod into your receiver. Various receiver manufacturers provide an iPod accessory dock for feeding the iPod audio into their receiver. But this is a rather backwards way to play audio on your home system. Consider that the music that is in your iPod comes from your computer: your computer is the fundamental repository for your music, and can send music directly to your HiFi system, with no compromises. This is the best way to go. Does the iPod approach have any context where it makes sense? It might, where convenience is the most important factor. If so, you might consider a high-end docking unit which delivers music from your iPod with no compromises. A company known for this approach is Wadia, where their transport bypasses the digital to analog conversion process and analog output stage of the iPod. Another excellent approach is what I saw in a restaurant: purchase a music unit which has a built-in iPod dock, to play ambient music.
Would you want to send music to play on your TV? No. Televisions have always had audio circuitry and speakers which are distinctly inferior to what you have always had in HiFi systems. A satisfying music experience calls for music to be played through your receiver and room speakers, not the TV.
Once an Apple TV is connected, what content can you enjoy? Intrinsically, you can rent content from the iTunes Store, of course, where there is a wide selection of movies and television shows. Apple also hosts a wide variety of video podcasts, where probably the majority these days are HD type. Via video podcasts, you can tour the city of London, explore far away places, catch up with current technology via numerous "shows", and watch content provided by commercial networks and other media providers. There is also YouTube, Flickr photos, and Apple's MobileMe (if you have an account), plus a world of Internet radio stations.
All generations of Apple TV allow you to stream content from iTunes within your computer. What kind of video would you have in your computer? It's common to collect novelty video from the Internet. Manufacturers often create inventive commercials which they make available on the Web. Product demonstration videos and lectures are also possible candidates. It's fairly common to capture novel videos from YouTube and similar sites to readily play on your equipment, eliminating the need to search for it or fear that it may be withdrawn from the providing site. And you may have shot your own video (perhaps on iPhone 4 or iPod touch) which you have transferred to iTunes as a repository, and would like to see it on your big screen. Further, there is the somewhat controversial HandBrake application, which allows one to transfer the content of a DVD to the personal computer.
How do you control Apple TV? It comes with the standard, little Apple remote control, which operates with the menu system displayed on your HDTV. You can also use Apple's free app called Remote to control things. In addition to showing you the content listing on your Apple hand-held device, Remote also provides you with a blank area wherein you can use gestures to interact with the menu displayed on the HDTV; and it provides a touch keyboard whereby you can simply type in search items (rather than navigate to one letter at a time, via the standard remote control).
The new iOS 4 operating system in Apple's hand-held devices provides the capability of streaming video content from that device to your Apple TV, via intrinsic software called AirPlay. That works with certain content, such as movies or TV shows rented from the iTunes Store.
The new, small, black Apple TV box of late 2010 is a 720p device, employing an A4 processor — the same as in the iPhone 4 and first generation iPad. It is expected that later in 2011, an advanced A5 processor will debut, first in the iPad, to later be incorporated into a next-generation Apple TV. That should provide plenty of power for 1080p video.
The larger sets were mostly rear projection, some being plasma. LCD sets with their plastic screens were much lighter than the plasma displays with their necessary glass structure, and the LED sets ran much cooler, with less energy consumption — and no possibility of image burn-in as with Plasma. And the manufacturers started making ridiculously thin LED sets, making it possible for them to be easily mounted on walls, not at all possible with rear-projection sets. But LED displays had a conspicuous disadvantage: the larger the screen, the more difficult it was to manufacture a perfect one: in a phrase, low yield. It was very costly to make a big LED display, and the few 60" and 65" LED sets that were offered were very expensive. For several years, now, it remains the case that the largest common LED TV size is 55".
All the rear-projection TV (RPTV) makers ceased making such units, except for Mitsubishi: you can still find 65", 75", and even 82" units being sold at more specialized television retailers such as Paul's TV. RPTVs are a great value for the size, offering an even better picture than LED TVs in not having a visually noticeable pixel matrix on the screen. RPTVs make use of the Texas Instruments DLP technology, as used in theater projection, to deliver a high density image. One drawback with Mitsubishi RPTVs is that they use a light bulb for their light source. This will degrade over time, and can cost hundreds of dollars to replace. (Samsung was instead making high technology RPTVs, with solid state high intensity light source called PhlatLight (for photonic lattice), one each for red, green, and blue, which never wore out.)
The irony of extremely thin TVs is that they become more of a liability than an asset. The great majority of panel displays are set on some kind of cabinet; and to be stable, they need a base that is ironically as large as that of an RPTV. Excessive thinness makes the display susceptible to damage in handling, and some thermal expansion distortion. You have to ask yourself it there is any net advantage to such thinness.
Hardware manufacturers make the most money when they can get consumers to abandon their current generation of equipment and media for something new. In the early 1970s, the equipment makers embarked upon providing the world with four-channel surround sound, where you would buy two more speakers, replace your receiver/amplifier, and buy the new media. The conspicuous problem was that hardware and record companies embarked upon different, incompatible technologies to achieve surround sound. Worse, they chose nomenclature which could not have generated more confusion amongst the public than if actually intended, with SQ / Stereo Quadraphonic battling against the QS / Quadraphonic Stereo camp in the LP records arena, in addition to the tape initiatives. And while each technology had great potential to realize surround sound, too many recording engineers undermined the effort through gimmicky mixing which ping-ponged sounds around the room rather than seriously architecting the music for the new media. The overall result was an enormous mess which collapsed like the shambles it was.
The world returned to two-channel stereo. The pain from that experience was such that a full generation of engineers stayed away from surround sound music — until 1999, 2000. In the parallel universe of movies, filmed entertainment media had entered the home in the form of pre-recorded Beta and VHS tapes in the later 1970s. Movies on tape were initially mono, and then stereo, as movies principally were in theaters. Movie makers, who had to compete with TV in the 1950s and then made screens wider, now found themselves in the position of having to provide their theater owners with a new draw to compete with movie watching at home, and decided to heighten the auditory experience. Sensurround added low frequency effects that the audience could feel as well as hear, where the movies Earthquake and Rollercoaster made the most of the technology. A nice gimmick, as far as it went. (I remember watching such a film in an older downtown Boston theater back then: when the rumbling started, flaking paint chips would trickle down from the aging ceiling.) Technologists realized they could do better. Ray Dolby and company, whose sound processing technologies all but eliminated hiss from analog tape playback, decided to do more, and embarked upon multi-channel sound for film: if he could manipulate sound recording to suppress background noise, what about augmenting it in order to encode surround sound? In 1977, Star Wars was released, to play in theaters specially equipped to decode the Dolby-encoded surround sound on the film stock. That was single-source technology, from a visionary, with no disruptive, contradictory competition - and it succeeded, big time. Movie makers gained a new manner of expression and theaters again had the upper hand - for a while. What works for one venue can work for another, and Mr. Dolby made his way into the home, in the form of Dolby Pro-Logic, encoding left, right, center, and rear channels into two "stereo" tracks. VHS tape producers could readily transfer the impact of surround sound movies to their medium, with equipment makers happily selling new receivers with Pro-Logic built in.
By around 1980, people were getting tired of the foibles of tape, easily damaged by their kids and just as easily getting jammed in tape decks. It was then that the LaserDisc medium arrived - the first optical medium, portending things to come. (There was also the absurd needle-in-a-groove RCA Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED) video playback system, which was then heavily promoted and almost out-did its optical competitor - until its discs started failing.) The LaserDisc's analog sound tracks were improved upon by the mid-80s new Compact Disc technology for stereo music playback, with its revelatory digital sound. (The CD was a technology spin-off of the LaserDisc - no pun intended.) LaserDisc and the CD remained the enduring optical media until the advent of the DVD in 1995. The DVD was purely digital - including its sound. With higher capacity, the DVD could provide up to 5.1 channels of sound, recorded in the new Dolby Digital format (and later the competing DTS format).
Now we're up to 1999, and a new generation of audio recording engineers, unfamiliar with the pains of the Quadraphonic era. The CD and DVD are co-mingling technologies at this time. Sony and Philips decided to reinvent surround music, using the CD as the basis, naming their technology Super Audio CD. A consortium of other audio companies decided to reinvent surround music, using the DVD as the basic, logically called DVD-Audio. What this means is a format war, a wholly confused & non-buying public in the no-mans-land between them - and mutually assured destruction. This was tragic, as the world was attuned to surround sound in general, now, and fully accepting of enhancement of their music listening experience. As well, recording artists and technicians were technologically aware of how to best implement surround music, as is evident from the discs which survive the aftermath of this battle to the death of both participants.
So, thanks to pigheadedness on the part of very intelligent but hopelessly dumb technology companies, we are without surround music, still. It may take another generation before the attempt is made again. But, is there another path? A while ago I wrote to Apple, a forward-thinking innovator, suggesting that they work on a media-less surround music format, which they could readily implement in their iTunes store. They have all the incentive, in exclusively bringing the world surround music; and they are known for their invention of new formats (most recently, iFrame for video movies). We shall see.
