What if top panel guy is secretly into VHS?
Why not both?
Funny timing for me.
Just the other day I was at a hangout / arcade kind of place and saw some folks playing a PS3 driving game on a CRT and ngl it looked really damn good. I was across the room so the low resolution wasn’t as apparent, but the quality of motion and contrast works at any distance.
man i shouldve kept my box tv
Because they weren’t made as stylish. If you had that exact same tv, but with wood-style paneling and the occasional velvet lining, it would be exactly as charming. Nice style has been phased out over time, being reserved for extremely expensive versions of appliances instead of being the standard.
And like, that’s not to say there’s literally no nice style in anything these days, but the average product tends to look… bland and cheap.
I don’t really think that is true, those big wood TVs mostly aren’t especially stylish, and neither are recorded players.
Although style is obviously subjective so I suppose our miles varyThey have nice styling today. You just can’t afford it. To be clear, I can’t either
The real obsolete media player.
The year is 1987, Christmas has just pasaed. This baby gets plugged in down in the finished basement. You and your older brother are sitting down on the carpet for the first time to check out this game, Super Mario Bros. Your only gaming experience so far has been the Atari 2600 and C64…
Now this is classy.
My grandma (who lived about a 12 hr. way) had one of these growing up and I always loved it. I was disappointed one year to find that it had been replaced since it quit working.
I’m also reminded of my mother who, no joke, brought one of these home from the landfill. It didn’t work, but she gutted it and turned it into a bed for our little dog we had at the time. In hindsight, she’s probably very lucky she didn’t hurt or poison herself in the process.
I would love to get one of these to use in like a multi-purpose gaming setup. Like use this as the TV stand for the newer TV so I can play newer and older games in the same place.
In hindsight, she’s probably very lucky she didn’t hurt or poison herself in the process
How come? A tiny circuit board isn’t anything like thin vials of mercury or the like.
CRT tvs have pretty big capacitors that zap you good and hard if you touch em funny.
Older boxes are probably long since dishcharged BUT many many tinkerers will plug it in first to see if it still works just for shits and grins and those caps will take juice given the chance….
NES isn’t a CRT tv though.
You ought to go back and re-read their comment
I have. I thought it was replaced with a newer console. The comment doesn’t specify “crt tv” and it would be weird if that’s how one would refer to tvs of that age. Having nes is much morr specific than just having a TV.
They’re talking about the console TV in the picture, that’s what was brought home from the landfill and converted to a dog bed
That dog bed sounds adorable
What a beautiful memory.
I only see a TV stand without a TV.
If ours wasn’t a mess of wires, I’d showoff the huge blocky model we still have!
We use it for holding a slightly more modern TV!
VHS next to DVD on a CRT is why lol.
Good sound fidelity is easier to reach on a vinyl record than good video fidelity on magnetic tape. Hence why even old TV shows that were shot on film look great on modern TVs, but their tape counterparts look dated.
That all being said, VHS has inherently more sentimental value due to its widespread use for personal and home video. Anyone still using vinyl is either a hobbyist, collector, or moronic audiophile who can’t cope with stuff like opus or even flac/wav.
Okay fair but do you know anyone who actually used D-VHS lol.
Well maybe I do! Or maybe I don’t! I’ll never tell!
Sony digi beta was the industry standard for quite a while
VHS or dvd? That things main use is video games lol
I was always taught to be a bit scared about potential burn-in if playing games on our projection TV…never seemed to actually have it happen though. 🤔
Another point is that the one on the top is a premium model, whereas the one on the bottom is meant for us plebeian masses.
the one on the top is the cheapest, worst turntable you can possibly buy. they’re so cheaply made they don’t even play records reliably
don’t even play records reliably
As compared to the one on the bottom, that might look like a junk plastic box from outside, but will most probably do what it does after swapping a few capacitors.
And still, said cheapest model is not significantly cheaper than the thing on the bottom.
So yes, I’m going with premium.
But of course, considering that you are the second person to refute my claim, I feel the need to state that I am going by the meaning of the marketing word, “premium” and not the original meaning.
No capacitor replacement needed. the top one is brand new. its a Crosley/victrola style modern player. they use a trash spec one piece plastic mechanism that sells for $20 or less
absolutely nothing is premium about modern suitcase players. any forum will tell you to never buy one, many record shops refuse returns if you own one
they are quite literally e-waste
You really think portable vinyl player is the premium model? Oh you sweet summer child…
Premium ⇒ functionally worth less than what you are paying for, in turn for form.
Yes.
There’s a weird debate about the audio quality on VHS. Under the right conditions (right tape, right player, right source) it could be shockingly good – perhaps even better than CD audio, despite not being remembered terribly fondly.
If you really want to wow the ladies, be the one guy with a music collection on VHS.
Better than CD is a pretty bold claim. That format is near perfect for listening quality.
Agreed. Main issue is “better” is subjective and doesn’t always mean the same thing to different people.
I have dabbled in other tape formats, and one thing stands out to me about the compact cassette (not VHS): most people used them in the car, where conditions were bad for cassette storage. Car cassette players also tended to have poorer quality mechanisms and heads. As a result, many people remember the format being bad, when in fact, it was more about their use case. A quality home cassette deck with a quality cassette (e.g. type II or chrome) stored in the right conditions is capable of extremely good results.
Not sure if there is something similar with VHS audio, though. Very different format. I just know there is a debate, but it could be entirely bogus.
The debate is basically bogus. There are very few analog audio formats that can reproduce an audio signal more accurately than a CD, and even then, that’s only because CDs use a 44.1KHz sampling rate and 16bit encoding. There is no analog audio format that can rival a 32bit 96KHz PCM recording, and that’s not even the best digital recording available. CD chose 44.1KHz and 16bit because it’s nearly perfect for the range and sensitivity of human hearing. It’s only when you need to record ultrasound or extremely low amplitude sound that you would use something better.
Fun fact: if you add some hisses and pops and a little bit of compression to CD audio before playing it, some people (me included) will say it sounds better.
Fun fact: if you add some hisses and pops and a little bit of compression to CD audio before playing it, some people (me included) will say it sounds better.
This sounds fun. I wonder if there’s an explanation for why that is?
Lo-Fi ALL THE THINGS!!!
This is why the debate still exists:
There is no analog audio format that can rival a 32bit 96KHz PWM recording, and that’s not even the best digital recording available
Analog audio is not sampled. By definition, it includes more data than any sampled version.
Now, the benefits of the sampling in terms of reducing format noise or similar are (subjectively) up for debate.
Totally agree with things sounding better if you introduce noise. I suspect it has to do with sampling, and maybe is not well understood.
Fun fact: if you add some hisses and pops and a little bit of compression to CD audio before playing it, some people (me included) will say it sounds better.
Exactly. It is subjective. It’s not about right or wrong.
I think there are things (like above) where the measurements are misguided. But at the end of the day, even that doesn’t matter.
Analog audio not being sampled doesn’t really matter. It’s like film, it can’t have infinite “resolution”. It’s the size of the granules on the tape and the speed the tape is moving that determines how good audio can sound. Grain size is kind of equivalent to floating point resolution, and tape speed is kind of equivalent to sampling rate. In order to get as true-to-life audio reproduction as 32-bit 96KHz PCM, you’d need absolutely wildly expensive tape and equipment. I’m not even sure if it’s physically possible.
When you say by definition it includes “more data”, you have to think about what that data is. There’s signal, the stuff you want to record, and there’s noise, the stuff that gets on there that you didn’t want. The higher precision a digital recording is, the higher the signal-to-noise ratio. Unlike analog tape, there’s not really a theoretical upper limit (just the limits of your recording hardware). If you record with a high enough precision, you can record incredibly quiet or incredibly loud sounds, way out of the range of the best audio tape. Same with frequencies. The faster your sampling rate, the higher the frequencies you can record. And unlike tape, it’s not going to shred itself to pieces if you go really really high.
Things sound “better” when you introduce noise because people like analog recordings. Not actual analog recordings, mind you, just the appearance of analog recordings. It has nothing to do with audio quality, it’s just vibes. It gives good vibes.
You’re definitely correct on the 32-bit dynamic range side of things, as that’s more dynamic range than a human can perceive.
However I feel like I read a little while ago, that a standard record industry 15 IPS reel-to-reel master tape (on some high quality tape formulation, I imagine) sits somewhere between 96khz and 192khz equivalent sample rate. Though there is every chance it was from Reddit or something. Do you happen to know if that stacks up?
That doesn’t sound right unless you’re running the tape at faster than usual speed. Even high quality reel to reel tape is usually running at a speed that tops out around 20KHz. There’s also no reason to record frequencies much higher than that unless you’re trying to record ultrasound. A 96KHz sampling rate can record sound up to 48KHz. Considering even the best human hearing can’t hear above about 24KHz, there’s no reason to use that for music. It’s only if you’re recording something not meant for human hearing, like stress fractures, electric noise, or bird song, that you’d use a recording with that sampling rate.
I totally agree it’s just vibes. I’m sorry if I suggested otherwise, but most of my point is about audio being subjective.
If everything is subjective, then some people will like tape.
Ok, yeah. I get you. It definitely is subjective, and I like tape. :) I have a huge tape and vinyl collection. And I have an all-analog setup to listen to it. Tube pre-amp and tube amp. For me, I know it’s less accurate audio, but I want that less accurate audio.
A VHS physically can’t be better than CD audio. The tape would have to move faster than the VHS equipment is designed for. The Hi-Fi VHS audio system can come close to CD’s frequency range, but there is still about 70 dB signal-to-noise (compared to CD’s 98 dB), and there is always loss when writing to and reading from analog tape. CD is not destructively read, so any signal up to 22KHz will be reproducible the exact same way every time.
Hi-Fi VHS audio is nearly as good as CD audio (the best consumer analog audio format, in fact), but it’s not as good. The simple fact is that an appropriately comparably sampled digital PCM recording will always beat an analog recording. You can read about the Nyquist-Shannon theorem for an actual proof, but basically CD audio is near-perfect for almost every human’s hearing range (most people can’t hear above 20KHz).
I’d like to gloat that I can still hear above 20kHz, but I can’t be sure if it’s just my audio consumer-grade equipment creating undertones. Although my Headphone says it can do 28, I have no idea about the stock sound drivers on the devices.
I totally agree that CD should be better.
I really wasn’t trying to make a point, except that a simple search shows that the debate about VHS vs CD exists.
I don’t think it comes down to either one being objectively better.
Well this is going to be an interesting rabbit hole…
In I go!
Brb. Recording all my records into my vcr.
Not old enough.
It’s gotto be real analogue vintage
Nope. Too vintage! Those are old enough to be haunted now. O_O
(Well, dang, so are N64 cartridges so…)
Because VHS/CRT was such a fucking hassle even when it was the best possible format option for home media. The dawn of LCDs and DVD was a glorious thing.
The first time I experienced a DVD menu and chapter selection without having to rewind was just “Woah.”
Was, “Be kind, rewind” really that much of a hassle?
Yes. So much so they made completely seperate machines to rewind vhs tapes so your one vcr could continue to do other things at the same time.
Binging movies wasn’t much of a thing back then; I can’t remember a single time when I wanted to immediately put another video in after just finishing one. Plus it took like 5 minutes to rewind one - I’d usually run to the bathroom and grab a snack and it’d be done by the time I got back. It wasn’t any longer than a commercial break, and we were all used to that back then. I remember I once mowed the lawn 5 minutes at a time during commercial breaks because I didn’t want to miss the show I was watching, haha!
And how many people actually bought one? Not us, I can tell you that much.
We had one that looked like a corvette.
Aside from rental places and the like, no one.
Evrryone in my family had one. Grandma had 2 cause i watched a lot
My grandparents had one, it made an awful screeching sound
VHS cassettes were also relatively fragile and decay on use (technically so do vinyl records but they are more forgiving). Humans are also really good at ignoring minor flaws in audio, while visual noise and low graphic resolution is much harder to ignore (though CRT messed up the image in one of the best ways possible for the human brain to fill the gaps).
It was tedious and time consuming.
Hitting a button on a device and waiting (gasp!) more than 30 seconds was so tedious!?
… no wonder people constantly pay greedy fucks like Elon than take five seconds to think about … anything.
VHS wasn’t the best format even when it came out. VHS was specifically designed to be a middle ground between quality and affordability. That’s partly why it succeeded in the consumer market, both the tape and the player were cheaper than the other formats of the day. Beta and LaserDisc both had better picture and sound quality but both had their own drawbacks as well as cost. CEDs were cheaper than LaserDisc and predated VHS by several years but didn’t have the industry acceptance of the other formats and had similar drawbacks.
I had never heard of CED and researching it led me to the knowledge that laserdisc was originally called Discovision.
The dawn of LCD’s sucked. They were inferior to CRT in most ways, they were bigger and lighter. They eventually got better and cheaper and that is when they took off.
DVD was a day 1 upgrade over vhs for watching movies.
I have a laptop from the mid 90s that looks like mouse trails are on even when they aren’t. This is why mouse trails exist, because early LCDs sucked that bad.
I still have a tiny little monophonic CRT I found at a yard sale for like $2 that I use to watch my 1985 letterboxed Star Wars VHS tapes. It’s just a different vibe
I once binged IT Crowd using an old CRT monitor as my second screen. Definitely a vibe.
I mean I think CRTs are going back into vogue as a nifty thing in many indie circles, including on YouTube where you see a lot of smaller creators embracing the aesthetic nowadays.
I’m so torn. On one hand, cool! These things are still seeing use and stay out of landfills!
On the other hand, always a bit frustrating, this cycle of things no longer produced suddenly coming back into style with enthusiasts, and everyone trying to hustle it to get rich quick on eBay.
I have 5 computer CRTs, but even I find that a bit much. Commodore 1702, 1080, 1902, 1950, and the green screen in a PET.
Meanwhile the hardcore smash community never left crt because latency.
Although Melee was the first big ‘hardcore’ Smash community I was aware of, there are quite a few of its contemporaries in the Counter Strike community that also stuck with CRTs…
Try playing Control with all the settings maxed out on 540p and have it be the most amazing looking game you’ve ever seen
Wanna come by my place later and check out my… Sony Trinitron?
Yes. I really do.
Don’t expect anything sexy or nothin’, I’m genuinely in this for the Trinitron. Do you have retro consoles or should I bring mine?
Don’t fret. In 20 years’ time future hipsters will romanticize bleeding colors, dogshit resolution and subpar color space and call it “so much nicer to watch”.
Video games have been doing that for over a decade at this point
Older video games do look better on CRT. They don’t look better than new games, though.
I even saw mainstream ads on TV that deliberately have this look (and in 4/3 ratio !)
I’m already at this point. Over resolution is bad.
What’s over resolution? Wouldn’t we eventually stop once we reach the full input resolution of the human eye?
