On today’s You Asked: Can you get great surround if your back is literally against the wall? What makes reference monitors so crazy expensive, and which TV gets closest to that kind of picture quality? Why don’t OLED TVs weigh less? And isn’t this supposed to be the future?
Why are reference monitors so expensive?
Tyler asks: What differences justify the crazy price tags of industry equipment like reference/mastering monitors compared to high-end home TV’s? And which of those professional features do you see coming into the home in years to come? (Bonus Q! What TV do you think comes closest to reference monitor image quality?)
Here’s the thing about super-fancy reference monitors: very few of them are sold — at least relative to the number of TVs that get sold. They are a specialty, niche product that only a few people need. Also, the technology in these reference
Whether it’s a dual-cell LCD or a true RGB OLED, those display technologies aren’t appropriate for home use because by their nature they don’t tend to get bright enough for consumer without a whole lot of very expensive help. Also, reference monitors generally are not big enough for most folks’ home use. And they include video connections that are of little to no use for consumers.
And there are only few options out there — so not a ton of competition to help drive prices down. Plus, think about who they are being sold to — Hollywood folks and super-high-end creators. They need what they need and will pay what they have to in order to get it. I mean, it’s a business expense that becomes a tax write-off, which sort of takes some of the sting out of spending $30,000 dollars on something, I imagine. At least in the U.S.
As for your bonus question? Well, that’s really what some of us reviewers are trying to figure out, right? That’s what some TV shootouts are centered around — finding out which TV gets closest to the reference standard. Last year, it was generally agreed on that the Sony A95L got closest. This year, with Sony’s new 4,000-nit monitor, we’ll see. It could be the A95L, but some have the LG G4 in the ring. The Bravia 9 has a lot going for it.
Aren’t OLED TVs supposed to be lighter?
Lewis from Mission, Texas, writes: When OLED technology was first announced, it was said that this new technology would enable manufacturers to produce lighter-weight monitors and TVs. He then goes on to point out that a 2019 50-inch Vizio TV he had was just under 20 pounds while the 48-inch KTC OLED monitor he’s replacing it with is about 35 pounds. So what happened?
Well, Lewis, I remember OLED being touted in a similar manner. OLED has led to extremely thin TVs — the panels have fewer layers and they don’t need room for backlights. But there are two reasons I’m aware of that prevent OLED displays from getting a whole lot lighter than they are now. One is that OLED panels use both glass substrates and encapsulation glass. The glass substrate is part of the core functionality of the panel, and the encapsulation glass helps protect the display. Glass is heavy, and that contributes to the weight.
I also think that as demand for higher and higher brightness has ramped up, so, too, have the power supplies. Power supplies are heavy. They are part of what makes Class A/B A/V receivers so heavy, for example.
There’s also the matter of using premium materials. Heavy materials often are used to give the TVs and monitors some structure so they are more rigid. And as a bonus, they don’t feel like a cheap toy.
But there are a couple of other factors to take into consideration, too: Today’s OLEDs are way lighter than the Plasma displays they aimed to replace. So they deliver on the lighter display promise in that way. Also, keep in mind that premium QLED TVs are similarly heavy, too. A 50-inch Samsung QN90D without its stand is 30 pounds — not that far off from a similarly sized OLED TV.
But you can buy a much cheaper 50-inch Samsung like the TU7000 and it will weigh under 25 pounds. Generally, the more premium the TV or monitor, the more it will weigh.
I know a lot of advances are being made in materials science, but it seems like the A/V adage that you can judge a product’s quality by how much it weighs still … well, holds some weight. Ahem … sorry. (Not sorry.)
How to achieve surround sound with your back against the wall
Avedis writes: I was wondering what you might recommend for a receiver/speakers/sub combo with ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos for an apartment. The apartment is mine and I don’t mind running cables in the wall for all the speakers. The living room isn’t huge and the couch is back against a wall, so minimalistic front and rear speakers are recommended and preferably wall mountable although the last part is not a show-stopper. Considering all of this, I would say sound clarity and Dolby effect is more crucial than sound loudness. For some reason, I’m committed to dedicated speakers with a receiver instead of a sound bar purely because I don’t believe the sound bar will give the needed dome of sound effect. But then Avedis added a bonus question: Do you think the new Sony Bravia Theatre Quad will be as efficient with a Samsung or LG TV? Or will it be best to pair with only a Sony TV?
All this time I’ve been thinking Avedis was dead set on conventional speakers and a receiver, but it now it seems they may be open to the idea of the Theatre Quad, which is great news. But we’ll come back to that.
Let’s just take a moment to talk about the limitation of having a wall right behind your seating area. Most conventional speakers and A/V receivers, or even high-end preamp processors and amplifiers rely on some pretty specific speaker placement in order to achieve the most convincing, accurate surround-sound experience.
That specific placement involves putting the surround speakers just behind you and to your side — kind of back at your 8- and 4-o’clock positions. And if you were going to have surround back speakers, those would go well behind you in the BACK of the room, firing right in your listening area.
The placement of the Atmos surround speakers, again, ideally, and if they were firing down at you, would be just in front of the listening area, and just outside the edges of the listening area boundary, and then again in a similar location just behind the listening area. This diagram from Dolby outlines that.
Now, there’s always some wiggle room. And a receiver can correct for less than idea speaker distance and it can also help some with frequency response correction if your room doesn’t sound great. But if your back is against a wall, you can’t place anything behind you. So you will have to make some compromises. Generally, I think trying to put surround back channels up on the wall directly behind you isn’t going to help you achieve the effect those channels are meant to create. But if you were to do it anyway, I’d suggest a dipole speaker so that the sound wasn’t immediately localizable to the speaker itself. A dipole will help make the source of the sound less obvious or spread out.
And you can place the main surrounds off to the sides. It won’t give you as immersive an effect as if they were slightly behind you and aimed at your listening area, but it will fill in the sound a bit and it can still sound great — it’s a lot of fun.
For Atmos channels, though? Well, you can go with two, and place them in the room out in front of the listening position, like what we see in this diagram. But a second set of Atmos speakers? Well, doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. That dome of sound isn’t going to extend behind you the way it is meant to. I just don’t see a lot of value in trying to do that.
So, for the speaker format and placement of a conventional speaker system, I’d plan on a 5.1.2 setup where the surrounds are elevated and off to each side, and the two Atmos speakers are placed in front of your listening area and off to the sides a bit, but not all the way to the side walls.
From there — what speakers should you get? Honestly, that’s the kind of question I don’t try to answer. There are tons of options, and to give you a good recommendation, I need you to answer a bunch more questions. That’s a consultation, my friend, and I just can’t do consultations here.
However, you expressed interest in the Theatre Quad. That is exactly the kind of system I think would work best for someone with speaker placement limitations, because that is exactly what it is designed to handle. Dolby Atmos Flex connect also attempts to do something similar — we just don’t have a ton of experience with those systems yet. Hopefully we start seeing some come out soon.
But, right now, Sony and its 360 Spatial Sound Mapping technology are the ticket, in my opinion. That system is designed to use processing and psychoacoustics to create an extremely realistic, convincing Dolby Atmos surround experience in a number of super challenging conditions. And it does that job exceptionally well.
Come to think of it, you can get that out of a Sony A/V receiver. So I would plan on getting a Sony A/V receiver with whatever speakers you choose to get.
But the Theatre Quad is just such a versatile, easy-to-place system. I’m going to recommend it to 90% of folks who have their backs against a wall in an apartment because it delivers the goods. I might normally also recommend Sonos for such a thing. But Sonos is having some issues right now, so I’m reluctant to do that at the moment.
As for the “efficiency” of the Theatre Quad with a non-Sony TV: The Theatre Quad will work well with any TV that can pass Dolby Atmos via eARC. (And if your TV passes DTS:X too, all the better.) You will get the full sonic experience. What you will not get is a bunch of on-TV controls for the audio system, or the opportunity to use Acoustic Center Sync, which uses the TV speakers to enhance the center channel. But I’m rarely going to recommend using Acoustic Center Sync anyway, and the Theatre Quad comes with a remote, plus the Sony Bravia app can help control the rest. So, you might not get tight TV integration, but the core of what you need the Theatre Quad to do, it will do with an LG TV. It will also work with a Samsung TV, but you won’t be getting DTS.
