Modern TVs and ‘audio out’

[JFLL]

My other half has been pestering me to buy a new TV, something I’ve been resisting, because we’ve got a perfectly good ten-year old Panasonic which I think is adequate for our needs. But you know how it is – ‘the sides of the picture are cut off’, ‘there are black strips at the top and bottom’, ‘it sticks out too far at the back’ etc. etc. So for a quiet life I’ve been researching what’s available (and learning some nice new jargon such as ‘dongle’ along the way). We thought a 26" would be fine, despite the fact that these days, apparently, such a small set seeems to be regarded as fit only for the loft, the loo or the potting-shed. However, it looks as though we might go for a 32", because most ‘small’ TVs no longer seem to have an ‘audio out’. (That’s progress – our Panasonic has two RCA stereo-out sockets which I just use a simple cable to connect to my hi-fi amplifier and so out through the speakers). It seems that 32" sets and above do mostly have an audio out, but only ‘digital optical out’ or ‘digital co-axial out’, which I understand won’t play through an oldish analogue hi-fi system

So here’s my question for the techies. Am I right in thinking that I’d need a digital-to-analogue converter to be able to connect the TV ‘digital optical out’ to my amplifier? And if so, are there are hidden snags? (For example, some forums seem to imply that it depends on the type of digital out signal output by the TV, so that some converters might not work, but most of the discussions are too technical for me to follow – something to do with Dolby and PCM, it seems.)

Forgive this possibly naïve question, but I suspect it might have more general relevance in that others, like myself before I started to look into things, might just assume that they could play operas and concerts from their new TV through their hi-fi, as one usually could, I think, with older TVs.

[Stunsworth]

Yes, you would need a DAC of somekind to get the digital output of the TV to the input of an amplifier that didn't have a digital input.

Here's an example of a cheap one - I'm sure you could find cheaper if you looked around...

http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv-accessories/cyp/aud3-192/cyp-aud3-192

There shouldn't be any problem with the signal put out of the TV, as far as I know they can only output stereo via the digital output.

It might be worthwhile shopping around a bit for the TV, as some most certainly do have analogue output via standard RCA sockets - mine (a Panasonic 42") certainly does, even if I don't use them.

[Cheapskater]

As regards screen size, we sit four metres from the screen and find that a forty-inch (HD) model provides an excellent visual experience without being overbearing. It might be worth considering?

[Flay]

As regards screen size, we sit four metres from the screen and find that a forty-inch (HD) model provides an excellent visual experience without being overbearing. It might be worth considering?

Yes, very quickly you will stop noticing how big the screen was and it will all seem normal. HD TV pictures are fantastic now, go for the bigger screen.

[johnb]

A couple of years ago my 15 year old TV gave up the ghost so I had to buy a new one. Like JFLL I didn't want to get a large TV (and I think 32" screens are large) that would dominate the living room, so I bought a 28".

However, the clarity of the new TV was a revelation to me and since then I have often wished that I had in fact bought a 32".

[JFLL]

Thanks everyone, particularly to stunners for confirming what I’d thought and pointing me to a DAC. I take the point that a 42" would give a better visual experience than a 32", but I’m still concerned with the issue of what johnb called ‘dominating the living room’. Our sofa is about 2.8 meters from the TV. We could sit four metres from the screen as Cheapskater does, but would be almost in the hall! There’s also the aesthetic consideration that a large TV might go OK in a modern house, but would stand out like a sore thumb in a Victorian one, with old fireplace, furniture, carpet etc.

On the matter of audio out, I could also, I suppose, bypass the TV audio and connect my hi-fi to my DVD/Hard-drive recorder/receiver, as that does have RCA line-outs, so avoiding having to have a DAC.

[Can we still call the TV 'the box', by the way, or should we now call it something like 'the plate'?]

[Serial_Apologist]

I just can't figure out the now long trend for siting flatscreens high up on the living room wall. I suppose it's to replicate the cinematic experience. I've always preferred being on a level with what I am viewing to looking up to God, so to speak.

[Bryn]

I just can't figure out the now long trend for siting flatscreens high up on the living room wall. I suppose it's to replicate the cinematic experience. I've always preferred being on a level with what I am viewing to looking up to God, so to speak.

Definitely with you there. I can do without a crick in the neck. I also want a bit of room behind the set for air to circulate, like an additional heating radiator.

[Flay]

I take the point that a 42" would give a better visual experience than a 32", but I’m still concerned with the issue of what johnb called ‘dominating the living room’. Our sofa is about 2.8 meters from the TV. We could sit four metres from the screen as Cheapskater does, but would be almost in the hall!

On the matter of audio out, I could also, I suppose, bypass the TV audio and connect my hi-fi to my DVD/Hard-drive recorder/receiver, as that does have RCA line-outs, so avoiding having to have a DAC.

Yes, but you may need to re-synchronise the picture to the sound if you do that (at least I had to, but I gave up doing it this way as we don't use the hifi for general TV viewing).

Settle for 32" by the sound of it.

[JFLL]

Yes, but you may need to re-synchronise the picture to the sound if you do that (at least I had to, but I gave up doing it this way as we don't use the hifi for general TV viewing).

I'd thought of that, and did a test and it was OK, but at the moment we use the DVR/HDD as a receiver and the TV purely as a monitor, so presumably there shouldn't be a problem with the synch. If we used a new TV as a receiver, however, I suppose there might be a problem? (But presumably one would have the choice in the TV's settings of using the TV or the DVR as a receiver?)

[Flay]

We use Freesat. Taking the sound directly from its box did not synch with the picture, so I now take the sound from the TV itself. But you might not be able to do this with your amp. Good luck anyway.

[Serial_Apologist]

We use Freesat. Taking the sound directly from its box did not synch with the picture, so I now take the sound from the TV itself. But you might not be able to do this with your amp. Good luck anyway.

Wonderful thing, new techology, you know: it makes life simpler - that's after all surely what it's for. More expensive, but, simpler.

[Bryn]

Wonderful thing, new techology, you know: it makes life simpler - that's after all surely what it's for. More expensive, but, simpler.

I like the way that with everything connected by HDMI, switching off the television means a brief interruption to anything being played via the AV receiver connected to it.

[Dave2002]

Quite an interesting thread this. We have a 42 inch set, which is now 4 years or more old I think. Modern ones are better, but it was the best we could buy at the time. We also have a couple of cheap 19 inch ones (Tesco's best) for bedrooms and kitchen etc. Our set is fairly poor on viewing angle - modern ones are better. It's also poor on the DTV tuner, (which is what the reviews I read said) - but things improve a lot if the input signal is given a boost with an aerial amplifier. The reviews said it was very good with Blu Ray and DVD etc., so basically it's good. Also the picture settings as it came out of the box were not optimal, and at first we thought it was worse than an old fashioned TV - again a point mentioned in reviews - until we tweaked the settings.

I chose it because when I went looking in Tescos, that model stood out from the rest picture wise.

Does it dominate the room? Well, yes - but you get used to it. I don't want to go back to looking at a small TV. For a living room I think the minimum size should be 32 inch, but if you can cope with larger, then go for it. There's also an issue about whether you want to hang it on the wall, which may or may not be a good thing. Apparently the new ones are much lighter than ones which were sold a few years ago.

Some TVs have many more options now - direct connections to Internet, ability to connect a keyboard (wireless?), ability to connect a hard drive (so you don't need a PVR to drive the TV) etc., though they may cost rather more. If money is no object go for one like that. I'd expect it to have a variety of inputs, outputs etc., and different audio formats. Surely most still have a headphone out, which could be used to drive an audio system - though the quality would probably not be good. If there's an optical digital output then that can indeed be fed into a DAC and thence to an amp, though the optical outputs may not give full surround sound. SPDIF optical outputs are normally only able to give 2 channel PCM output, though they can give up to 5:1 channels with some compressed digital formats. What you get may depend on the broadcast or DVD/Blu Ray and what types of audio files are embedded.

Most DACs only do 2 channel input also, and cheap ones will not give very good quality - it depends what you want. I'd say that the cheapest reasonable quality DAC will cost over £100 - otherwise you'll probably get sound which is commensurate with your TV audio. Depends what you want. OK for watching some TV films, but Last Night of the Proms probably won't make your room rock with a cheap DAC. However if you do surround sound with a woofer/sub woofer and watch films (e.g War of the Worlds) you might find that the experience is overwhelmingly horrible, as the special effects people really pump up the bass - thinking that everyone likes that.

If you buy a new AV receiver or similar device, then you can take the audio out via HDMI, and it should be possible to get all the channels in high quality digital audio. Older HDMI based systems would not do that.

Further, manufacturers may not put all the features into 32 or 36 inch sets - as they possibly feel it's not worth it. My guess is that 40 inch sets are the minimum size - which will have a reasonable feature set. Also, most sets are now LEDs, but there may still be some LCDs out there. LEDs are better! Plasma screens are, IMO, not worth bothering with now, as LEDs are now very good, and use less power. I hope this helps a bit.

PS: Here is a moderately good AV receiver - there are cheaper ones, and there are more expensive ones - http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ky-txnr616-blk

[rauschwerk]

I can highly recommend a Samsung LED Smart TV like my own. I have the 32" size and that suits me fine with a viewing distance of 3.5 m. It's far less obtrusive than my old 26" CRT set. My router is not in the same room as the TV and, instead of a dongle, I was advised to buy a gadget called Airties which (for the same price) connects wirelessly between the TV and router Ethernet ports. This allows higher speeds than Wi-fi. I can now use the TV's own iPlayer app which is really convenient. Wall mounting is fine as the set weighs only 6.2 kg.