Quote:
This brought back fond memories of my 19" sony... bought around 1995-6 and lasted until 2005... that thing weighed a ton, but the colors, and refresh rates were grand. Recent TVs and monitors have been getting better though, but I guess its "artificially" raising the bar through software ( gaming modes ect.) rather than through straight forward technological advances. After using a 27" daily for the past 6-months or so, I'd be hard pressed to want to revert to anything less than 24". Display wise, the next few years should be pretty interesting... its nice to see IPS panels finally hitting the mainstream, as well as advances in OLED and other technologies.
I don't really think it's a matter of software enhancements, since anyone with any sense would just turn all that crap off. Less input lag and no screwed-up color reproduction that way.
There seem to be some legitimate improvements with new displays, like better color gamuts and contrast (deep blacks that aren't crushed in the lowest shades) and whatnot in the professional models, but they still haven't fixed some of the central tradeoffs. What's worse is that people don't care about some of those disadvantages, save for the most demanding of gamers-a niche at best.
Quote:
You have a Sony GDM-FW900? Holy crap, am I jealous of you.
Out of curiosity, how well does it display a 4:3 picture?
I never thought I would own one myself until a few months ago. Atlanta craigslist FINALLY paid off, and I just happened to have the money at the time.
4:3 looks pretty good on it, if you don't mind slight pillarboxing. I sure don't, especially coming from 21" FD Trinitron monitors which were basically 4:3 versions of the FW900 anyway. Just make sure you put up a test pattern so that you get the aspect ratio right when adjusting the image size.
Quote:
Nameless you should get with the times and throw that boat anchor over board and get a REAL nice led monitor lol. I'm Kidding really i have the HP-A7217A same as yours and i can't game without it at all. Aside from getting nauseous when playing games on lcd's of any sort they also make my eyes blood shot red after only an hour of playing on them. I gave up using lcd's 3 years back and found my new joy.
She takes about 30mins to get to her climax and put out like no other monitor can for me and then when she does its oooHH so Heavenly it makes me wanna cry lol..
If she breaks down i don't know what i'd do. I0 years old and she still puts out vivid colors, crisp blacks and crazy nice contrast ratios like a spring chickin..
Yeah, if my FW900 were to ever break down, I'd be pretty frustrated in that now I'd have the urge to buy another monitor, and it would most likely be worse (either another 21" aperture grille CRT like the ones I had been using prior, or a 24" 1920x1200 IPS LCD). Part of the relief in owning the FW900 is that I'd never need another monitor as long as this one works.
LCDs don't make me nauseous, but it's pretty easy to notice slower response times and the ghosting/blur that occurs as a result, along with non-native resolution scaling and the inferior viewing angles.
Quote:
Actually your evidence being hrtf's, is how we hear and while they are able to use algorythms to understand how our hearing works but when recording a BINAURAL RECORDING it is as simple as two different mics using crossfade. If you watch a video of binaural recordings, It's a dummy head with two mics, one in each ear in an anachoic chamber. They don't alter it in anyway after it's recorded. Now, what you're talking about is turning a MONAURAL SOURCE into a binaural recording. That's pretty much how dolby headphone works.
I don't appreciate your attitude btw. I was just trying to help you out and you turned hcinto a little tkid all of a sudden.
imaybe bmy analogy of crt tv's was a soft spot since you have an "unbeatable picture quality" crt but it's obvious that you knew what i meant.
Okay, I admit, I re-read my post some time later and thought I came across as a bit too much of a jerk. Being a jerk is not something I ever intend to do, but sometimes I see things that strike a bit too close to home, and that brings out my embittered side like a dam that just burst, the part of me that's frustrated at how things are going these days. Regressions in technology, game design, things like that.
But enough of that; what we have here is a disagreement on definitions and semantics. I adopted the term "binaural" to describe such HRTF-mixing technologies because it was the best way I could think of to describe headphone surround done right.
If you think about it, a binaural recording done with a dummy head just has the dummy head as the HRTF filter, and in this context, I'm not talking so much about the source recordings (dummy head in real life vs. monaural sound effects in a video game with HRTF filters applied) as much as the end experience. Listening to a binaural recording and listening to a game that uses Aureal A3D with a Vortex-based card or OpenAL with CMSS-3D Headphone or Rapture3D's various headphone HRTF mixing modes is a very similar experience in terms of spatial perception over headphones. That's why I describe it as such, especially since a lot of people here on Head-Fi have at least passing knowledge of binaural recordings.
If you have a better term to convey the experience of 3D sound over headphones in video games, please tell me, because I sure can't think of one. "Virtual surround" has too many connotations of emulating speaker systems instead of the way we naturally hear things in all directions.
, I hear the Sub bass is MONSTEROURS ^^ 
