Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just moved my TV from eye level at the corner of my room (from an arm mount) to above the fireplace mantle, and I swear that the sound and picture quality seems better now. I'm thinking the audio is better because its bouncing straight off the wall and mantle and projecting it more forward to me?? Now there isn't carpeting right under and an angle to distort the sounds?? Not sure why the picture quality seems better though.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57750
If your TV was previously anywhere near a window, there was probably glare and/or reflections at times of the day that affected the quality of the picture. We have to shut the shades on a (rare) sunny day if watching TV. As for the sound, if you are using the TV's built in speakers, yes, reflecting off of the wall should be a big improvement. We have a sound bar with full range including a large woofer because ours is not on a wall and the speakers in the TV were poor sound.
If your TV was previously anywhere near a window, there was probably glare and/or reflections at times of the day that affected the quality of the picture.
remember how we use to smack our old TVs to adjust the quality?
maybe moving has the same effect for the new HDTVs.
This is great, I can't stop laughing, all the smacking memories are coming back. Also, I have to give some credit to the threat title, the double question mark made my day! Sorry I can't contribute, as I see OP has been wondering about this and I get the curiosity... Maybe it's the Friday factor, don't mind me. Have a great weekend everyone!
remember how we use to smack our old TVs to adjust the quality?
maybe moving has the same effect for the new HDTVs.
Maybe, maybe not.
I used to do support and repairs on the old "Pacer" box office ticketing and concession systems. It was an interesting sideline that I got into because I broke the password codes and talked with the original engineers. One of the fun "fixes" was very much the same as whacking the side of a TV set, but with the finesse of the old Unix/Xenix engineers.
Calls sometime went like this:
*ring ring*
"This is John at the Palace Six. My MOS is not working and I have to get figures to the film companies in fifteen minutes!" (MOS = managers operating station/software/system)
"Hmmm, OK John. Listen carefully and do EXACTLY what I say. Move the monitor and any other crap on top of the actual MOS computer. Leave the monitor plugged in. Tell me when you have done that."
"OK, done that."
"Now put the phone between your shoulder and ear and lift the MOS vertically and evenly six inches above the counter. Do not lift it less than that or more than about eight inches. Tell me when you have it in that position."
"OK, done."
"Now drop it."
"What?!?"
"Drop it, quickly and evenly onto the counter."
"WHAM!"
"OK, check the monitor and try to access the software."
"OMG! It is working again! Thank-you thank-you!"
"Have a nice night John."
In this "fix" what was being done was the daughter cards were being re-set in their sockets by the force of the drop. Any corrosion that had built up was dislodged and connections re-established.
In the old TVs, vacuum tubes and circuit boards could suffer from similar problems. The whack was fast and safe, where a shop would open it up and use contact cleaner. The insides of the old CRT sets had lethal voltages and were not safe unless you really knew what you were doing.
You know, there is actually a possible real explanation:
I'm assuming the TV in question is receiving signal on a cable like pretty much all TVs, not using an internal antenna to pick up over-the-air signals.
Runs of cable are themselves antennae. It is very feasible that the cable run, previously, was subject to some minor interference from nearby equipment, and that the new direction of the cable run (maybe new cable of different length, as well) makes it no longer an effective antenna for that hypothesized interference.
You know, there is actually a possible real explanation:
I'm assuming the TV in question is receiving signal on a cable like pretty much all TVs, not using an internal antenna to pick up over-the-air signals.
Runs of cable are themselves antennae. It is very feasible that the cable run, previously, was subject to some minor interference from nearby equipment, and that the new direction of the cable run (maybe new cable of different length, as well) makes it no longer an effective antenna for that hypothesized interference.
Not really accurate. Cable is co-axial. The outer conductor is a shield made of a mesh of wire and a foil wrap that blocks signal interference on the inner wire. That outer conductor is grounded so any stray signals get shunted to the earth. What you suggest was absolutely accurate back in the days of "twin lead" but no longer holds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
