top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 116 points 9 months ago* (13 children)

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...

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    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….

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You ought to go back and re-read their comment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    Was, "Be kind, rewind" really that much of a hassle?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    And how many people actually bought one? Not us, I can tell you that much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Wanna come by my place later and check out my... Sony Trinitron?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    It's gotto be real analogue vintage

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    I've been thinking for years now about picking up one again that can run RockBox. Used to live out of an iPod nano with that, and didn't have to carry flash drives. Just plug the usb cable into a computer and use it as one. A lot of modern music apps still aren't as fully featured when it comes to on the fly playlist creation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Better than CD is a pretty bold claim. That format is near perfect for listening quality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    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!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    Metal Gear Solid ruined me.

    I can't see the VIDEO text of the OSD without thinking of the HIDEO fourth wall break during the Psycho Mantis scrap.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    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”.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Video games have been doing that for over a decade at this point

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'm already at this point. Over resolution is bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    What's over resolution? Wouldn't we eventually stop once we reach the full input resolution of the human eye?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I see a lot of things on tv that I'm not able to see in real life. That level of details is just weird.

    When tv are too bigs and render the size of character on close zoom bigger that a real life human, it is also weird. In a cinéma the huge space btw the screen and the public mitigate that feeling.

    Finally tv that are too big and have too many pixels (pardon my poor vocabulary, I'm not a professionnal) render oldish show very poorly. Anything older that 2010 I paintfull to watch when they are perfectly ok to watch on older tv model of reasonable size.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    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

    https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Antique-Vinyl-Record-Movement-Turntable-Panel_1601381701405.html

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Records and their players are tangible. You don't need any electricity to play a record. It is a kind of magic the human mind can comprehend.

    VHS tapes and cathode ray tubes on the other hand work with magnets and quantum physics and shit. Nobody knows how they fucking work.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    Yeah, there's something about the physicality of a record player and records that changes the experience. At least for me it encourages more focus on the listening. Even if you just put something on while you do something else, you're going to be interacting with again before super long.

    The record, the part you interact with, has size and weight. It's definitively a "thing". And choosing a record is a choice. You can't just press some buttons on a remote and change to whatever else (unless it's a full music system setup).

    Plus the beautiful art on the sleeves, and the time it takes to get the record out forces you to spend at least a little time with that art.

    With a CRT TV, you're using a remote and there's a lot more abstraction and layers between the physical object holding the content and your actual consumption of it.

    VHS tapes are physical, but the moving parts that make it all work are hidden away in the VCR and the magnetic tape isn't really touchable. Playing one on most TVs required another device plugged into the TV and pressing some buttons on one or two remotes that could just as easily bring you other content without ever leaving your seat.

    There is art on the VHS case, but it's not like it takes time to get the tape in and out, so you're not as likely to look at it for long.


    Most importantly, people are still making new record players and records. There was a long while where it was a very niche thing, and there weren't a lot of new records coming out, but there were still new players coming out. And the technology is simple enough that the average person could at least keep a player in working order or fix the most common issues themselves. Enthusiasts could even "fix" an old machine with modern parts that are readily available, as long as they function the same. It's not like people are going to stop making electric motors anytime in the next century.

    CRTs simply aren't manufactured anymore. Depending on the issue they aren't end user servicable for the average person, or even most enthusiasts. Maintenance is potentially dangerous to the person doing the work. The parts have limited lifespans with no replacements available for the main bits. If the electron guns start to go, you can potentially rejuvanate them with special equipment, or you can end up breaking a damaged one entirely (see 10:32 of this video about restoring an old arcade cabinet).

    It's the same (sans danger to the person doing the repair) for VCRs. No new stock, specialized parts that can't be swapped for more readily availble modern components, you get the picture.

    And that's also not considering the fucking weight of a good size CRT compared to a record player.


    Don't get me wrong. I love CRTs. Pretty sure I still have my childhood one in my basement, complete with some discoloration from when my 8 year old self had some fun with magnets.

    I was legitimately distraught when my wife talked me into only keeping one of the three CRT TVs we had gathering dust, and I think I still have one or two CRT monitors stashed away somewhere.

    I spent multiple weekends years ago looking up and configuring the best CRT shader for emulators so it looked like an idealized version of that childhood TV.

    But I entirely get why records and record players are such strong and well thought of "nostalgia bait" and CRTs and VHS tapes are not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    To be fair, most CRT TVs are the equivalent of like a cheap not-classy record player. A nice big 1200p CRT computer monitor is a lot more classy

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    What if top panel guy is secretly into VHS?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    man i shouldve kept my box tv

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Why not both?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Try playing Control with all the settings maxed out on 540p and have it be the most amazing looking game you've ever seen

  • source
  • those large Mitsubishi tv's that killed their tv side.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I miss plain old tv of reasonable size :'(

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    people would love crt tvs. i have hounding me for crts

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Still the best way to watch wrestling. Toni storm hits different in fuzzy 4:3 PAL format

  • source