Some PC upgrades can have an immediate and dramatic effect. Installing a solid state drive may halve your boot time, for instance. A leading-edge graphics card can do wonders for your gaming frame rate, and a faster CPU will improve performance in many applicationsA RAM upgrade, though, won't always bring significant benefits. If your current system only has 2GB of RAM, then sure, it may look underpowered by modern standards: but if it's an old XP PC, really only used for browsing and occasional emails, then there's little need to add anything more.
Of course if you're running Vista or Windows 7 then you really should have 4GB of RAM, perhaps more if you're running 64-bit Windows. Even if you're not running memory-hungry apps, this will help with multitasking, allowing you to run more programs simultaneously without paging large chunks of RAM to your hard drive (which is what really cuts your performance).
Which type of RAM should you buy, though? Which technology? In what configuration? And how fast does your RAM need to be? Let's take a look.
PC memory types
There are three main varieties of PC RAM available.
DDR (Double Data Rate), rated at speeds from 200 to 400 MHz, was the standard many years ago. If your PC is aging (5 or more years old) then you may not be able to use anything else.
DDR2 was the next generation in RAM technology, requiring less power while delivering potentially up to twice the performance (400 to 800MHz, officially, though some sticks can run faster still). It was such a success that, despite first appearing in 2003, you can still find new computers using it today. And as our OCZ Blade DDR2 4GB review shows, it's still capable of decent speeds.
The latest standard is DDR3, though, which cuts power requirements again and is a great performer: 800 to 1600MHz and also with higher speeds available (see our DDR3 guide).
While this all sounds simple enough, there's a major complication in terms of memory latencies, the delays incurred when various RAM operations are performed. Each generation of RAM may have more bandwidth, but their latencies increase too, and so the performance difference between memory types isn't always clear. (Read more on this in "Is it DDR3 time yet?")
Fortunately, most PCs will support one memory technology only, so once you've found out what this is then life will be considerably simpler.
STILL AVAILABLE: It's been eclipsed by DDR3, but there are still plenty of quality upgrades available for DDR2-based PCs
PC memory checker
The Crucial System Scanner provides a simple way to find out more about your current RAM configuration. Essentially you download a small tool (just 220KB), it detects your RAM type, then displays compatible upgrades.
At least, that's the idea. When we tried it we were told that "our System Scanner couldn't make a complete match", but by manually entering our motherboard manufacturer and model (both of which were displayed in the scan report) we were given a list of suitable upgrades. You don't have to buy any of these, of course, but it will at least point you to RAM that will work in your PC (you can always enter product names into a price comparison site to see if they're cheaper elsewhere).
And just to double check, and collect some other handy details, download the excellent (and free) system information tool CPU-Z.
Launch the program, click the SPD tab, and select each of the slot numbers, in turn. You'll see details like the size of each installed memory stick, the maximum bandwidth (speed), memory latencies, even the RAM's manufacturer and part number.
There are no recommendations this time, but if you're adding more RAM then that won't be a problem - you could just shop for more memory sticks that match the specification of those you're running already. How many? That's another complication.
As a general rule, a simple PC running basic tasks can get away with only 2GB of RAM.
If you're doing anything faintly demanding, though - even just editing digital photos - then 3GB is a sensible minimum for 32-bit Windows. (You can install up to 4GB, of course, but Windows may see very little of the extra - our test PC tops out at 3.1GB.)
64-bit operating systems don't have these annoying problems, however, and may benefit from adding much more. The Crucial System Scanner earlier should have told you the total amount of RAM you can install.
Exactly how you add additional RAM will depend on your system, though. Return to CPU-Z, click the Memory tab, and check the "Channels" entry.
If CPU-Z says your motherboard is Dual Channel then this means it's able to compensate for RAM latencies by accessing your memory more intelligently. So your board will read and write to RAM module A, while simultaneously preparing to access RAM module B: there's still a delay in the second operation, but it no longer holds up your PC and everything is a little faster.
And Triple Channel motherboards just takes the process a step further, delivering smarter access to three memory modules to further improve performance.
For this Dual or Triple Channel system to work, though, you'll need to use identical memory modules: the same type of course, same speed, same latency, same everything. They'll need to be placed in the appropriate slots, as described in your motherboard manual. And these modules should also match the specifications of whatever you've installed currently. (Adding faster RAM is pointless as most motherboards will simply run everything at the speed of the slowest module.)
If you some reason you want to use a single memory module, though, or mix modules of different sizes (but the same speed) then your PC will still work: you just won't get the benefit of the Dual or Triple Channel speed boost.
THREE UP: DDR3 performs at its best in a triple-channel configuration
Faster RAM
Sometimes simply adding more RAM won't be possible. If you've only four slots and they're already filled with 512MB DIMMs, for instance, then you'll have to replace these with 1GB DIMMs to reach your 4GB capacity.
This does give you an opportunity to buy better performing RAM, of course. You might opt for DIMMs with lower latencies. The CAS Latency, or CL, is most commonly quoted, as it's probably the most important of the delays: the lower the CL figure, the faster your memory is likely to be. But if you're short on cash, don't spend too much on this. Very low latency RAM can be expensive, and it won't make that much difference to the general performance of your PC.
When considering the speed of your replacement RAM, it's generally best to go for the fastest that your motherboard will support. This might be an 800 MHz DDR2 DIMM, for instance, but for no particularly good reason these speeds will sometimes be quoted in terms of their bandwidth.
So 800MHz DDR2 RAM may also be described as PC2-8000, and 1600MHz DDR 3 might become PC3-12800. And if a site quotes only one figure, like PC2-8500, then as long as you remember that PC2 = DDR2 and that you divide the 8500 figure to 8 to get the MHz value (well, nearly - 1066) then you'll be able to translate between the two.
You might also come across RAM that's optimised for stability: ECC (Error Correction Code), Registered or buffered, perhaps. These are fine for servers or systems that must never fail, but they're also expensive, often slower than standard memory, and unsupported on most PCs. So unless you'll be using your PC to monitor a nuclear reactor, and you know your motherboard can handle these RAM variants, we'd give them a miss.
You should now have a general idea of what you want to buy, but there's still one question to be answered: which manufacturer is best? That changes all the time, but for clues you can always take a look at our memory reviews, while the computing components news pages will keep you up-to-date with the latest developments.
 |  |
Read More ...
Apple relaxes App Store rules for developers
Apple has made an unprecedented move and announced it is relaxing the rules for applications on the App Store.In a statement, the computing giant announced that it is "relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code.
"This should give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need."
Apple has always been a tad cloudy on what it will or won't allow on the App Store, so this is a move that will please developers looking to get their applications on to the iPhone.
It also means that third-party developer tools for iOS apps will be allowed - which is a huge turnaround for Apple.
Listened to devs
"We have listened to our developers and taken much of their feedback to heart," Apple explained in its statement.
"Based on their input, today we are making some important changes to our iOS Developer Program licence."
It continued: "For the first time we are publishing the App Store Review Guidelines to help developers understand how we review submitted apps.
"We hope it will make us more transparent and help our developers create even more successful apps for the App Store."
There's no word on when the review guidelines will be published, but this is an important step for Apple and shows the company is listening to the myriad devs who have contributed to the App Store – which currently houses over 250,000 apps.
| |
Read More ...
iPhone 4 camera: before and after iOS 4.1
The iPhone's camera has been given something of an overhaul in the new iOS 4.1 update, and it's been given a thorough testing.The iPhone's camera now can shoot in HDR, which takes multiple exposures for each photo, providing the best version of the picture.
The chaps over at PhotoRadar, also part of Future Publishing like TechRadar, have been out and about and tested the new feature.
Enhance!
The camera does indeed improve the quality of the photos, according to the test shots, and will help make the iPhone 4's 5MP camera even more desirable.
Head on over to PhotoRadar to see the full comparison - and some nice buildings and leaves and such.
| |
Read More ...
Review: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition
Welcome back AMD, we've missed you. With the launch of the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition a few months ago, AMD signalled a revival of its CPU business. The 1090T is based on Thuban, a new six-core chip and easily the best processor design from AMD in years.Admittedly, it's not an all-new CPU. It's mostly a six-core rehash of AMD's existing 45nm quad-core architecture, known as Deneb. Of course, Deneb was essentially a 45nm respin of AMD's 65nm Barcelona chip. Rinse and repeat right back to the original Hammer core from 2003.
Still, you only have to look at the Phenom II X6 1090T BE's power rating to appreciate what AMD has achieved. This six-core, 45nm, 3.2GHz chip is rated at 125 Watts. The quad-core, 45nm, 3.4GHz Phenom II X4 965 Black Editionweighs in at 140 Watts. Clearly, AMD has at last got to grips with the 45nm production node.
With six cores humming a 3.2GHz tune, you'd expect the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition to sport decent multi-threading chops. You'd be right. If there's a cheaper chip that offers better performance in video encoding and other highly parallelised applications, we haven't seen it.
Less impressive, of course, is the 1090T's per-core performance. That explains why it's not so competitive in games and file decompression. OK, by those metrics it's no slouch. But even Intel's lowliest Core i5 quad-core model, the 750, has it well beaten.
One area where we had expected the 1090T to stumble is overclocking. It' only fairly recently that AMD has been able to hit decent clocks with its quad-core processors. Odds are a six-core chip based on the same production process isn't going to be a screamer.
Well, never mind the odds, because this chip will crack 4GHz with air cooling. What's more, it will do it at sane voltage settings. It's extremely impressive and lifts the 1090T from being a very useful tool for video encoding buffs to an all-round winner.
That's especially true when you consider how much cheaper the overall platform cost is when you go with AMD. This high end six-core chip drops into the same AM3 socket as any current AMD processor. Compatible motherboards are therefore cheap and plentiful.
The only slight snag is the existence of the Phenom II X6 1055T. It's quite a bit cheaper but only slightly slower. But either way, with six-core AMD you are well on the way to arguably the most cost effective computing solution currently available.
We liked:
Compared to Intel's silly-money six-core processors, the Phenom II X6 1090T BE looks preposterously cheap. But the chip itself is only part of the reason why AMD-based PCs are such great value. Thanks to AMD's single-socket strategy on the desktop, you can drop the 1090T into a £50 board and do some serious coding on the cheap.
We disliked:
As fantastic as the 1090T Black edition is, there's one chip that's even better value: the Phenom II X6 1055T. It's essentially the same chip running slightly slower for a lot less money. What both models share is a slight weediness in games.
Verdict:
At last, an AMD Black Edition chip worthy of the name. But slightly overpriced.
Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Review: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
Remember when AMD launched its first quad-core processor in 2007? We can, because back then it seemed like AMD was months from keeling over stone dead. Today, the company is in much finer fettle. For proof, look no further than the new AMD Phenom II X6 1055T.Somehow, AMD has managed to produce a six-core PC processor and sell it for just over £10 more than its best quad-core chip, the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition. It's actually cheaper than several Intel quads. Inspect the detail specifications and the Phenom II X6 1055T only gets more impressive.
The transistor count has grown from 758 million transistors to 904 million. And yet the smaller quad-core 965 is rated at 140 Watts while this new six-core 1055T is a 125 Watt chip. Of course, at 2.8GHz, the 1055T is clocked quite a bit lower than the 3.4GHz 965 BE. But AMD has clearly done something right.
It's been a long time coming. But AMD finally has something really interesting to offer in the performance PC processor market. The new Phenom II X6 1055T gives you six cores for the price of four. Hell, if you compare it to some of the latest Intel latest dual-core chips such as the Core i5 661, you're getting six for less than the price of two.
For the record, the 1055T also looks like great value next to AMD's flagship six-core processor, the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition. The 1090T is clocked a little higher at 3.2GHz. But it's also around £70 more expensive.
There's a reason why AMD is punting a six-core CPU at such a bargain-basement price, of course. Core for core, Intel's processors are much more powerful. That's why the quad-core Intel Core i7 870is marginally faster for video encoding. But then it's much more expensive. The Intel Core i5 750 and Core i5 760 are much closer on price and neither can live with the Phenom II X6 1055T's multi-threaded throughput.
That said, it's a different story in games and file decompression. Those applications tend to benefit more from a smaller number of really powerful cores. Predictably, the 1055T can't keep up with Intel's cheaper quads, much less its pricier models that sell for £200 or more.
That's not a situation that changes when you factor in overclocking. Our 1055T sample will hit 3.65GHz with an air cooler, a respectable result given the stock 2.8GHz frequency. But Intel quads routinely breach the 4GHz barrier.
We liked:
The Phenom II X6 1055T is one hell of a lot of chip for the money. Frankly, we've no idea how AMD can sell this near-one billion-transistor chip so cheaply. But no matter. What really counts is the huge amount of parallel processing power the 1055T's six cores deliver. It's got to be the most cost effective video encoding chip in the world.
We disliked:
The six-core 1055T is an awesome CPU. But it's not without its flaws. The main problem is the sheer age of AMD's underlying CPU architecture. AMD's cores are really getting on and it shows in the gaming and file decompression benchmarks.
Verdict:
Not the best gaming chip for the money, but still our favourite all rounder.
Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Exclusive: Sony shows Amazon how to do touchscreen ebooks
Sony has announced it has managed to create the world's first touchscreen e-reader which doesn't impede the quality of the e-ink screen - the next-generation of the Sony Reader Touch.When TechRadar caught up with Amazon at the launch of the Kindle, Steve Kessel, senior vice president for Kindle at Amazon was vehement that it would never make a touchscreen device as it would impinge on readability.
Kessel noted: "If you put touch on an e-ink display – a reflective display – then anything you put on the top ruins readability. You can already see this with some devices which are out on the market at the moment that have integrated touch into the displays."
No extra layer
Sony knows this and this is why it has managed to create a touchscreen display for the Sony Reader Touch which does away with the extra layer and with it the reflectiveness of the display.
"You usually have to put a film over the e-ink display to make it touchscreen but we have created the only device this year which is finger controlled and with no extra layer," explained Sony Reader marketing manager Omar Gurnah.
The Sony Reader Touch does come equipped with a stylus but the new optical screen technology, called E Ink Pearl, can be used with fingers as well.
The new tech also means improved contrast with 16 levels of greyscale.
Waterstones has the Sony Pocket Edition priced at £159.99 and the Sony Touch retailing for £199.99.
Both of these are currently on pre-order with the UK release date for both the Touch and Pocket set for 17 September.
It will be interesting to see if the next iteration of the Amazon Kindle in the UK will indeed adopt the technology Sony is using or if it will speak to its non-touchscreen word.
| |
Read More ...
Review: AMD Phenom II X4 905E
How much are you willing to pay for improved power consumption and lower thermals? If you're a home cinema addict, reduced noise and smaller form factors are certainly desirable. For a price, the AMD Phenom II X4 905E promises to make all that possible.Like its Athlon II X4 610E sibling, the 905E is a low-power variant of a familiar AMD processor. In this case, it's the full-on Deneb die found in high performance processors like the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition. You therefore get all four cores and the full 6MB of L3 cache memory.
What you don't get is high clockspeeds. The Phenom II X4 905E runs at 2.5GHz. However, it's also rated at 65 Watts. That's a small fraction of the 140 Watt TDP of a high end quad-core AMD processor.
For a chip that trades on efficiency, the AMD Phenom II X4 905E's results in our platform power consumption tests are ugly. Using optimised motherboard settings, it actually consumes more power than the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition.
Something is clearly not right. Very likely, it's a problem related to voltage settings and our test board's BIOS. Anyway, two obvious lessons come out of this. Firstly, full motherboard support is required to get the best out of these low-power processors. Secondly, you may have to jump into the BIOS and do some hand tuning of the voltage settings.
As it is, we can't comment on the 905E's low power credentials. However, what we can say is that it runs an awful lot cooler than a normal quad-core Phenom II processor, even with the wrong voltage settings.
In most other areas, the 905E's performance is predictable, which is to say solid if hardly spectacular. Compared to a budget quad-core chip but one that is nevertheless clocked slightly higher, such as the Ahtlon II X4 620, the 905E trades punches across our benchmark suite. It's a little slower for video encoding but quicker at professional 3D rendering, gaming and file decompression.
As for the inevitable comparison with its low-power stable mate, the Athlon II X4 610E, it knocks out around 25 per cent more frames per second in the World of Conflict game benchmark. That could be the difference between smooth gameplay and irritating stutters. The 905E also clocks up better than the 610E, hitting 3.9GHz.
We liked:
Thanks to problems with motherboard support, the Phenom II X4 905E had a hard time impressing us. However, we still like the idea of a quad-core processor optimised for power efficiency. In raw performance terms, this chip would certainly make for great small form factor system.
We disliked:
Judging the Phenom II X4 905E's power consumption is tricky without proper motherboard support. However, we're confident that it's less efficient than the Athlon II X4 610E and that makes it tricky to recommend given the price premium. We'd go with the cheaper chip.
Verdict:
An interesting take on low-power performance, but less convincing than the Athlon II X4 610E.
Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Review: AMD Athlon II X4 610E
Performance computing and environmental sympathy aren't exactly bum chums. After all, high end chips tend to be power hungry. But what if there was a low-power version of AMD's quad-core processor architecture that gave you the same performance without the gas guzzling?That's exactly what the new AMD Athlon II X4 610E is supposed to deliver. Actually, the environmental aspect is a bit of a ruse. The real advantage of a low-power chip is the options it gives you in terms of form factors. With a power rating of just 45 Watts, the Athlon II X4 610E will run in much smaller systems while producing less heat and noise.
Anyway, inside the 610E's casing is precisely the same quad-core Propus die used in the AMD Athlon II X3 435 and AMD Athlon II X4 620 processors. It's therefore not AMD's most advanced quad-core architecture and lacks a shared L3 shared cache memory pool. At 2.4GHz, the 610E is also clocked significantly lower than AMD's full-power processors.
Judged by normal metrics of PC processor performance and value, the AMD Athlon II X4 610E looks like a loser. It's much more expensive, for instance, than the Athlon II X2 620 but clocks in slightly slower at 2.4GHz to the 620's 2.6GHz.
Consequently, the cheaper chip is slightly quicker across the board. But for a low power chip, relative performance is less critical. What matters is whether the Athlon II X4 610E delivers enough performance to get the job done in return for significantly less wattage.
On the first count, the 610E gets the thumbs up. With four cores, it has ample processing power for decoding high definition video streams of most kinds. Only badly encoded Flash video streams present a problem.
Slightly less convincing, however, is the efficiency part of the package. Compared to the 620, the 610E does use less power under load. But the difference isn't as dramatic as you would expect from AMD official ratings. Rather than a 50 Watt advantage, our testing indicates the reality is more like 25 Watts.
As for overclocking, you might think it hardly applies to a low power chip. However, there's actually a closer relationship between high efficiency and high clockspeeds than you might think. In both cases, chips that leak less power tend to be more effective. It's slightly disappointing to find, therefore, that the 610E overclocks no better than its full-power sibling, even if 3.6GHz is a decent result in isolation.
We liked:
If you want to maximise performance in a power and thermal-critical package, the Athlon II X4 610E is worth a look. It's around 25 Watts more efficient than a standard quad-core Athlon II X4. Meanwhile, it delivers plenty of performance for a home cinema system.
We disliked:
Unless improved power efficiency is a must, the 610E's premium pricing is a problem. It's slower than quad-core chips costing half as much. It's also not as power efficient as AMD's specs would have you believe and doesn't deliver spectacular overclocking headroom.
Verdict:
Worth a look for home cinema fans. Too expensive for everyone else.
Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Sony Reader Pocket and Touch priced for the UK
Sony officially announced its two new ebooks for the UK market this week – the next-gen Pocket and Touch editions of the Reader.Although they were initially announced at IFA 2010, this is the first time the devices have been seen in the UK, with Sony announcing that they have secured access to more books than any other ebook reader on the market – a whopping 600,000.
This is due to a rental agreement with 50 British Libraries and access to Google's vast archive of free ebooks.
You've got the Touch
Although Sony wouldn't give out details on price for the Sony Pocket and Touch, Waterstones has announced UK pricing for both devices.
Waterstones has the Sony Pocket Edition priced at £159.99 and the Sony Touch retailing for £199.99.
Both of these are currently on pre-order with the UK release date for both the Touch and Pocket pencilled in for 17 September.
These are far pricier than the Amazon Kindle, which will cost you £109 (or £149 with Wi-Fi).
But Sony is hoping that its all-new touchscreen Touch and the fact the devices are not tied to just the Amazon store will entice tech-savvy bookworms.
| |
Read More ...
Apple's iOS 4.1 finally ready to download
Apple has finally made the iOS 4.1 update available to (select) iPhone owners, bringing a couple of enhanced features.Game Center is the most exciting new addition, bringing the chance to compete against others across the world – or 'experience social gaming', as Apple puts it.
iTunes Ping – another social feature from the Apple-ites – is available too, allowing you to share the things you love with unsuspecting buddies who may or may not care.
On the hardware side, the camera's getting some more love already, with HDR photography being added with the iOS 4.1 update.
Enhance!
This means the phone takes multiple shots at once, helping you get the right 'light intensity' in photos.
The video zone has also been tinkered with, insofar as you can now upload HD video to MobileMe and YouTube directly from your iPhone 4.
Click and plug and accept and wait over on iTunes with your iPhone, and you'll be the proud owner of a +0.1 newer iPhone. Unless you downloaded iOS 4.02, in which case it will only be 0.08 better. Sorry.
| |
Read More ...
Review: Triangle Lyrr
Founded some thirty years ago in North East France and one of three major French speaker brands to make a serious impression on the international stage, Triangle's success is primarily due to its very distinctive drive unit technology. The £3,300 per pair Lyrr is the largest of three stereo pairs in the Genese range, which itself occupies the middle ground between the inexpensive Esprit EX series and the seriously upmarket Magellan range.
Both the smaller Genese models, the Quartet floorstander and the Trio standmount, have been reviewed previously in Hi-Fi Choice, with, it must be said, somewhat mixed results. While both had distinctive and attractive characteristics, both also had their fair share of weaknesses, too.
Drumskin behaviour
The common ground between the three Genese models is unmistakable. All share the half external horn-loaded tweeter on the top and the curved veneered enclosure sides.
In truth and since both are floorstanding three-ways, the Lyrr is much closer to the Quartet, with similar pleated surround midrange drive units and steel plinth arrangements.
The Lyrr's three-way driver line-up has three 160mm bass units with 120mm fibreglass/carbon fibre cones and high-excursion rubber roll surrounds. This impressive-looking collection is mounted with one above and two below a twin 'Siamesed' port arrangement and takes up much of the front panel.
The large moulded twin port, divided by a central horizontal divide, is presumably arranged to load the driver above and the two below separately, reflecting an internal divide that creates two distinct sub-enclosures.
Above the multi-driver bass section and positioned unusually high off the ground, is one of Triangle's unconventional midrange drivers. This also has a 160mm-diameter cast alloy frame, but in this case it is fitted with a plain 133mm-diameter paper cone and a short-travel pleated surround.
The point is that a driver that only covers midrange frequencies doesn't require cone excursion – the cone actually behaves a little like a drumskin and the surround's job is merely to absorb the vibrations that get to the edge of the cone and avoid re-radiating them. (There are obvious parallels with the FST driver Bowers and Wilkins uses in most of its three-way models.)
Above that midrange driver and actually well above seated ear height, the Lyrr's tweeter is a horn-loaded 25mm titanium dome, mounted in a pod that's half in and half out of the enclosure proper.
Although the mounting arrangements would seem to promote wide dispersion, in fact this is likely to be cancelled out by the relatively narrow distribution created by the horn.
Massive spikes
The whole thing sits on a proper steel plinth, which comes fitted with rubber feet and a front-centre 'grounding' pointed cone with captive disc, all of which ensures polished floors won't suffer damage.
A set of four massive spikes for carpet penetration is also supplied, though these lack lock-nuts and the disc on the front cone cannot be removed. Stability is good – the plinth essentially supporting the speaker as a tripod with two extra stabilisers.
The tall floorstanding enclosure is elegantly finished in mahogany stained real wood veneer, with a piano gloss black front. (All over piano black is also available at an extra £350). Curved sides give extra strength and superior internal standing wave and reflection control, while internal partitions and braces further stiffen the structure. Neat magnetic grilles attach to screw heads holding the drive units and two pairs of high-quality socket/binders act as input terminals.
The previously mentioned price tag is quite hefty and, perhaps, sits a little uncomfortably between the mainstream and the high end, but you do get a whole lot of speaker for your money here, with a considerable selection of high class ingredients.
Unusual height
The Lyrrs were fed primarily from a system comprising a Naim NAC552 preamp and NAP500 power amplifier (driven from Naim CDS3/555PS and Rega Valve Isis CD players) and a Magnum Dynalab MD106T FM tuner. Vinyl record players included a Linn/Rega hybrid and a Funk modified Linn with FXR II, both using a Soundsmith Strain Gauge cartridge.
Positioned well clear of walls, as common sense indicated and subsequent measurements confirmed, first impressions are very positive, thanks to the loudspeaker's fine overall neutrality across a wide bandwidth.
The bass goes satisfyingly deep, while staying free from unwanted mid-bass emphasis and thickening; the midband is well projected and dynamically involving, if not entirely free from some 'paper cone' colorations, while the treble is well integrated and free from fierceness or edginess.
Perhaps the Lyrr's most distinctive characteristic is its unusual height, which somehow aids the precision of the stereo image. Exactly why this should be the case we cannot say for sure.
Perhaps it's due to a combination of the midrange driver delivering the sound from a little above the listeners and slightly reducing the impact of floor reflections. Or, perhaps, it's due to the relatively directional nature of the horn tweeter and the consequent reduction in room-reflected top end. But, there is no disputing the evidence of the ears, or the general superiority of the Lyrr's imaging.
While the bass is certainly well balanced and extended, it could have rather more authority and grip. It fills in the bottom end very effectively, but doesn't exactly impose itself on the music.
First and foremost one notices the midrange and while the bottom end doesn't in any way lag behind in timing terms, it doesn't seem to drive the music along with any particular purpose or intent.
The midband is a trifle exposed and not exactly free from colorations, but it is wonderfully communicative through the voice band, delivering fine expression and the full intentionality of singers and speech. Furthermore, this is achieved without sounding either 'shut in' or unpleasantly aggressive – in other words, the presence band and the mid-to-treble transition is very well judged indeed.
And while there is some slight 'quack' and occasional edginess, one quickly adjusts to this little bit of 'character' and the presentation always retains its fine timing and dynamic expression.
First class
The Lyrr is far from inexpensive, yet it ticks an awful lot of boxes. Though physically far from discreet, it's good looking in a 'tall dark and handsome' way and fashionably slim to boot.
It's a sonically very attractive prospect, too. The Lyrr supplies a fine neutral balance with deep and even bass, a dynamic and well-projected midband and a well-integrated top end.
It's not the last word in bass authority perhaps, but its stereo imaging is first class.
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
In depth: LCD vs Plasma: which is best for 3D TV?
Building the perfect TV has always been an impossible task for the bigshots of the electronics world.While the current batch of flatscreen efforts are brighter, thinner and better than ever, the problem is that there's always room for improvement.
The contrast ratio can always be improved on as well as aspects like colour reproduction, pixel density, resolution, brightness, thickness and bezel size, to name but a few.
And that's not even mentioning the new challenges that inevitably get thrown up as new technologies are invented.
The current headache facing Sony, Panasonic and the like comes in the form of a new phenomenon found in 3D TVs called 'crosstalk'.
How it works
To create the illusion of 3D on a two-dimensional screen, a 3D TV needs to show two separated images, one for each eye.
Current 3D TVs show the two separate images sequentially - so very quickly one after the other. Active shutter 3D glasses are then synchronised by the TV's infrared emitters, and close and open the shutters many times per second, in time with the images.
When the left eye image is shown, the right eye shutter closes and so forth.
But if the two images are not separated perfectly, part of the right eye image will be seen by the left eye and vice versa. And this causes crosstalk - a sort of blurry ghosting effect around some edges in the picture.
Crosstalk can occur if the liquid crystals in an LCD panel do not switch fast enough from bright to dark or vice versa, or if the phosphor cells in plasma panels have an afterglow that lasts too long.
3D glasses can also cause some crosstalk if they're not precisely synchronised with the TV or if they are sensitive to an inclination angle.
At best, crosstalk can be an unwanted distraction, while at its worst it can completely ruin the 3D effect and make a 3D picture unwatchable. And it's the battle to eliminate crosstalk from 3D TV pictures which is currently occupying the minds at the big telly manufacturers.
So if you're thinking of buying a new 3D TV, how do you ensure that you buy the TV with the least amount of this disturbing crosstalk?
Many people believe it comes down to that age-old choice between LCD and plasma. So which telly tech is best for 3D?
LCD vs Plasma in 3D: the case for plasma
Panasonic is famous for making some of the world's best plasma screens, while also dishing out a fair helping of top-end LCD TVs too.
However, the Japanese giant says it believes plasma to be by far the best tech to use with 3D, and that's why it has limited its 3D output to its VT20 and GT20 plasma TV ranges thus far.
"Obviously we think that plasma is better for 2D so this already implicates that it would be better for 3D as well because for a TV, 3D is much more difficult to handle," Markus Wagenseil, technical marketing manager for Panasonic, tells TechRadar.
"On the TV, [crosstalk] depends on how fast the TV can swap from the left eye image to the right eye image and then back to the left eye image again. It has always been the case that the response time of a plasma is much, much quicker than of an LCD.
"So we're saying that we have a response time of around 0.001 milliseconds, so basically there is no response time, you put a charge on a cell and it will light up.
"We don't say that plasma is completely crosstalk free because if you light up the plasma it needs some time to afterglow. To reduce that we developed a short stroke phosphor for our 3D TVs which has a decay time of only one third of that in a conventional plasma. So with that we reduce the crosstalk from white into black.
"But there is a second type of crosstalk - from black into white - because an LCD always has to twist the crystals whether it needs to switch from black to white or white to black. And from black to white is a much more crucial crosstalk because LCD produces up to 35 per cent crosstalk when the pixels are changing from black to white, while plasma has zero crosstalk in this area."
The role of heat
Wagenseil also highlighted another factor which affects crosstalk in LCD panels, which is heat.
As an LCD TV heats up, the liquid crystals in the panel become less viscous and are thus more agile.
This means a cold panel cannot perform as well as a hot panel, because the liquid crystals cannot twist as quickly, which causes crosstalk issues.
"Another thing you don't have with plasma is that you have no run-in time in terms of heat," says Wagenseil.
"3D LCDs need a run-in time of between 60 and 90 minutes in order to achieve a reasonable quality, but with plasma you can just switch it on and it's maximum quality straight away."
And Panasonic doesn't believe the advantages of plasma over LCD stops there either. Wagenseil says that the glasses used with 3D LCD TVs are also responsible for creating more crosstalk than those compatible with plasma displays.
"The final major implication is with the glasses," says Wagenseil. "LCD is outputting polarised light while plasma outputs unpolarised light. So what do you think happens when someone wearing 3D specs moves their head?
"With unpolarised light nothing happens. Basically you can turn the glasses all you want and they will work in any direction. With an LCD, the glasses will shut down if you angle them to 90 degrees because the polarisation angle of the glasses is then not aligned any more with the polarisation angle that's outputted by the TV.
"Another competitor found that it's a very good idea to put a circular polariser on the glasses and just leave the front polariser on the glasses away. So with that, their one advantage is that they don't lose so much brightness. But there's a serious issue coming with that because only inclining your head by 10 to 15 degrees you already end up with 20 per cent crosstalk by default.
"And if you incline the glasses 90 per cent the closed lens actually lets in double the amount of light than the open eye. So there are lots of implications for LCD which makes it really hard to fight for."
Eliminating crosstalk
All TVs these days come packing mighty image processors, and so 3D TVs use those processors along with some complex algorithms to identify where crosstalk is likely to occur, and to adjust the picture accordingly.
The main picture adjustment that a TV can make to manage the crosstalk issue is to reduce brightness in the parts of the screen where crosstalk is going to occur. By temporarily reducing brightness in these areas, you reduce crosstalk and make what remains as well hidden as possible.
But Wagenseil says that even with powerful processors, LCD TVs are still riddled with crosstalk problems.
"If you think, with an LCD now you have a warm up time of between 60 and 90 minutes plus the panel has different temperatures wherever you look at them because in front of the power driver it's very hot and on the outside areas of an LCD there's not as much temperature. So looking at that, as an LCD manufacturer, how do you adjust your crosstalk compensation to so many variables. It's not going to happen perfectly."
LCD vs Plasma in 3D: the case for LCD
There are certainly many good reasons for Panasonic to say that PDP is a fundamentally better technology for 3D than LCD.
However, plasma is not without its flaws.
Brightness has always been a problem for plasma TVs - the panels struggle to produce sufficient amounts of light while also keeping power consumption down and maintaining a thin chassis.
This is an area where LCD TVs have always excelled. And with recent advances and the introduction of Direct LED LCDs - where an array of LEDs behind the LCD panel illuminate the screen instead of an always-on CCFL lamp - the sheer amount of light produced is a factor which gives LCD something of an advantage when it comes to reducing crosstalk.
Danny Tack, director for technical marketing at Philips, and named the 56th most influential person in Tech in T3's Tech100, believes that it's LCD's ability to produce more light that makes it a better technology for 3D.
The Philips approach
"Crosstalk is the new thing which you need to keep under control. The way you can keep it under control is by playing with light and some clever processing," says Tack.
"My opinion is that you can have good quality with plasma, but you get better 3D quality from LCD because there is much more light. There are two key facts which we think makes plasma weaker for 3D than LCD.
"For starters, the light that comes out of a plasma is not polarised. It comes out in all directions. In LCD, it's polarised already coming out of the screen. So in LCD you get 500nit polarised light out, and in plasma you get less than 500nit and it's circular light, it has to go through the glasses which are polarised which means with LCD you don't lose light and with plasma you do.
With plasma's glasses you only get half the light through because you only get light from one direction, you lose 50 per cent brightness. That's a fact."
Contouring
Tack also believes that contouring is also a big problem for plasma 3D TVs. Contouring - more commonly referred to as posterisation or solarisation - is a phenomenon seen in older plasma screens where a gradient of colour is not produced accurately enough, resulting in the appearance of ugly colour bands with edges that aren't supposed to be there.
"Yes, plasma has done a great job, year-by-year increasing their sub-fields, went up to 10 and got no contouring. They solved the contouring problem almost completely," Tack says, "but going now to 3D, you have two pictures at once. They claim full resolution per eye, but now actually with the sub-fields you need to divide them over two pictures so you get per picture now only five sub-fields. That is going back in time, we know that when you have less sub-fields, you have contouring. So that is a problem that comes back in plasma."
A sub-field is something a plasma panel uses to pulse illuminated cells repeatedly while each frame is being displayed. A 600Hz sub-field drive is able to pulse each cell/pixel ten times per frame, creating smooth motion.
The scanning backlight
Tack also says that while edge-lit LCD TVs have a comparable amount of crosstalk to plasmas, Direct LED TVs can have much less crosstalk as a result of a scanning backlight. A scanning backlight is able to reduce and increase brightness in parts of the screen to manage the crosstalk problem in realtime.
"I would do the same if I was the Panasonic guys, I'd bring up response time. Indeed we all know that certain colours in PDP have a very fast response, but others have a lot longer so a slower response time.
"For me, the key things when it comes to good 3D is you can reduce it to two elements. It's getting the crosstalk under control, and getting sufficient light. On those two elements, with light, LCD is definitely in the advantage because we can produce much more - we can create a huge amount of light and we can use that advantage over plasma by trading it off. How do you trade it off? By scanning, you lose light by that but scanning definitely will improve your crosstalk because you will not put light where the overlap of right and left pictures are and by doing that you can reduce crosstalk."
Tack admits that Philips' new range of 3D TVs do still have a crosstalk problem, but he says he firmly believes it will be eliminated within a few years.
"Yes, that is true, in the first generation of 3D I agree with you there is in every product a bit of crosstalk. But we can go very fast to no crosstalk. I have seen solutions like the goggles, if you can get the goggles' shutter time higher or you can have better technologies in the goggles, you can use that to eliminate crosstalk. Next year we will make a big step forward. Whether it's going to be zero I don't know but we will do our best."
LCD vs Plasma in 3D: the verdict
With so many factors affecting crosstalk on 3D TVs, it's impossible to find a definitive winner between LCD and plasma.
However, that doesn't mean both are as good as each other. Indeed, editor of AV trade title Home Cinema Digest and regular TechRadar contributor, Jamie Carter, thinks that plasma has the edge over LCD at the moment:
"3D is a very new technology – when did the first generation of any new tech look immaculate right from the off? It's true that the specification for 3D Blu-ray adopted throughout the industry came from Panasonic, so it has had more time to work on reducing crosstalk, but it's still first-gen technology.
"Crosstalk is basically when the two 3D images don't swap quick enough – your right eye is seeing what was only meant for the left eye, and vice versa. Surely this is mainly down to the speed of the panel - and in that regard, plasma is going to have the advantage for now. From what I've seen, I think plasma has the edge over LCD for now in terms of crosstalk – it's barely noticeable on plasma."
Brightness
Carter agrees with Tack that LCD TV's superior brightness can be an advantage, but when it comes to crosstalk he's not so sure it's a good thing.
"Plasmas are traditionally dimmer than LCD panels," he says, "but on either technology the 3D glasses cuts out a lot of the light. The lack of brightness is arguably safer since crosstalk is most obvious in 3D images that feature a lot of contrast between light and dark colours.
"It's fair to say that only 400Hz LCD TVs can expect to really challenge plasma in terms of reducing crosstalk, especially if 3D gaming becomes mainstream. Panasonic can't afford to sit on its laurels, though – there may be little crosstalk on a 3D plasma, but I've noticed flicker around the edges of moving objects; 3D is still some way from looking 'real'."
Meanwhile, although Panasonic has so far been the only company to release 3D plasma TVs, Carter thinks it could be telling that Samsung and LG have both recently launched 3D plasmas.
"Manufacturers are still testing the water. Until now Samsung and LG have been concentrating on LCD for their 3D sets, but both announced 3D plasmas at IFA – LG's PX990 and Samsung's C680 and C490 plasmas. Is that revealing, and a sign that LCD is being sidelined for 3D? It's more likely a case of sitting on the fence – Samsung, LG and Panasonic are the last three remaining manufacturers with huge plasma TV production plants."
It's not just Carter who believes plasma has the advantage, either. The consensus across the TechRadar team is that LCD has some catching up to do, and in fact we couldn't find any TV journalists at all who would endorse LCD as the superior technology.
So what does this mean if you're looking to buy a new 3D TV? The key thing to remember is that most of the content you're going to be watching will still be 2D. So basing your choice solely on 3D performance would be a mistake.
It's about finding that all-round performance sweet spot, which ultimately comes down to personal preference.
| |
Read More ...
Opera Mini gets upgraded for Windows Mobile
Opera has announced a new version of its Opera Mini browser for Windows Mobile handsets, offering a greater range of features.Opera Mini 5.1 has already been downloaded countless times on Android, BlackBerry and Java-based feature phones, but now comes to Microsoft's platform.
If you're the proud/angry and frustrated owner of a phone running Windows Mobile 6 series, 5 series or even 2003 SE, then you can now download the new browser.
Of course Opera Mobile is also available, but this version installs less software onto your handset.
Enhance!
You can now set Opera Mini as the default browser on your WM handset, as well as use the accelerometer in your phone to automatically switch orientation when you tilt the phone.
Phones with higher resolution displays are now also supported as well as improved page layout and rendering, so things will look that little bit clearer.
Plus you've still got the benefits of Opera Mini present on all devices - namely the compression technology that it claims speeds up web browsing and data compression, meaning more MB for your money.
It's available to download today - just navigate to m.opera.com in your phone's browser to get the optimised version for your phone.
| |
Read More ...
Review: Roksan Caspian M2
Roksan organises its electronics into several ranges of which the Caspian M2 range is half way, senior to the Kandy K2 and one step short of the Platinum series (which includes component pre and power amplifiers). The Kandy and the M2 series are quite different internally, though surprisingly it is the Kandy amplifier which, on paper, is the more powerful of the two.
The M2 replaces the original Caspian range (which was launched the best part of 12 years ago) and the Caspian M1 series electronics, which underwent significant improvements internally.
The M2 is, in essence, a complete new model range and the CD player and amplifier are intended to leverage the performance of the company's mainstream electronics products upwards, while retaining a mainstream price.
Stylish pairing
Both the M2 components are unusual in the way they're presented. Although the fascia is an aluminium die-casting, the top panel is made from stainless steel, a harder material than aluminium and not easy to work with. But it has an excellent appearance and can be formed much thinner than aluminium.
It's structural properties mean it can be used to make a slimmer, smoother exterior, especially where it wraps around the base. It also gives the units a very distinctive and, we think, unusually attractive appearance.
Above all, the M2 is a well-turned out and arguably stylish pairing, though they are essentially classic stereo components with a bare minimum of flim-flam. They are presented well, with a contrasting black slab fascia and display windows, which are curved in characteristic Caspian style.
The rest of the structure is also well finished and typical of Roksan's great build. The M2 components are each supplied with an identical remote control, the design of which we haven't encountered elsewhere, though presumably it comes from a standard OEM supplier.
It is a full system remote, pre-programmed for both components in the Caspian and the Kandy ranges, but with enough buttons to control the amplifier and CD player, without needing to select the specific component. The unit also includes an impressively large, clear backlit LCD display.
The same handset will also control the matching tuner from each range.
Short-circuit protection
The updated M2 Caspians are simple looking, but internally sophisticated mid-market products, senior to (and more expensive than) the base level Kandy range.
Power output of this bipolar design is 85 watts per channel, which surprisingly is quite a bit less than the cheaper Kandy, which has a MOSFET output stage and is rated at 125 watts But the differences in output stage architecture make direct comparisons of this kind problematical. So what do you get for your money?
The amplifier has six inputs, including one for tape, plus a tape out and two pairs of preamplifier outputs, which allows the Roksan to drive one or two external power amplifiers – if more power is needed (one example would be a bi-amplified system).
One of the inputs is also available in an alternative balanced XLR connection, matching a similar output provision on the CD player.
There is also a power amplifier input too, though this needs to be activated internally. The internal design includes two mains transformers, a 350VA torroid for the high-power stages and a smaller 60VA torroid for the preamplifier. Both are described as ultra-low-noise, low-leakage designs.
A mains input filter is also included and output protection is provided by a thermostatically controlled cooling fan, short circuit protection and power supply failure detection. This cuts the output until the cause of the problem has been resolved (relays protect the output stage).
The various fan and protection circuits are more comprehensive than with the Kandy which, according to Roksan, is due to the fact that the amplifier has a very wide, open bandwidth and a correspondingly rapid rise time – which can trigger momentary high current flow. The Kandy appears to be a much slower circuit. And, in any case, MOSFETs are inherently self-limiting, at least to some extent.
Only the key features – source selection and volume, plus a mode switch and tape select are available on the front panel of the two M2 units. Other features can be accessed from the remote control.
The partnering CD player feature set corresponds almost exactly to what you would expect of a standard CD player. The display is of good quality and informative, though it is mounted below the disc loading tray, which means it is not necessarily readable if the player is positioned below the eye line and the drawer is open.
The front panel controls take care of the basics: track access, play, pause and stop and the quick-acting loading drawer. Around the rear are the usual single-edged outputs and the XLR balanced connectors to match the amplifier provision.
There are also no less than three digital outputs – a TOSLINK optical, S/PDIF electrical out and an AES/EBU balanced output via an XLR connector. A surfeit of riches!
A clear edge
The two M2 components don't appear to need extensive running in and in day to day use are fully on song within less than half an hour. Most of the listening was done using balanced interconnects. Latterly Roksan's own Pulse cables, which worked particularly well, easily outperforming a relatively low-end Nordost cable.
The CD player has particularly good timing and a more crisply defined and propulsive quality than some of the better known players in the same price territory. The same applies to the amplifier, which is sharp and on the button, almost as though it is balancing on the balls of of its feet, making some of the more prominent pretenders to the title of best disc player in its price class, however smooth and polished they may sound, seem a little slack.
In fact, there are no complaints about the M2 CD player. Yes, we missed the fact that it lacks SACD compatibility, but based purely on sound quality there is not usually a lot to choose between the two formats, except that the best hybrid SACDs sound just a little sweeter, more organic and less processed. But there are plenty of individual titles which contradict this, or that don't show a specific advantage in either direction.
Much the same can be said of the amplifier. Again, the M2 can sound a little rough around the edges, but its muscularity and drive gives it a clear edge over most competitors, most of the time.
It has solid stereo imagery and is even capable of the kind of subtlety that helps the ear interpret delicate, low-level ambient information as clues to depth imagery. Think of Mahler's off-stage band in several of his symphonies, or the kind of depth that helps create the sense that you are listening to a recording made in an identifiable acoustic of a particular size, which can often be sensed almost subliminally in live recordings.
The amp has the kind of punch and dynamics that you would expect of a grown-up model and even more than the CD player. Its excellent timing, for example, works really well with difficult and large scale material. It is also most effective at moderate or even fairly high volume levels, though it is not completely even in the way it treats music.
It is not the answer to all musical requirements and if it runs out of steam it can sound a little harsh and messy. But this is the exception. Selecting almost at random from discs that saw service during this test and which were not preselected for any compelling reason, the amplifier and CD combination worked really well with a recording of Britten's War Requiem (Rattle/CBSO), especially the male voices, Scott Walker's Tilt and some Alison Krauss and Union Station recordings.
All the above found the Roksan combination's sweet spot. Some recordings – an example being Jennifer Warnes The Well (SACD version) – seems to chime better with the (cheaper) Marantz KI Pearl Lite SACD player, as well as benefitting from the DSD recording.
Others, an example being Schoenberg's Gurrelieder (Esa-Pekka Salonen/Philharmonia) sounds slightly rougher around the edges through the Roksan as a DSD recording and as a Red Book CD, especially at the high volume levels that this music demands. But at reasonable levels within the compass of the amplifier, Roksan offers a bold, gripping and undeniably authoritative sound.
Persuasive and gripping
The M2s are very nearly the complete package, despite being a little uneven in their qualities and clearly not ideal for every disc it played. But this is a criticism that can be made of just about any comparable amplifier and disc player at this price level.
Other similar combinations (the Marantz Pearl Lites are obvious examples) are sometimes tidier, but often less successful at scaling the heights the Roksan was able to reach.
So, in conclusion, the M2s are often the more persuasive and gripping choice. The two components are also attractively designed and built, and their compact dimensions are a definite plus.
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Review: Roksan Radius 5.2
The Radius design has undergone so many changes over the years that practically no single part is left of the original, yet it is instantly recognisable as the same model. In current guise, the Radius 5.2, it is an all-acrylic, semi-suspended turntable, with the familar Roksan 'egg' shape for the subchassis. Three compliant rubber mounts support the subchassis, while the motor is mounted compliantly in a housing which in turn is supported on the plinth.
The arm, included as standard, is the Nima unipivot. The subchassis shape is certainly visually attractive, but its original justification was to do with control of resonance.
Regular shapes tend to be more resonant than irregular and this one is sufficiently irregular to improve matters considerably compared to, say, a circle or rectangle.
The platter, of course, is unavoidably regular, but its acrylic material is in itself fairly 'dead', one of the reasons it has become so popular. It's supported on a new, close-tolerance main bearing and driven around its periphery by a silicone belt.
Compliant motor mounting is another Roksan speciality – that is, highly compliant, to the extent the motor very visibly wobbles as it starts up. It's not immediately obvious what the pros and cons of this are, though clearly it's likely to limit the amount of motor vibrations getting into the structure.
Similarly debatable, are the benefits of unipivot arms (of which the Nima is an example). It has a metal tube with a slightly decoupled counterweight mounted at the rear and an acrylic headshell at the front, all supported on a single needle bearing.
The slight downside of this is a very high pivot point, though low friction is an advantage. The arm lead is captive and is securely fastened to the plinth.
Sound quality
Roksan has always set great store by rhythm and pace and our listeners seemed to agree that these are particularly well handled by the Radius.
There was considerable praise for these, but if anything there was even more praise for bass definition, control, and detail. Possibly not what the Roksan stereotype would suggest – which is exactly why we're so fond of blind listening!
That said, it seems the tonal balance isn't entirely neutral across the board and one listener did point to a degree of coloration, most obvious with the piano recording, which interfered with his enjoyment. However, the others seemed much less bothered by that and were able to appreciate the fine information retrieval this deck is able to achieve.
Along with that it manages very good imaging, and was among the best at portraying both width and depth of an image.
In terms of timing, one of the listeners pointed out that the percussion in The Wall not only started, but also stopped, with notable precision when played on this deck. That makes for very persuasive rhythm all round, and the sound is indeed highly convincing in just about every genre.
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Review: Audio-Technica AT2000T
Moving-coil cartridges are wonderful things, but they suffer from a disadvantage in their extremely low output, often less than 1mV peak, or one two-thousandth of what most CD players produce. Clearly, low-noise amplification is a must. Because they have a low impedance, the self-noise of such cartridges is actually very low, but getting an amplifier to match or (ideally) better it is hard work.
It can be done with transistors or valves if you use enough of them, but it can often be more practical to use a transformer to provide some initial gain before active devices are called into play.
Challenging
A transformer, being passive, provides no power gain, but it can step up voltage (reducing current inversely) by enough to make low-noise active amplification much more efficient.
As a maker of cartridges, Audio Technica is well aware of the challenges and has designed the AT2000T transformer to step up the output of typical low-output moving coil designs.
Unlike some 'universal' transformers, it has no impedance selection, just a single input and output per channel, but it is claimed to match cartridges with impedance between two and 17 ohms, which in practice means the vast majority available on the market.
Its voltage gain of 24dB will boost the level sufficiently to feed a standard moving-magnet input.
Screwless
The transformers inside the case are small, under 40mm each way (actually by the standards of MC transformers that's quite big!) but the case is this size for a reason. Small-signal transformers are made of materials that are sensitive to mechanical shock and their electrical performance can be permanently affected by dropping them. They can also be mildly microphonic.
AT has taken the unusual step of fixing these transformers by surrounding them with soft plastic foam: no screws or other metal fasteners are used.
Around that is the case made of a high-permeability grade of magnetic material that provides effective magnetic screening – though you're still advised to keep the unit away from mains transformers and anything else that might generate hum fields.
Noise reduction
We happened to have an aged, but honest AT cartridge on hand, plus models from Denon, Goldring and Ortofon, plus various phono stages too, so we were able to try this transformer under a range of conditions.
It's impressively capable, and we mean it as a compliment that we were never really aware of its presence, except in one very valuable respect: it really does reduce the noise compared with even the best phono stages we could lay our hands on.
Transformers are not strictly noise-free because they have stray resistance and other factors which limit their performance, but this one approaches the ideal very closely.
As a result, it gets the most out of high-quality cartridges, making the replay system quieter than even the run-in groove on most LP pressings. The net difference while music plays may only be a couple of dB of signal-to-noise ratio gained, but subjectively that's well worthwhile in terms of extra resolution, veils lifted and so on.
Our Ortofon MC2000 (an oldie, but a goodie) sounds perhaps clearer than we've ever heard it, producing images of real solidity and stability, with a much better-defined acoustic around the performers than all-active amplification produced.
Sweet extension
Transformers are sometimes accused of compromising the frequency extremes, but even with slightly mismatched cartridges (impedance over 20 ohms) we couldn't hear any such effect.
Indeed, the unusually low noise makes the bass even clearer than ever, with a shade more weight to it but immaculate control and precision (the treble is very sweetly extended and open). There's no hint of coloration in the midrange: as with bass, the AT2000 makes things even purer here, simply because one's ear isn't trying to filter out quite so much noise and hash.
In the lab, we found bandwidth is superb and dead flat across the audio band plus, at least, an octave each end, while distortion is low at both high-and low-signal levels.
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Review: Logitech Squeezebox Touch
The Squeezebox Touch is nothing less than an absolute bargain. There is truly little else to say about this incredibly easy to set-up and enjoy network player. It crams a shed-load of technology into a 150mm by 110mm enclosure, which is just 10mm deep – albeit increasing to 40mm at its base to accommodate its connection sockets.
The player delivers internet radio along with music streamed from any computer(s) on your local network. It is wireless-capable, but we used it predominantly with a CAT5E Ethernet connection to enable it to access music reliably on a computer and NAS, running the free Squeexebox Server software, which runs on Windows, Mac and Linux operating systems.
We supplied it with rips from a £370 VortexBox Appliance 1TB NAS, which conveniently comes with Squeezebox Server already installed and configured – although putting it on a Windows PC is only a five-minute job.
Fully featured
You can connect the Touch to a regular hi-fi system through a pair of RCA analogue sockets, or through a DAC using the coaxial or optical output. Equally, you can connect it straight to a set of active loudspeakers in an appropriately compact office or study system.
While inspecting the back panel you will also notice a USB port, into which you can plug a memory stick or drive containing music you would like to play. There is also an SD-slot on the side of the player, in case you wish to play music stored on an SD card.
To use either of the sources one simply selects them in the on-screen (touch-screen) display. There is also a 3.5mm headphone jack outlet for late-night listening.
We prefer using the display to control the player rather than the remote handset, but this is mainly down to personal preference and familiarity. Either way, the interface is logical and responsive.
Touching the remote control increases the size of the display font, a feature our eyes particularly appreciated on the recently reviewed and considerably more expensive Arcam Solo Neo. There is no doubt that the Touch delivers a rewarding 'user experience', one that certainly belies the budget price of the unit.
Connecting to network audio is perhaps the feature that will be most attractive to the majority of buyers, but internet radio might prove more so to those of a not especially energetic disposition. We certainly enjoyed having Radio Paradise select music for us while we sat and relaxed.
A slick package
The question of build quality does not really arise with the Touch: it is little more than a circuit board and a touch-screen, with a handful of connections pinned to the rear of the plastic case. There are no mechanical components to fail or slip out of adjustment. Everything works as it should and the whole shebang looks sleek and shiny.
Its packaging is exemplary and Logitech even thoughtfully supplies a cloth for cleaning the screen. The favourable impression created by the slick packaging is reinforced when you flick through the user manual and discover just how easy it is to get the unit connected to your network and playing.
No elevator music
It truly seems churlish to criticise the Touch overall, when one looks at what one is getting for the price: streamed audio, internet radio, alarm clock functions and all for £260 or less.
The sound is not a million miles away from that of the Slim Devices Transporter I and that was comfortably over £1,000. It will now set you back around £1,799.
Sound quality obviously varies with the source material. High-resolution FLAC files naturally sound the best. They are understandably not as detailed as they are with the high-end Linn Klimax DS or the Naim HDX, but they sound vital and alive and do not sink to background or elevator music quality as one might expect.
At the other end of the performance spectrum, decent bit-rate internet radio still sounds plausible and entertaining, even if it is not a completely audiophile experience.
The sound offers an appreciable degree of subtlety: for example, it clearly reveals deft brush work on a hi-hat by a drummer behind a female vocal. This really is not the sort of polished performance one expects from a £250 streamer. It is extraordinarily assured, enjoyable, and highly authentic in musical terms.
Dynamically, the presentation seems slightly muted, but not to the degree that any listener is moved to complain. The unit has an embedded version of the server software, so that it can replay music from a USB hard disk with no external assistance.
The software enumerates a 160GB disk very quickly and replays tracks with the same ease that it reveals when playing from the Vortexbox appliance.
A stellar performer
The Squeezebox Touch thoroughly deserves to be a phenomenal success. It is a stellar performer and can hold its own against far more expensive competition. It strikes us as being the ideal office system: it sounds good; it looks good, it is a breeze to operate and it takes up negligible desk space.
Store your music on a convenient hard disk, install Squeezebox Server, add a pair of active loudspeakers and that is it: your music is totally sorted.
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
T-Mobile G2: US gets HTC Desire Z early?
T-Mobile has announced the arrival of the G2, its latest 'with Google' handset, made by HTC - looking very much like the rumoured Desire Z.Currently only available in the US, the T-Mobile G2 is the first smartphone specifically designed for T-Mobile's new HSPA+ network2, which means super speedy downloads using the US' 4G network.
However, of more interest is this phone has been pictured in numerous spy shots as the HTC Vision - which is likely to become the HTC Desire Z, the phone tipped to be launched later this month.
The T-Mobile G2 is (shockingly) the direct successor of the T-Mobile G1, which was the first Android phone on the market way back in October 2008.
The T-Mobile G2 has been given a large 3.7-inch screen which has a hinge design that opens to reveal a full QWERTY keyboard.
Android 2.2
It has been built on Android 2.2 and offers the usual seven customisable home screen panels, including a dedicated panel with one-click access to Google apps such as Android Market.
As it is 2.2, Flash player is enabled and the phone packs 4GB internal memory with pre-installed 8GB micro SD card, with support for up to 32GB of external memory.
There's also a 3.5mm jack and Swype pre-installed, which is a bit of a bonus.
Chip-wise, the T-Mobile G2 is powered by a Snapdragon MSM7230 which offers an 800 MHz CPU.
There's is also HD video shooting on board, with the G2 having a 720p HD video capabilities and a 5MP camera, complete with LED flash and autofocus.
The T-Mobile G2 has also been optimised with Google Voice, so you can shout orders at your phone and it should obey.
Current T-Mobile customers in the US will get exclusive access to preorder the G2 starting later this month.
There is no UK release date for the T-Mobile G2 just yet, but we will keep you posted as soon as we get further details.
| |
Read More ...
T-Mobile G2: HTC Android 2.2 handset unveiled
T-Mobile has announced the arrival of the G2, its latest 'with Google' handset, which has been made by HTC.Currently only available in the US, the T-Mobile G2 is the first smartphone specifically designed for T-Mobile's new HSPA+ network2, which means super speedy downloads using the US' 4G network.
This is the direct successor of the T-Mobile G1, which was the first Android phone on the market way back in October 2008.
The T-Mobile G2 has been given a large 3.7-inch screen which has a hinge design that opens to reveal a full QWERTY keyboard.
Android 2.2
It has been built on Android 2.2 and offers the usual seven customisable home screen panels, including a dedicated panel with one-click access to Google apps such as Android Market.
As it is 2.2, Flash player is enabled and the phone packs 4GB internal memory with pre-installed 8GB micro SD card, with support for up to 32GB of external memory.
There's also a 3.5mm jack and Swype pre-installed, which is a bit of a bonus.
Chip-wise, the T-Mobile G2 is powered by a Snapdragon MSM7230 which offers an 800 MHz CPU.
There's is also HD video shooting on board, with the G2 having a 720p HD video capabilities and a 5MP camera, complete with LED flash and autofocus.
The T-Mobile G2 has also been optimised with Google Voice, so you can shout orders at your phone and it should obey.
Current T-Mobile customers in the US will get exclusive access to preorder the G2 starting later this month.
There is no UK release date for the T-Mobile G2 just yet, but we will keep you posted as soon as we get further details.
| |
Read More ...
Video: Google Instant launches, pushes dynamic results
Google has unveiled its brand-new search engine this week, Google Instant. Instead of waiting for you to press the search button, Google Instant brings you results in real-time, which change with each and every key stroke.
The result is the speediest search engine we have seen, which predicts what you are about to type.
"You don't really want search-as-you-type (no one wants search results for [bike h] in the process of searching for [bike helmets])," explained Marissa Mayer, VP Search Products & User Experience , in a blog post.
"You really want search-before-you-type – that is, you want results for the most likely search given what you have already typed."
Cache rules everything around me
In the blog post, Mayer explains the technology behind Instant Search, noting: "To bring Google Instant to life, we needed a host of new technologies including new caching systems, the ability to adaptively control the rate at which we show results pages and an optimisation of page-rendering JavaScript to help web browsers keep up with the rest of the system.
"In the end, we needed to produce a system that was able to scale while searching as fast as people can type and think – all while maintaining the relevance and simplicity people expect from Google."
On Twitter, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was so excited about the launch he hinted before the release: "We are already fast... fast is about to get faster."
Not everyone will see Google Instant straight away as this is a rolling launch. However, if you are in the France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain and the UK and sign into Google you should have it.
Google does not say whether it will become the core search engine experience for Chrome, Firefox, Safari and IE 8.
If you can't wait to see Google Instant, then point your browser to www.google.com/webhp?sclient=psy to try it out.
| |
Read More ...
ARM pushes smartphone processors up to 2.5GHz
ARM has announced the new Cortex A15 MPCore processor that it claims could see smartphones running at 2.5GHz speeds.Tipped for use in the tablet, large-screen portable computers and home entertainment systems, as well as phones, ARM believes that this new core will help improve the next generation of gadgets.
It's claiming up to five times improved performance over today's smartphone processors without diminishing battery consumption, enabling functionality like 3D navigation, augmented reality, high speed internet connections and HD video recording – all from your mobile phone or tablet.
The Cortex A15 follows in the footsteps of ARM's successful Cortex A-Series, with a number of manufacturers using the Cortex A8 for high end smartphones, such as the Nokia N900.
Quantum leap
Samsung, ST Ericsson and Texas Instruments all helped shaped the functionality of the processor as they look to deliver more powerful chips:
"The market's demand for more functionality and connectivity with low power consumption requires ever more advanced processor, system and chip design," said Yiwan Wong, VP of SoC marketing, system LSI Division, Samsung Electronics.
"We believe this new Cortex-A15 MPCore processor core from ARM, with its quantum leap in processing capabilities, will successfully enable many next-generation electronic products and redefine the level of experience consumers will demand from their smartphones and mobile computing devices."
As an advanced lead partner and first licensee of the Cortex-A15 MPCore processor, we look forward to leveraging the Cortex-A15 core to deliver industry-leading processors that will provide the high performance demanded by the next generation of connected devices, all within a low power envelope," said Remi El-Ouazzane, vice president, OMAP platform business unit, TI.
"When pairing the Cortex-A15 MPCore processor with TI's SmartReflex 3 technology, future OMAP applications processors will yield a 60 percent reduction in power, enabling TI to continue delivering the industry's most energy-efficient, high-performing solutions."
The new ARM Cortex A15 is available for licensing from today, and in 32nm and 28nm manufacture, as well as future size specifications.
| |
Read More ...
Review: Intel Core i5 760
Speedier performance for more or less the same money is always welcome. That's exactly what you get from the new Intel Core i5 760. In almost every regard, it's identical to the existing Core i5 750 processor.It's therefore a quad-core chip based on Intel's 45nm Nehalem processor architecture. What it does offer, however, is a speed bump from 2.66GHz to 2.8GHz. Not exactly a spectacular explosion in performance, we admit. But then Intel is only asking for an extra fiver.
In any case, even after a year on sale, the Core i5 750 is still an excellent all round performer. The slightly quicker Core i5 760 is only going to be better. The only snag is the arrival of AMD's new Phenom II X6 1055T beast. Six cores for a similar £150 or so price tag is awfully hard to resist.
Fire up any of Intel's Core i5 processors and you'll be greeted by four little green graphs in Windows Task Manager. That indicates the presence of four logical processors and therefore support for crunching a quartet of software threads in parallel.
But not all logical processors are equal. Intel's Core i5 600 series chips are actually dual-core models that support two threads per core thanks to HyperThreading. Core i5 700 series CPUs lack HyperThreading. Instead, you get four bona fide execution cores and one helluva lot more performance. Effective as HyperThreading is, it's no substitute for a real processor core.
Despite a relatively modest 2.8GHz stock clockspeed, it's therefore no surprise to find the Intel Core i5 760 flattens the Core i5 661 and Core i5 655K in literally every performance benchmark. You have to wonder why anyone would want to pay more for one of those Core i5 600 series chips. Intel would no doubt justify the price premium by pointing to the Core i5 600's integrated graphics.
Anyway, a much tougher nut for the Core i5 760 to crack is AMD's new six-core processor. The Phenom II X6 1055T is actually slightly cheaper despite giving the Core i5 760 a pretty solid schooling in our multi-threading tests. As ever, however, the 760 hits back with awesome gaming performance. It also shows the Phenom chip who's boss in our file decompression test.
It's also disappointing to find the new 760 does not appear to offer any additional overclocking headroom. In our testing, the older Core i5 750 actually hits higher frequencies.
We liked:
If you fancy four cores for the price of two, it's hard to argue against the Core i5 760. It's cheaper than many of Intel's latest dual-core processors and hammers them for all round performance. At this price point, it's also the finest gaming CPU on the market.
We disliked:
Intel has a nasty habit of artificially hobbling some of its mainstream processors. So it is for the Core i5 760. By switching off HyperThreading, Intel has compromised the 760's performance in highly threaded applications such as video encoding and handed the advantage to AMD's similarly priced six-core Phenom II X6 1055T. Shame.
Verdict:
Replaces the Core i5 750 as our favourite gaming chip. No HyperThreading is a bit of a bummer.
Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
Exclusive: Plusnet: Honesty and transparency are key to web speeds
There should be more transparency in the way web connection speeds are advertised in the UK, according to Plusnet, as those reporting inflated speeds will see a consumer backlash.Speaking exclusively to TechRadar, Nick Rawlings, commercial and marketing director of Plusnet, explained that even though it also advertises 'up to' speeds, it tries to give as much information to its users about what speeds they are really getting from the ISP.
"The Ofcom code of conduct is a decent push in making retailers standardising what they can say to consumers about the speed of their service but Plusnet's point of view is that this needs to be pushed further," explained Rawlings.
"In our standard practise, we give consumers a speed estimate, then another one 10 days later once their line is stabilised, to tell them what their actual line speed is. We do endeavour to go beyond the bill."
It is this type of service which meant that Plusnet that saw the company come second in a recent customer service survey, but this was marred with the fact that the ISP came bottom in an Ofcom speed test in July.
The importance of speed
Rawlings was quick to explain the Ofcom reports, noting: "Since the Ofcom survey, we have upgraded our entire portfolio to 20 meg which does show that speed is important to us.
"Speed is an important facet and there is no dodging this is a key thing going forward but how we prioritise traffic on our network means the overall experience is better."
Traffic 'prioritisation' is something of a dirty word in internet circles, but it is something which Plusnet is wholly positive about, explaining that it gives its customers a better service.
"Plusnet's philosophy is to broadcast information which potentially gives other operators sweaty palms, like how we prioritise traffic on our network," noted Rawlings.
"This is a sensitive subject for some ISPs but something we have been doing for a long time.
"By giving consumers this sort of information it empowers them to make informed decisions about what they want from their broadband."
Traffic managers
Plusnet, according to Rawlings, differentiates from different types of web uses rather than households to make sure everyone gets a good service.
"If you want to download a large file it is true we will prioritise other traffic at peak times because it is a non-time critical event," said Rawlings.
"Equally, we will give you unlimited usage overnight to download large files when we have plenty of bandwidth available on the network.
"We make this completely clear on our website; we have a product by product profile of what we prioritise per hour on the network.
"It means that we can give a consistent user experience rather than one which is peaky.
"For example network prioritisation works if you live next to 16 year old who is downloading the whole of the internet, as it means you will still be given a decent service. It is a good way to democratise the service."
Advertising honesty
False advertising of speeds is something which the ASA is cracking down on, with the agency recently banning a BT advert for its reporting misleading web speeds with its 'up to 20 meg' promise.
As BT is Plusnet's parent company, the ISP is monitoring the web speed situation closely.
"It is ludicrous that another provider [not BT] is advertising a product that's exactly the same as ours as 24 meg when it clearly isn't, but if you are not honest about your speeds and your speed expectations, then you will get burnt in the end," explained Rawlings.
"Honesty and transparency on speeds is vital and this needs to be sorted throughout the whole of the industry."
| |
Read More ...
Review: Sharp LC-32DH510E
At just £430 in shops – or as little as £300 if you dig about online – you don't have to look very hard for the potential appeal of the Sharp LC-32DH510E. It sits towards the bottom of Sharp's current output, a large step below the flagship, LED-lit and Quattron-driven LE821/LE811 ranges.
With its normal CCFL backlight, the LC32DH510E also sits underneath the LED-powered 32LE320E, while its HD ready resolution puts it beneath the 1080p LC-32FH510E in the overall pecking order.
The price-busting ethic is all too apparent in the TV's design. Viewed straight on, from distance, it doesn't look too bad, with its glossy black finish and reasonably attractive little arc of grey in the middle of the bottom edge. However, get up close and the finish starts to look and feel plasticky and lightweight.
The backside, meanwhile, sticks out a mile and suffers from bits bulging out all over the place in seemingly random fashion.
While the 32DH510E isn't going to win any design awards, it does have one or two surprising features up its sleeve.
The 32DH510E's features appear to be a rather eccentric mix at first glance, but the longer you live with them, the more sense they make.
To start with the bad news, though, the set is painfully short of picture fine-tuning tools. The menu just offers a tint adjustment, noise reduction options, a colour temperature adjustment, a backlight adjustment, a small selection of predictable picture presets, and bog-standard contrast, colour, brightness and sharpness options.
You might not expect many sophisticated tweaking options on a budget TV, but the extreme flexibility offered by some of Toshiba's recent budget offerings show you what's possible.
The 32DH510E doesn't have much to say for itself in terms of picture processing, either. In fact, there really doesn't seem to be anything of note beyond the simple work entailed in converting standard-definition material to the screen's HD Ready resolution.
Another disappointment is the 32DH510E's lack of a Freeview HD tuner, although standard-def terrestrial reception is all you might reasonably expect at this price.
Good EPG
Things start to look up a little with the electronic programme guide. This is well presented, with clean text and a solid – if uninspiring – amount of information presented onscreen at once.
It's great, too, that the picture from the programme you were watching when you pressed the EPG button continues to play in the top left corner. The only disappointment is that you can only set viewing reminders from the guide, rather than selecting programmes to record.
Record? That's right. For in a move we really didn't expect from such a cheap TV, the 32DH510E carries timeshifting via USB. In other words, if you stick a storage drive (minimum 1GB) into the TV's USB port, the set can record the programme you're watching to it.
This function takes two forms: straightforward pausing of live TV that starts when you press the relevant button on the remote, or an 'always' mode that continually records the channel you're watching, dumping the recording and starting again when you switch channel and just deleting the oldest parts of recordings on the fly when you hit the capacity of your USB drive.
This system works rather well, accepting the majority of USB drives we tried it with and recording programmes immaculately. This result is really no surprise, since the recording system simply stores the direct digital bitstream carrying the channel data, so there's not really any room for quality to be lost.
USB capability
The last surprising feature of the 32DH510E is also connected with its USB port. For it can play a startlingly wide variety of multimedia files: JPEG, BMP and PNG photo files; MP3, AAC, PCM (.WAV) audio files; and most unexpectedly of all, MPEG 1/2/4, H.264, DivX and XviD video files.
Connections-wise, tthere are a couple of Scarts (one RGB), a component video input, a digital audio output, a headphone jack, a composite video input and two HDMIs. The latter is a bit disappointing, perhaps, but is in line with many other sets at this sort of price. More frustrating is the absence of a D-Sub VGA port
Let's now go back to the point we made at the start of this section, that the 32DH510E's slightly odd mix of features actually makes sense in the end. For given its low price, it could very well find itself as a second-room TV rather than a main living room TV.
And in that context, it appears eminently sensible to focus on practical multimedia capability and an easy recording system ahead of stuff like an HD tuner and endless picture processing/tweaks.
Our first experience of using the 32DH510E is, of course, its remote control. First impressions of this are mixed, as a rather crowded look and cheapo finish are offset by a comfortable and attractive, rounded-off shape and a bold black and white colour scheme.
Extended use reveals it to be an average tool that's good when it comes to navigating the onscreen menus, but less intuitive and easy to learn when it comes to such things as selecting different AV inputs, calling up the EPG and using teletext.
The TV goes into auto install mode when you first switch it on and you'll be surprised by how attractively presented and straightforward this process is. It only really lets you set up language, auto-tuning and whether you want to run it in shop or home mode, but it certainly sets an inviting early tone.
This continues, even arguably improving, when you head into the proper onscreen menus. They're also bright, colourful and clean, and feature a nifty circle of icons that cycle around when you push left and right on the remote, with each icon bringing up a different list of options.
It doesn't harm the 32DH510E's ease of use that there aren't that many features in the onscreen menus to have to find your way around.
The 32DH510's multimedia features offer the only potential point of confusion, but they're mostly well handled. The only daft thing is the random button used to activate the USB recording feature, making us think that Sharp hasn't bothered to come up with a dedicated remote control for the 32DH510E, instead merely adapting a more generic model.
Bright and breezy daytime HD broadcasts look refreshingly natural. The lack of any heavy-duty processing gives them a pleasing, almost CRT-like simplicity, although longer viewing reveals a few issues that some healthy processing might have been able to improve.
The screen also pumps out more brightness than many affordable 32in/26in CCFL LCD TVs, which gives the impression during predominantly light, colourful sequences that the picture is pretty dynamic.
High-def material looks sharper and more textured than you might expect from a non-1080p TV, revealing all those tell-tale little bits and bobs like skin pores and the weave in clothing. Or at least this is the case if you turn off the set's noise reduction tool.
Shifting from HD studio and sports footage to Blu-rays in some ways makes us feel even better disposed towards the 32DH510E. The sharpness seems even more defined, despite the set having to downscale full HD feeds to its 1,366 x 768-pixel resolution; pictures still look punchy and detailed, colours look bright and motion is handled well without any obvious processing to help it out.
Black level
However, Blu-rays also allow us to home in on a couple of notable shortcomings. The set's black level response, for instance, is pretty underwhelming, in that dark parts of the picture look rather grey and lifeless, even if you ramp down the TV's backlight setting.
Having spotted this, we also couldn't resist shifting our viewing position to the TV's side, and low and behold, the familiar (with LCD TVs) fairly dramatic loss in contrast and colour soon materialised.
The other problem concerns colours. For despite the picture being quite good at pushing brightness, hue can look unconvincingly anaemic.
A lesser but still noteworthy issue during some Blu-rays is that the 32DH510E's pictures are a touch noisy. It's hard to pinpoint the cause of this, but one contributing factor seems to be that the way the screen over-brightens dark parts of the picture is causing it to emphasise digital noise that would normally be lost in darkness.
Oddly, for a screen with a slightly lower native resolution than most TVs we see, the 32DH510E's standard def performance is one of the more disappointing we've seen for a while. Noise levels are quite high, and there's noticeably more motion blur on show – something we guess was probably inevitable given the screen's lack of such processing options as 100Hz.
This can result in standard definition pictures also looking slightly softer than they might, and flesh tones looking a bit waxy and the overall palette seems even weedier.
The set's big bottom does not, sadly, help the audio performance. Bass is just as lacking as it is on more slender flatscreens, the mid-range is rather thin and cramped and treble tones are harsh.
It's not bad, as such, for a 32in set, it's just disappointingly average.
Value
We'd hoped that the 32DH510E's reasonably affordable price might be the first step towards it being a real bargain.
But by the time you've taken the average looks, inconsistent pictures and par-for-the-course sound into account, the price seems merely fair, rather than remarkable.
With Sharp having proved that it's still got innovation in its heart with its Quattron TV range earlier this year, we had high hopes for the brand's 32DH510E, despite it residing in the lower reaches of the brand's latest TV range.
It doesn't get off to the best of starts thanks to its rather old-school and cheap design, but it's passably well connected and the onscreen menus are exceptionally engaging.
We applaud Sharp, too, for building USB video recording and expansive USB multimedia playback into a relatively affordable TV (an ideal feature for the second-room market).
However, while pictures occasionally look attractive and natural with the right sort of bright, colourful, HD material, they're rather patchy overall, thanks to sporadic noise, colour and motion-handling problems, while sound is no better than average at best
We liked:
The set is reasonably affordable for what's on offer, and the USB recording is a great feature that works well once you've learned the rather obscure button you need to press to start recording!
The file flexibility of the USB playback feature is good, meanwhile, and pictures look natural and unprocessed; brightness levels are high; and HD pictures can look very sharp and detailed.
We disliked:
The set's build quality is unimpressive, with one of the biggest and ugliest back ends you'll ever see. We wouldn't have minded a third HDMI either and there's no D-Sub PC jack.
On the picture side, with precious few adjustments on offer to help us out we were left unable to tackle a few inconsistencies, such as washed out and sometimes off-key colours, black level shortcomings, and a below-par standard def performance.
Verdict:
If you're in the market for a second room TV that goes big on multimedia convenience and enables you to record video without needing an external box, then the 32DH510E is almost uniquely well qualified to do the job.
However, don't expect these convenience features to be accompanied by any state-of-the-art performance. In fact, while pictures have their moments, there are times when they feel quite dated in the colour and motion departments, especially with standard definition sources. And Sharp has provided next to no tools for you to attempt to improve things.
Its sound is absolutely as average as that of most other budget 32in TVs in town too. In other words, it's a TV that seems to have chosen practicality over performance a little too one-sidedly for comfort.
The 32DH510E might have counted as a decent effort from a B-list brand, but classes as something of a disappointment from a top-flight manufacturer.
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
In Depth: Graphics card buying guide 2010
Replacing your graphics card is one of the most popular PC upgrades, and it's easy to see why - there are many potential benefits.You may be able to support higher video resolutions, for instance, if your monitor is up to it. Or connect to multiple monitors, if it isn't.
You'll see better performance when playing high definition videos. Gaming frame rates will improve. An underpowered PC will no longer have its speed sapped by animations, transparency and other desktop eye candy. And the right card can in some cases make a huge difference to CPU-intensive tasks like video rendering, allowing you to create files two, three, even four times faster than you did before.
Of course you'll have to find the "right card" first, and with so many types of graphics cards available that may look like a difficult task. But don't worry, it's really not so bad - you just have to start at the beginning, by asking yourself some fundamental questions. Like: what will you expect from your card?
So how much do you need to spend? If your video needs are fairly basic - you run a browser, email client, Microsoft Office, watch a DVD occasionally, maybe play a favourite old 3D game from time to time - then in theory you could get by with almost any budget card, maybe costing as little as £25.
You might not see much benefit from such a limited upgrade, though, so we'd recommend you set your sights a little higher. As we write, for instance, spending maybe £70 will get you a card with the performance you need (and some to spare), one that will support up to three displays, and includes hardware acceleration technologies to boost the performance of other compatible applications. It's well worth the extra cash.
Graphics cards for gaming
If you're more of a gamer, though, this level of card won't be quite enough. It'll handle older games reasonably well, but turn to something more modern, like Aliens vs Predator, and performance will drop to an unplayable crawl. You'll need to turn the resolution and quality settings right down to stand a chance of getting anywhere.
For acceptable mid-range gaming performance you should expect to spend from around £140, then. This will get you an up-to-date card that will give decent performance with most modern games, although if you want to play at high resolutions - 1920 x 1200, say - then most will begin to struggle.
And so if you'd like to be able to play just about anything, at any resolution, then you'll need to spend more. The very latest, top of the range models cost close to £500, but if don't worry if that's out of your budget. Right now there are some excellent high-end cards available for £200-£350.
You should now have some idea of what you'd like to pay, then - but wait. Will these cards be compatible with your PC?
Hardware issues
Modern graphics cards must be able to receive and process huge amounts of data at very high speeds, and that's why they all connect to a high performance PCI Express slot on your motherboard.
This shouldn't pose any problems as PCI Express has been a standard on motherboards for years, but if you have an old system with an AGP slot then your choice will be very restricted. Something like Nvidia's GeForce 7600GT should be able to run Windows 7 without problems, and play basic games too, but otherwise you should forget about doing anything too advanced.
The next complication depends on your card's power requirements.
Most budget cards get all the power they need from the PCI Express slot, and so won't pose you any problems.
More powerful models will need to be plugged in to one, or maybe two 6-pin power connectors. Does your motherboard have any spare?
And high-end cards may require one 6-pin, and one 8-pin connector, a potential problem as some PCs only support the 6-pin varieties. Check the specifications, and your PC documentation, before you buy.
The real problem is the reason for these extra connections, though: the amazing power consumption of some leading edge cards. Nvidia's high-end GeForce GTX 480, for instance, will require anything up to 200W more (when under stress) than a budget card, so you'll need to be sure that your power supply is up to the challenge (it should probably be 500W at a minimum).
And even if you can run these monsters, they'll generate a considerable amount of heat, and then noise, both from their own cooling, and your own system fan now running all the time. If your system runs hot already then you may need to think about adding extra cooling.
Nvidia or ATI?
You may now have a general idea of the sort of card you'd like, so let's get more specific. And we'll start with the issue of manufacturer: should you buy Nvidia, or ATI?
In general, ATI cards offer the best deal. The powerful ATI Radeon HD 5850 (shown below) can currently be yours for around £230, for instance; an Nvidia performance equivalent, the GeForce GTX 285, is more like £300.
In the mid-range market, you might buy a Radeon HD 5770 for £125, while the similar GeForce GTX 460 is around £145. And while the competition becomes tighter as you head towards low-end cards, there are still plenty of ATI bargains to be had.
ATI were also the first to produce cards compatible with Microsoft's latest DirectX 11 graphics standard, which helps to improve the look and performance of compatible games. As a result, there's now a good range of ATI DirectX cards available, many very reasonably priced, while Nvidia offer much less choice.
Opting for Nvidia does bring some benefits, though.
Its GeForce GTX 480 is the performance leader, for instance (if not really by enough to justify the extra price).
Nvidia cards also appear to be the fastest by far at handling a key DirectX 11 feature, tessellation (dividing a surface into smaller shapes to enhance detail). So you should get better results when playing the very latest games.
And if you're looking for a quality 3D experience on your PC then there's nothing to compete with Nvidia's 3D Vision, which is compatible with hundreds of games, and even allows you to watch Blu-ray 3D movies on your system.
For more on ATI vs Nvidia, check out ATI vs Nvidia: who makes the best graphics cards?
Which Nvidia card?
While ATI will be the preferred choice for many, then, there's still plenty to like about many Nvidia cards. But which should you consider?
The GeForce GT 240 is reasonably priced from around £65. Unpopular on release, it's a DirectX 10 card and not up to playing the very latest games, but turn down the quality settings and you should be able to play something like Crysis, even up to 1920 x 1200 resolution.
If you can, though, spending around £100 will get you a much faster card in the GeForce GTS 250 (below). While still only DirectX 10 it's fine for many games, and only needs one 6-pin power connector so should work well on most PCs.
If you'd like to be a little more future-proof, then the GeForce GTX 460 delivers DirectX 11 support from around £150. So games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be very playable right up to 2560 x 1600, while even DirectX 11 games such as Aliens vs Predator should be within your reach at 1680 x 1050.
And the card's big brother, the GeForce GTX 470, adds more RAM and doubles the number of streaming multiprocessors for even better performance effect, as long as you're willing to part with the £240 or so necessary to buy it.
Which ATI card?
If ATI is your favoured manufacturer, then you've plenty of options available, especially in the budget market.
The Radeon HD 5450, for instance, is great value at around £50 : you get 1GB of RAM, DirectX 11 support, and the card is so light on power consumption that it gets by with just a heat sink, no fan required (so it's really quiet). It's fine for playing DVDs or videos; performance is poor on modern games, but older games like Unreal Tournament 3 should be playable as long as you keep the resolution down.
If that seems a little underpowered then the Radeon HD 5670 may be preferable. Around £80 gets you a 1GB model that will decode 1080p video without a problem,can play games like Call of Duty: World at War in full detail at 1680 x 1050, and still doesn't require an external power connector.
The next step is a trickier decision, a fight between two cards. The £120 DirectX 10-based Radeon HD 4890 has more raw speed, and is a better performer on DirectX 10 games; but the £125 Radeon HD 5770 is a DirectX 11 card, still delivers decent performance on older games and of course will support upcoming DirectX 11 games, too.
For really acceptable DirectX 11 gaming performance, though, you'll need to move up to at least the £240 Radeon HD 5850, which will deliver reasonable frame rates (30 fps or more) on many of the latest games, even at 1920 x 1200 resolution. Power consumption is also reasonable, considering the performance you're getting, and so while you could get even more speed by paying for the £300 Radeon HD 5870, it's probably not worth the extra cost for most people.
Graphics cards features
We've pointed you in the direction of some great cards, then, but there are plenty of others around, and so you'll need to master some graphics card technology basics to understand how they might compare.
The amount of RAM can vary, for instance, even on the same card: some companies may produce a Radeon HD 5670 with 512MB RAM, while others include the full 1GB, which will help it perform noticeably faster.
And RAM technology can vary, too. Most cards now use GDDR5 RAM, which works to quadruple its clock speed, but some may use GDDR3 RAM, which "only" doubles it. So if you're buying online, don't simply compare on the basis of card names - make sure they have the same specifications, too.
Each graphics processor (GPU) has its own design, but some figures are highlighted above others: clock rates that define how fast it runs; a memory bus width that defines bandwidth; the number of stream processors the card has to create graphical objects; the number of raster operation pipelines (ROPs) that convert these into pixels. In all cases, more = better.
And there are plenty of other peripheral technologies that still have real value.
ATI Stream and Nvidia CUDA-enabled cards, for example, can be utilised by compatible software to improve its performance. Cyberlink MediaEspresso converts audio and video files between formats, and supports both standards: we tried it with an Nvidia card and found our test files were converted 2 to 3 times more quickly.
And while most graphics cards have been able to handle two displays for a very long time, ATI's Eyefinity increases this to three on some cards, six on others. Many games are able to work when spread across multiple monitors, or you can use them to run more applications full-screen, a real productivity boost.
These are some of the key points to look for, then - now all you need to do is find a card that matches all your requirements.
If you've picked out a likely candidate already then follow one of the links above to read our review, otherwise browse the entire graphics cards reviews database. It has all the details you need, and instant up-to-date price comparisons to highlight the best deals around.
| |
Read More ...
No comments:
Post a Comment