LG's 97-inch Vibrating OLED TV Claims To Offer 5.1 Audio Without Speakers

LG Display has shown off some interesting ideas as it looks to change the way OLED panels work, from positing bizarre form factors to addressing dimmer brightness levels compared to LED alternatives. Now, the panel maker is exploring a new approach to OLED TV audio. From a report: Today, LG Display announced its creation of a 97-inch OLED EX TV panel that debuts the company's Cinematic Sound OLED (CSO), "which allows the display to vibrate and generate the sound directly from the display without separate speakers."

"A 5.1 channel sound system is embedded into the widescreen, creating a performance that offers a cinematic level of immersion," LG Display said. Sony has used similar technology called Acoustic Surface in OLED TVs since 2017. These sets also don't use speakers and instead vibrate actuators behind the display. However, Sony doesn't compare Acoustic Surface to 5.1 surround sound. Instead, it encourages users to connect their own gear to the set and to use the TV as the center channel for a surround sound setup. Considering audio will be coming from a central point rather than all around you, it's hard to imagine LG Display's gargantuan TV panel can deliver the surround sound experience of a movie theater.

Really big

[fermion]

So like, is this whole body simulation or does the flat screen fit between your legs?

I can imagine that it might become a thing on only fans. Gyrate against it, or maybe put it on the floor and rub against while playing a video. Maybe some kind of bondage thing where one is tied to it?

Don't forget

[waspleg]

the CDC says to wash your fetish gear! [arstechnica.com]

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

Not sure, but they created it in collaboration with Sybian so presumably it's a ride-on arrangement.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

I'm probably going to have to watch a few Care Bear episodes to wash those images from my brain, than you.

Re:

[shanen]

I wasn't expecting the folding screen to work like that.

Using the surface as center speaker is plausible

[ffkom]

... and all the rest regarding "5.1" is marketing bullshit. If you have enough room and money for such a big screen, you should certainly be able to afford an actual, not "virtual" 5.1 speaker setup.

Re:

[TWX]

And clearly you're not the buyer they're marketing towards.

Many people live in apartments and have limits for things like running wires or even installing fasteners into the sheetrock. Many other people simply cannot be bothered to go through the work of setting up a surround-sound system and remembering how to use it properly. That's who this is aimed-at.

I happen to have a video projector, 6.1 surround sound system, and I use a 100" screen. But that's in the room for when we actually want to really sit

Re:

[Burdell]

This is 7 foot wide TV... that's not going in some little apartment. Also, given that the non-"speaker" panel the same size is $25,000 (and this will certainly cost more), the people buying this would be bothered to install the TV or the audio system, they'll be paying people for that.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

This is 7 foot wide TV... that's not going in some little apartment. Also, given that the non-"speaker" panel the same size is $25,000 (and this will certainly cost more), the people buying this would be bothered to install the TV or the audio system, they'll be paying people for that.

Says a single unmarried man.

There are plenty of people out there who have "significant others" who may not object to a huge TV in the living room, but may object to having ugly speakers littered around the room.

Significant oth

Re:

[erice]

Significant others can understand large screens and the desire to have them. Many don't understand the need for more than 2 speakers. It happens more often than you think.

The other possibility is well, sports fans - who want huge screens to see the action but who cares about the sound.

Definitely. Back in the age of big screen CRT, a friend of mine had speakers attached to his TV. If he placed the speakers adjacent to the screen, the magnetic field of the speakers caused a garish discoloration to the part of the screen near the speaker. Move the speaker away about 6 inches and the problem went away. But, the SO thought it looked better if the speakers were adjacent so that's where they stayed.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Your final paragraph doesn't even apply to this TV as I can remember that situation occurring at my first apartment concerning boomboxes, AM radios and fucking yoga chants. So, nothing to do with technology.

Re:

[CaptQuark]

Though the one I'm waiting for is the lensless camera. Once they get that worked out and figure out how to integrate it into the computer monitor it'll actually mean being able to look people in the eye when talking to them, rather than looking off somewhere below or to the side of the camera. It doesn't even have to be the most wonderful camera with controllable depth-of-field, it simply needs to work enough for communications.

You do know they solved this problem back in the 1950s? It's called a teleprompter and allows the camera to be directly behind the display. Modern versions use specialized beam-splitting glass, but a good old 2-way mirror, or even optical glass and a dark box will allow you to set a second display flat, and put your camera behind the angled, reflective surface. The cost is usually relative to the size of your auxiliary display and the glass you select.

Plenty of YouTube videos explain how to do it yoursel

Re:

[jmke]

> And clearly you're not the buyer they're marketing towards. Many people live in apartments and have limits for things like running wires or even installing fasteners into the sheetrock.

haha... yes, people who can spend $50k on a TV, all live in apartments. That is definitely the "target audience"

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Many people live in apartments and have limits for things like running wires or even installing fasteners into the sheetrock.

Blue tape, ceiling, no problems.

Re:

[Mspangler]

I definitely see a problem using a video screen as a subwoofer. A cm of travel on a video screen? Really?

The 1812 Overture should finish the display nicely.

Re:

[vivian]

I was wondering about this. Also wouldn't the movement of the screen needed to displace air to create sound make it appear blurrier? What happens to that nice crisp image when it's physically displaced at a few hundred to a few thousand hertz?

Re:

[thegarbz]

Nothing. Just like when you tap your desk it doesn't get blurry. Large surface areas do not need to move in any significant capacity to make sound. On top of that we're generally not very sensitive to blur caused by things that travel to and from us which is the direction this would primarily vibrate in.

I'll wager the movement will be imperceptible even up close. Likewise a problem for the OP's comment. If a 97" transducers transiently moves 1cm towards the OP from just a few meters away there's a good chan

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Even at some of the highest volumes I can't see my subwoofer (SVS SB-2000 Pro) vibrate. If you take off the covers, you might see the cone move during a loud transient. A TV screen might make a great subwoofer due to the large surface area for sure. Although there would have to be a lot of work done during installation to isolate it from the wall where you hang the screen or you will end up with a cacophany

Re:

[chas.williams]

But like your desk, the entire surface is coupled. There's no separate left and right channel. I am curious what they are doing to handle any of the modes in the vibrating rectangular plate.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Just like when you tap your desk it doesn't get blurry.

Tap your desk. Notice it's a very high note. Notice it doesn't appear to move.

Now tap your desk hard enough to make a bass note.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Or if the viewer isn't into high-brow, any rocket strafing scene. Or Iron Man.

Re:

[thegarbz]

If you have enough room and money for such a big screen, you should certainly be able to afford an actual, not "virtual" 5.1 speaker setup.

Does your "actual 5.1" system come with no additional electronics, no additional cables, do they sit flush up against the front wall and front wall only?

What makes you think the only factor in buying your home cinema is "money"? What makes you think everyone cares about good sound? The proliferation of soundbars over "actual 5.1" systems should tell you everything you need to know about people.

Re:

[ffkom]

What makes you think everyone cares about good sound?

If you don't care about good sound, you can happily enjoy your mono or almost-stereo sound from the TV, without it pretending to resemble a 5.1 speaker setup.

Re:

[thegarbz]

There's a difference between "good" sound, and "surround" sound. People will clamour for the latter even at the expense of the former.

Again I point to the fact that virtualised surround sound is the single most popular upgrade on the market. There are far more people with a Dolby Atmos soundbar than there are people without any sound up grades, or people with surround sound systems.

Let the people pretend if they want to. When you don't care about good sound why wouldn't you let a product attempt to fake a f

Re:

[Ed Tice]

For many action movies and for a good number of video games, being able to localize a sound is more important than "good" sound. If the scene consists of a tank exploding directly behind me, how would I even know "good" sound having never actually experienced such an event. I can't imagine that inaccuracy of reproduction would ruin the experience. For movies, in fact, now that I'm oldish (46), the thing I care about most is a good center channel with clear audio. I'm not saying this TV would achieve tha

Re:

[Oligonicella]

It also depends on the size/shape of the room(s) the sound reaches. When I built the farm house, our main room was 24wx30lx19h (for reasons). I put the sound in the ceiling running L|R at the TV wall and diagonally to other end. Because of all the acoustics of the room, it sounded surround. Probably because of being tricked by the visuals.

First thing we watched when it was done was Star Wars (first movie). That ship was boggling. We both kinda went back in our chairs like it was really overhead.

Re:

[nagglerdamus]

There's a difference between "good" sound, and "surround" sound. People will clamour for the latter even at the expense of the former.

and stereo speakers are where the truly high end market is.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

It's plausible but probably doesn't work quite as well as they claim.

There are two technologies needed for this. The first is beam forming. Basically by creating interference waves that cancel in most directions but amplify in one, sound can be sent out from the TV at different angles.

The second is room measuring, which is actually quite common for high end sound systems these days. Basically you have stereo microphones where the listener is, often built into the remote. The sound system generates some test

Will Believe It When I Hear It

[zenlessyank]

Don't see how you are going to get the sound behind you without a speaker there. Physics 'n shit.

Re:Will Believe It When I Hear It

[bill_mcgonigle]

A Monster brand Ethernet cable can probably do it.

Re:

[sysrammer]

U win teh intertubz 4 2day =)

Re:

[SirSpanksALot]

Most of these types of things say they "reflect the sound" off the ceiling/walls. Sounds like horseshit to me... Same with the upfiring atmos BS. Just install some nice in-wall / in-ceiling and do it properly. You can get some pretty nice inwall surrounds for cheap from monoprice.

Re:

[ffkom]

Most of these types of things say they "reflect the sound" off the ceiling/walls. Sounds like horseshit to me...

If you have enough independently driven speakers and a suitable set of well reflecting walls and you measure and adapt to the acoustics thoroughly, you can create an illusion of surround sound... in one place in the room. But move half a meter away from that place, and there is just a weird channel mix instead of surround sound.

Re:

[forty-2]

Yup! And those faux surround bars have been doing that for over a decade now, and they didn't sound too bad - in a small portion of the room. The effect broke outside of that sweet spot, and if you were way out of it, like 45 off the side of the speaker within a few feet, you'd get some bizarre psycho-acoustic artifacts that were almost disorienting.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

If the size of your room is small relative to the panel, it works really well. If you only have one or two people watching and they can all sit directly in front of the TV, you'll probably be pretty happy with such a setup. Just don't plan to install such a thing in a "theater room" and invite your friends. Of course I have a better theater room setup than that. But I don't have any friends. So there's that.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Just install some nice in-wall / in-ceiling and do it properly.

Yeah just modify your house. Take no consideration into account that some people don't have the in wall space, have their TVs in the living room, or otherwise don't dedicate rooms to their hifi setup.

The reality is you can do a lot of trickery with just audio phasing to say nothing of using reflections.

Is it a perfect surround sound system? No. But it doesn't need to be, it just has to compete with soundbars and internal crappy speakers which make up the overwhelming majority of people's viewing experience.

Re:

[Osgeld]

that works really well ... if they know the exact geometry of the room its in, otherwise its horseshit

Re:

[Ed Tice]

By the time the sound reflects off of the ceiling, it's a muddled mess that you wouldn't want to hear. The "upfiring" atmos speakers aren't getting their effect by bouncing off of the ceiling. They are just phase shifted.

Re:

[test321]

There is a speaker, just it's not a voice coil, it could be a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical) silicon actuator. This has been a hot topic for the past couple of years, it could be that LG made it first to the market. The sound from this technology is not known to be great, but LG has plenty of money so maybe they managed to improve it.

For more information, here a review in open-access: https://doi.org/10.3390/mi1210... [doi.org] ; and here a blog https://audioxpress.com/articl... [audioxpress.com]

Re:

[freeze128]

Why have speakers behind you when you only have ears on the sides of your head?

Re:

[zenlessyank]

Because America!

Re:

[Ed Tice]

You do know that you can hear sound that comes from behind you. And you can tell it's coming from behind you. Human hearing is pretty amazing. If you hear a sound like somebody is walking up to attack you from behind, take some sort of action, don't just dismiss it under the premise that your ears are on the side of your head!

Re:

[Khyber]

You just throw a few transducer panels on the back of the OLED panel. EZPZ.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Have you ever listened to virtual surround sound. It is astonishingly impressive. I once had a 42" Vizio TV with built-in soundbar that I used as a monitor and didn't really care about the sound. But I did use it to watch a movie now and again and was totally surprised at how well the virtual surround worked. And that was with no room measuring or other calibration.

Would this have an effect on OLED longevity?

[SuperKendall]

One of the things I was wondering from this, is if the constant vibrations would have any effect on the OLED elements over time.

Re:

[ffkom]

As long as those vibrations do not harm the sealing from Oxygen, I would not expect a problem there, as those displays are pretty much "solid state".

A bit different than most solid state though

[SuperKendall]

those displays are pretty much "solid state".

At first I was thinking because they were solid state they probably would not be affected... but then I wondered if the organic layer of the OLED screen would possibly be more affected by vibration than traditional silicon solid state devices... it seems unlikely I admit.

Re:

[Osgeld]

solid state doesnt mean its solid like a chunk of concrete, it just means there's no moving or burning parts (ie mechanical linkages and or valves)

Re:

[SuperKendall]

solid state doesnt mean its solid like a chunk of concrete, it just means there's no moving or burning parts

I know, I wasn't saying that is not also solid state, but that doens't change my point about organic material possibly being affected differently by continuous vibration than other traditional solid state materials.

Re:

[Khyber]

You're thinking of the wrong problem.

The real problem is vibration destroying the electrical contact between OLED and panel substrate.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

It's disappointing that they haven't managed to move to quantum dot yet. Samsung panels have and it appears to be significantly better than OLED for most purposes.

Normal OLED like this needs a very bright backlight. LG's tech sandwiches two OLED panels. The first is white and provides the backlighting per pixel, the second is a colour filter that blocks most of the light and only allows a narrow band corresponding to the sub-pixel colour through. Most of the energy is wasted.

With quantum dots the display al

Re:

[freeze128]

I'm more worried about the electronic components in the TV's power supply. The vibrations work the solder joints loose, and then your fancy TV set fails within 3 years of use.

Re:

[Osgeld]

its no more vibrations than having traditional speakers, they took the old idea of sticking a voice coil to glass. Besides if the thing was powerful enough and had the frequency response to physically damage electronics .... you couldnt see the picture.

Its going to be the same as the crappy grade laptop speakers they shove in TV's now with windows 98 era virtual surround sound "effects" processing, which no one buying a movie theater sized TV is going to use as they already have or will be buying a home ci

Re:

[tinkerton]

The view does get a bit fuzzy when playing drum&bass though.

Re:

[Megane]

What? Do you really think they would do this if two years later it would shake important components into failure, after any warranty has already expired? Have you no faith in large corporations?

Next break through needed in TV display ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The rate at which these TVs are getting big, it no longer makes sense to measure it in inches. May be some standard units like school buses lined up end to end or my be furlongs would be appropriate to measure them.

Anyway since these TVs are getting too big to be brought in to standard size living rooms, LG is planning to build standard size living rooms inside the TV.

Re:

[b0s0z0ku]

They're like the TV walls from Fahrenheit 451. A boring dystopia.

Re:

[maglor_83]

I'm Australian, so we mostly just use metric, but feet and inches are frequently (though less and less) used for height, so they're reasonably familiar. TV screens are usually advertised in inches still, but yes, because they're getting so big, it doesn't mean a lot. I'm sure a lot of very large TVs are sold because they're not being advertised in cm, which would be more obvious for the buyer that it's too large for their space. Even feet and inches would be better. I'm not sure if this problem exists so mu

Re:

[Graysccale]

I agree. Mostly people just want to know how wide the display is . Why bother to do the diagonal measurement just to add a couple inches to the specs? So out of date...

LG's 97-inch Vibrating...

[parityshrimp]

You had me at "LG's 97-inch Vibrating". I can imagine the rest for myself.

Vibrating TV?

[nospam007]

Can one sit on it?

Asking for my wife.

Re:

[Briareos]

Probably better to use one of those old-fashioned Sybians [twimg.com]...

No thank you

[divide overflow]

I like my audio to be accurate and natural.
This won't deliver accurate or natural audio.
It's clearly another gimmick.
Hard pass, full stop.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Me too. But you and I represent a tiny tiny minority of people, and I think it will be a cold day in hell before any TV company caters to us.

Sounds great

[PPH]

Looks blurry.

Re:

[flogger]

The blurriness is due to your display. Time to upgrade. Might I suggest a 98" monitor.

Maxell tape ad

[simishag]

Anyone else remember the Maxell tape ad from the early 80's? Dude on the couch, blasted by sound, drink starting to fall.

Yeah, that's what I'm hoping for here.

TVs have always had terrible sound

[Tony Isaac]

This thing isn't likely to change that.

Those who care about a quality experience have always had to buy separate components like amplifiers and speakers, to go along with their screen. And that's the way it should be. Focus on the one thing you're good at. Devices that try to do everything, are rarely good at anything.

Don't watch any Michael Bay films on it

[Rick Schumann]

Big explosion: screen cracks.

Finally

[backslashdot]

my ex can replace me.

Benefit?

[Oligonicella]

it encourages users to connect their own gear to the set and to use the TV as the center channel for a surround sound setup

I already do that with my plain ol' TV and it's speaker so, no improvement.

I'm not dropping money into a sound device that's spanking new. Speakers have been around a while and they're no longer big anyway.