audiophiles gone crazy (again)

[PeterAit]

Now that this thread has been taken over by the children, perhaps it should be moved to the Children's Corner forum.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I seem to recall a thread here from several years ago, in which someone put up a quiz with a 50/50 mix of DSLR and MFDB captures, and challenged all comers to take the quiz, correctly identify which images were which, and see if they could score better than 50%.

IIRC, the average score was slightly greater than 50%, but not enough to demonstrate the existence of a distinguishable MFDB "look" with any meaningful statistical confidence. Perhaps it's time to update it with images from more recent vintage cameras?

[amolitor]

That's just MEAN.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

There were several of them and I have posted one of those:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=2

The correct answers are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html

My personal experience is mostly:

• 39 MP are more than 24 MP
• I cannot reliably tell apart my MFDB (39 MP) and DSLR (24MP) at A2 print size (maximum for desktop printers)
• Hasselblad lenses are better than what I would expect from MTF data
• DxO is probably right

Getting back to audio, I have done some measurements with an XTZ room analyzer, and used a Behringer 2496 parametric equaliser to correct for standing waves in my living room, which resulted in an audible and measurable difference in sound. Also, my coffe cups don't resonate with bass any longer.

Best regards
Erik

I seem to recall a thread here from several years ago, in which someone put up a quiz with a 50/50 mix of DSLR and MFDB captures, and challenged all comers to take the quiz, correctly identify which images were which, and see if they could score better than 50%.

IIRC, the average score was slightly greater than 50%, but not enough to demonstrate the existence of a distinguishable MFDB "look" with any meaningful statistical confidence. Perhaps it's time to update it with images from more recent vintage cameras?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, very clearly, but it is mostly a resolution difference, comparing a 80 MP digital back to a 36 and 20+ MP cameras. Would we compare a 39 MP MFDB with a 36MP DSLR, the outcome would be different. Also, I am pretty sure that a 50+ MP DSLR would beat better image quality than a 39 MP CCD back. Why I think so? I am shooting with a 39 MP digital back and also with a 24 MP APS-C sensor, that APS-C sensor corresponds to 54 MP on full frame.

Best regards
Erik

I didn't put any words in your mouth, you put them there yourself. Unlike the rejigged quote above, which you re-edited to hide your smugness the quote below is the one I replied to where you act all superior.
'Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own.'
That's is not what you said before. You said 'some photographers consider they can clearly see a difference between MFD + 35mm, but cannot define it and no test can prove it.' Quite a different claim.
My girlfriend watches America's next top model, so I sometimes see the the judging session and even on the old small SD TV, it's pretty obvious when a photographer used a DSLR and not MFDSLR. I rewind to see if I'm right before you query how I know I'm correct. Not got it wrong yet either.
I can also see a big difference in the screen grab here, the MF shot is measurably better as one can read far more of the text than in the other shots.

[amolitor]

I saw/heard it myself is simultaneously the most convincing, and among the least accurate, kind of evidence.

Controlling for 100% of the secondary cues is maddeningly difficult, because we cannot see/hear them ourselves particularly well. Once you DO control for them, an
astonishing number of obvious perceptual differences simply vanish. Usually leaving someone angry.

[Telecaster]

In the electric guitar world one of the current things has to do with the capacitors wired to a guitar's tone pot(s). Back in the 1950s these were typically of the paper-in-oil variety, and since (as we all know) 1950s instruments are "better" then those caps must be "better" too. So now you can buy repro paper-in-oil caps…at a hefty premium over garden variety caps, of course. Now many people have blind-tested a wide variety of caps, using switching breakout boxes, with the unanimous conclusion being: there ain't no audible differences amongst any of 'em. My takeaway from this is: use good quality caps as they're more likely to hold up over time, but skip the boutique stuff. I like Sprague-type Orange Drops, at ~1/10th the cost of the average paper-in-oil type (and way less than the allegedly high-end versions). IMO the "use good stuff but avoid esoterics" approach applies to most things.

-Dave-

[stamper]

I seem to recall a thread here from several years ago, in which someone put up a quiz with a 50/50 mix of DSLR and MFDB captures, and challenged all comers to take the quiz, correctly identify which images were which, and see if they could score better than 50%.

IIRC, the average score was slightly greater than 50%, but not enough to demonstrate the existence of a distinguishable MFDB "look" with any meaningful statistical confidence. Perhaps it's time to update it with images from more recent vintage cameras?

A pointless exercise if the images have been manipulated/processed?

[stamper]

I am just wondering if some of the posters are guilty of listening to the sound rather than listening to the music?

[spidermike]

A pointless exercise if the images have been manipulated/processed?

Not pointless at all. If the Hasselblad had been deliberately processed sub-standard, or if both images had been processed with exactly the same settings it would be pointless.
If, however, the photographer has taken the view "I will process each image in order to create the best possible output from each camera" then the answer is 'under these circumstances you cannot process the Hasselblad to produce a noticably better image than the G10' And the question then is 'do I need a Hasselblad if all  my prinitng is at 13x9' - and logically the answer is 'no'.

But someone who prints their very best images at A2 will have different priorities - something I think Michael made quite clear in  his article. And, to be fair, his conclusion was not so much 'can I replace my Hassy with a G10' as 'the leaps in technology have been phenomenal and closed the gap'. Which means we have more choice.

[jjj]

Yes, very clearly, but it is mostly a resolution difference, comparing a 80 MP digital back to a 36 and 20+ MP cameras. Would we compare a 39 MP MFDB with a 36MP DSLR, the outcome would be different. Also, I am pretty sure that a 50+ MP DSLR would beat better image quality than a 39 MP CCD back. Why I think so? I am shooting with a 39 MP digital back and also with a 24 MP APS-C sensor, that APS-C sensor corresponds to 54 MP on full frame.

I mentioned in my next post that it would be interesting to compare say the new Canon 50MP with say a Hassy/Pentax 50mp camera. Only fairly recently has the MP gap been shrunk. But also one could compare say a 21MP FF camera with a 21MP small chip camera and see how they compare in look/quality.

Now that this thread has been taken over by the children, perhaps it should be moved to the Children's Corner forum.

Says the person who made fun of other people's taste in music. Something one expects from teenagers. 

[tom b]

I've been watching National Geographic's Brain Games and one program dealt with decreasing abilities to hear high frequency audio files. You can take an online test here). My hearing stops at aound 10khz so I won't be buying any fancy audio gear any time soon. My sense of smell isn't the best so you count out expensive wines too.

I get the feeling there are a lot of people out there in LuLa who are over 40 and need reading glasses. I'm glad thereare passionate people out there so that technology can improve and high tech can trickle down to the masses.

Cheers,

[jjj]

I've been watching National Geographic's Brain Games and one program dealt with decreasing abilities to hear high frequency audio files. You can take an online test here). My hearing stops at aound 10khz so I won't be buying any fancy audio gear any time soon.

It would be ironic if your audio equipment was the limit and not in fact your ears. 

[Hans Kruse]

It would be ironic if your audio equipment was the limit and not in fact your ears. 

It's typically those who don't know much about really good audio equipment who thinks that frequencies over 10Khz is important. The most important is lower frequencies. I'm well over 40 and I hear huge differences between expensive audio systems. Reatively much bigger than between camera systems, I'd say....

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think I hear a lot of difference between camera systems. My Hasselblad 555/ELD has much more dB of sound energy than your Canon 5DIII…

Best regards
Erik

It's typically those who don't know much about really good audio equipment who thinks that frequencies over 10Khz is important. The most important is lower frequencies. I'm well over 40 and I hear huge differences between expensive audio systems. Reatively much bigger than between camera systems, I'd say....

[Hans Kruse]

Hi,

I think I hear a lot of difference between camera systems. My Hasselblad 555/ELD has much more dB of sound energy than your Canon 5DIII…

Best regards
Erik

Haha, you got me there 

[jjj]

It's typically those who don't know much about really good audio equipment who thinks that frequencies over 10Khz is important. The most important is lower frequencies. I'm well over 40 and I hear huge differences between expensive audio systems. Reatively much bigger than between camera systems, I'd say....

Definitely to both.
I just bought a AV receiver for watching TV and the difference between the amps I tested was quite marked.

[PeterAit]

Says the person who made fun of other people's taste in music.

Huh? When did I do that?

[BJL]

It's typically those who don't know much about really good audio equipment who thinks that frequencies over 10Khz is important.

Especially vinylophiles, once you look at the horrible things that happen to frequencies over 10 KHz in vinyl pressing, the effects of the RIAA equalize curve, and the messing around with high and low frequencies typically needed to provide a "vinyl ready master".  See for example http://gottagrooverecords.com/vinyl-mastering/

The most important is lower frequencies.

Yes, it's the sub-woofer that counts, and the amps to drive it, as any teenage head-banger could tell you. I confess to shopping for my first "adult-sized pay-check" audio system with selections like organ music, to check out the low end.

[BernardLanguillier]

I happen to own pretty good hifi equipment and to be an engineer.

We did a blind test a few weeks back to compare the USB and Ethernet connections between my source (a Mac mini) and my dac/amp (Devialet 250). There were some other software differences in the set up, but both were supposed to be bit exact, free of any significant jitter (replay of stream on dac side) and therefore expected by my 2 other engineer friends to sound identical.

Over 10 tests, I was able to correctly identify the USB connection 10 times, average in less than 3 seconds.

My second friend didn't know which was which, but he got 9 out of 10 right in terms of coming from the same source.

Cheers,
Bernard