Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BJL on February 11, 2015, 07:45:42 pm
-
More of what gives legitimate lovers of fine audio reproduction a bad name:
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/to-the-audiophile-this-10000-ethernet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
(EDIT; typo corrected.)
-
Just because you can hear (or see, ahem) a difference doesn't mean it's there.
-
I find it a strange that while digital photography and video ( image) is getting better and better ; we still can only buy MP3 online....
Sound quality is considered less important or it must be the subwoofersystem ;) or the Beats headphones
I am with Neil Young in that respect.
It is silly to spend a lot of money on digital cables, but if you spend it on a sound system, especially speakers, you will notice it right away...
-
Tests conducted on humans clearly demonstrate that although something may not exist in reality, it can exist as part of our reality.
Example 1: Identical wine is placed in several wine bottles which range in cost from cheap to expensive. The price tag for each bottle is deliberately left visible.
The results of the test, during which the subjects' brain activity was monitored, clearly indicate that not only did the subjects think the (same) wine tasted better the more expensive the bottle, but that actually it did taste better - the brain induced a more pleasurable experience when it extrapolated from the information available to it that the wine in a more expensive bottle should taste better than the (same) wine in a less expensive bottle.
Example 2: Refer to the attached image.
The colour of square A and B is identical.
-
I find it a strange that while digital photography and video ( image) is getting better and better ; we still can only buy MP3 online....
Well, we can also buy lots of losslessly compressed audio files online - I only buy FLAC, and I still can't keep up with everything I'm interested in.
Availability does on depend where you live, I grant you. Here in the UK, until recently there were few online outlets selling a large inventory in FLAC (Chandos, Hyperion, Presto Classical). But not long ago the French etailer Qobuz opened a UK site and since then, despite some remaining cross-border nonsense (e.g. still can't buy many recordings of contemporary French music in FLAC format, though they're for sale on Amazon UK in mp3 format), I've been a happy bunny.
Best wishes,
Nick
-
WHAT??? Are you saying you are not using $5000 USB cables and $8000 card readers to transfer your picture files to the computer??? If you have $20000 invested in photo gear, at least 40% of it should be in cables! What good does it do if the carefully exposed 50 MPix image gets muddied up in the transfer?
(I confess, I have been kicked out half dozen times from a certain SACD site because I have questioned some "truths" circulating there…)
-
WHAT??? Are you saying you are not using $5000 USB cables and $8000 card readers to transfer your picture files to the computer??? If you have $20000 invested in photo gear, at least 40% of it should be in cables! What good does it do if the carefully exposed 50 MPix image gets muddied up in the transfer?
:D
-
WHAT??? Are you saying you are not using $5000 USB cables and $8000 card readers to transfer your picture files to the computer??? If you have $20000 invested in photo gear, at least 40% of it should be in cables! What good does it do if the carefully exposed 50 MPix image gets muddied up in the transfer?
(I confess, I have been kicked out half dozen times from a certain SACD site because I have questioned some "truths" circulating there…)
Alternatively:
My CCD camera produce certain silky transitions that no CMOS camera will ever achieve. Oh, and this cannot be measured in any way, nor can it it be seen in a side-by-side, but it is there. Trust me.
I think that we humans are inherently prone to superstition. Even the most "scientifically minded" make about a gazillion choices every day based on data we cannot trust and knowledge that we don't have. That is part of being human, and I like being human.
-h
-
In my brief foray into "audiophilia," many years ago, I fell for claims that by coloring the edges of your CDs green, with a special magic marker, you would get better sound quality. I still come across a green-edged CD in my collection now and then, and can only shake my head.
It's telling that audiophiles NEVER are willing to submit to blind listening tests.
-
Peter,
It's telling that audiophiles NEVER are willing to submit to blind listening tests.
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/10/01/james-randi-calls-ou.html
To date nobody has won. Says it all.
-
Tests conducted on humans clearly demonstrate that although something may not exist in reality, it can exist as part of our reality.
Delusion and illusion.
-
I find it a strange that while digital photography and video ( image) is getting better and better ; we still can only buy MP3 online....
I find it even stranger that todays delivery formats (including mp3) are perhaps the best we ever had, yet musicians and sound engineers insists on filling those files with clipped and distorted content in the hunt for ever more loudness.
Imagine landscape photographers with 14-stop DR cameras and 200:1 CR prints always limiting themselves to sRGB values from [200...255]
-h
-
The problem with audio is that the final product is a fleeting moment which really can not be captured and reliably compared with another similar listening event. So this begets $5000 power cords and $10000 speaker cables (and now USB and Ethernet cables also). With video the situation is not as bad (but not immune), as two screens can be compared side to side. With photography we can always compare two files pixel to pixel to see if they are identical. So the bottom falls out of all cable madness, thank Gods.
-
Most people listen to music in the car, at work or working out. Music has to be loud.
-
Torbjörn,
Music has to be loud.
Increase the volume.
-
Increase the volume.
Or, employ some kind of dynamic compression in the playback device when it is needed (sort of like the midnight mode found in some surround receivers).
The idea is that the distributed content should be mastered to sound "as good as possible". Those who cannot play it back in ideal conditions should take appropriate actions at their end.
-h
-
No need to imagine, that IS what we do At least in the final stage, given that 99.99% of all photographs taken currently end up on the internet, tablets, and phones. The remaining minuscule percentage ends up in prints printed by labs that insist of sRGB files, and only a microscopic percentage ends up printed in something better than sRGB.
I think it is still worse in the audio world. What they are doing is (occasionally) like using the best large-format Epson printer there is for large prints, along with a MFDB and highly skilled photoshopping. But just before printing, they bump up the shadows to "white" and the highlights to "super white". The natural dynamics of musics are sacrificed in order to make the (in our analogy) image scream "buy me" from the wall, making it super-blistering bright in the idea that other images hanging next to it will appear dark and muddy.
To some degree, this might be happening in the image world as well, although in slightly different ways than sacrificing DR. E.g. bumping saturation and sharpening to levels that make it "wow" but annoying to the "photography elite". I'd like to think that the kind photographers we are talking are in control over their end-product and do editing in order to satisfy artistic goals (I am sure that there are kinds of photography where an artistic director or customer is hanging over your back forcing you to do things that makes you want to poke your eyes out).
-h
-
Tests conducted on humans clearly demonstrate that although something may not exist in reality, it can exist as part of our reality.
Example 1: Identical wine is placed in several wine bottles which range in cost from cheap to expensive. The price tag for each bottle is deliberately left visible.
The results of the test, during which the subjects' brain activity was monitored, clearly indicate that not only did the subjects think the (same) wine tasted better the more expensive the bottle, but that actually it did taste better - the brain induced a more pleasurable experience when it extrapolated from the information available to it that the wine in a more expensive bottle should taste better than the (same) wine in a less expensive bottle.
The difference is that wine lovers know this happens and reluctantly accept it as part of the hobby - the more pretentious may not like being caught out a dinner party and their affectation shown up but they do accept the fallibility of the human senses.
Similarly for the art world fooled by paintings daubed by chimps.
But you dare suggest to the 'golden-eared' that their 20k improvement is all down to psychology (let alone suggest they need to do a blind listening test!!) and you watch the fireworks follow. Subjectivity does not exist in their audio world.
-
Crazy? NO! That's not crazy! THIS is crazy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG3Uefa8t9U
...crazy good, realistic three dimensional listening on my $80 Sony MDR V6 headphones off my 2010 MacMini.
I just don't have to pay the big bucks for that guy's setup and let the exceptional mic on his video camera do the rest.
My 1972 Sansui amp, 1992 Panasonic CD player and 1985 Norman Lab speakers, all combined costing under $400, comes close.
-
So you have what is (I assume) a great system recorded with a portable video recorder, downsampled for posting on youttube and probably played back through a mediocre set of electronics (a pair of £53 headphones for the last poster) and people praising how wonderful it is, even talking about a 'scoop out' at a certain frequency.
Shows how appearances can affect it all.
-
Whilst people are busy mocking audiophiles which is like lumping ALL serious photographers together, this forum at times is no different with it's measurebating and pixel peeping.
It should also be noted that like the wine with prices nonsense, people think higher MP prints are better even when there is no actual difference.
-
Both what we "see" and what we "hear" are largely constructs of the mind in the first place.
What we "see" is almost entirely invented, from an astonishing small amount of actual visual data. Our visual cortex will cheerfully edit out memories to cover up its mistakes, which makes the whole thing quite challenging to get a handle on.
The ear is a much more sensitive instrument at doing what IT does, but what we hear is still largely a construct.
So, obviously, our preconceptions and ideas can hugely effect what we see and hear.
-
Unfortunately, all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room.
The video is a perfect example. The irony is that the subjective improvement in sound quality can be objectively measured.
-
So you have what is (I assume) a great system recorded with a portable video recorder, downsampled for posting on youttube and probably played back through a mediocre set of electronics (a pair of £53 headphones for the last poster) and people praising how wonderful it is, even talking about a 'scoop out' at a certain frequency.
Shows how appearances can affect it all.
I agree, if not a bit over simplistic because I have actually heard a REAL difference in sound quality comparing that YouTube video and my vintage, cheapo high end system from what I've heard in high end systems at Best Buy which don't even come close to the sound quality. So there still is no real, consistent connection to price point vs sound quality.
From what I've seen in the market it's all over the map making finding the price/quality sweet spot almost impossible if only by chance which I think is how the industry overall wants it. You can apply the same marketing strategy to any device whose source of quality is never fully understood because of all the complexity and obscure nomenclature that makes it appear like it's of high quality.
IOW as it's often put..."If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". That's the impetus behind why Standards & Poor gave AAA ratings to crappy bundled securities when they knew they were crap. Happens all the time to the best of them, but best only by name.
Oh, from my observations I now never underestimate the affect of reverb both accidental (electronically) and intentional (process engineered) has on audio quality perception. I believe that's actually the secret sauce for creating a high quality stereo image and it doesn't have to cost an arm and leg. You can hear it in the YouTube video by listening to changes in phasing from one ear to the other as the camera moves around the room.
Same thing I experienced comparing the stereo imaging on my 1992 Panasonic CD player (great imaging) vs a 2002 Onkyo 6 CD changer. I sent back the Onkyo.
-
And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music. This is a perfect analogy to the photographic "peepers" who will put enormous effort and expense into creating a perfectly exposed and tack-sharp image of the most boring subject.
-
And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music. This is a perfect analogy to the photographic "peepers" who will put enormous effort and expense into creating a perfectly exposed and tack-sharp image of the most boring subject.
You are comparing two very different things. Enjoying other people's work and creating one's own work.
The fact you do not like someone else's choice of music is irrelevant. The only person who cares about your personal taste is yourself. Your sneering at other's taste only demonstrates your snobbery. Not to mention, how do you know what people listen to anyway? Oh yes you cannot know such a thing.
-
And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music. This is a perfect analogy to the photographic "peepers" who will put enormous effort and expense into creating a perfectly exposed and tack-sharp image of the most boring subject.
Come on, dude. "Daft Punk" never sounded so good as on that YouTube video. Check it out.
The entire album won a Grammy for best sound engineering.
-
Unfortunately, all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room.
Again people talking about things they cannot know. The amount of sneering going on in this thread is quite remarkable. People I know who are fussy about their music do actually alter their rooms.
My office has sound issues as it is almost exactly a cube, so standing waves are a problem and my audio doesn't sound as good in the current office as it did in office my previous house. So it needs sorting because I also do film editing at times.
-
Come on, dude. "Daft Punk" never sounded so good as on that YouTube video. Check it out.
The entire album won a Grammy for best sound engineering.
What album won? Daft Punk or the Sonny Rollins one.? The latter I'd guess.
Personally I'd choose Daft Punk anyday over that sort of noodly jazz. I love swing music, but later jazz like that track I actively dislike. Whereas most music that I do not positively like, I'm indifferent to. But hey other people love it, so that's fine.
-
jjj,
Again people talking about things they cannot know.
Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own. One has only to read posts by others on audio forums and view videos posted on YouTube to confirm that a majority of those for whom the pursuit of high quality audio is important do little, if anything, to address their room acoustics.
The amount of sneering going on in this thread is quite remarkable.
You are mistaken if you consider that I am sneering. Actually I am saddened that those who pursue superb sound quality could so easily achieve a dramatic improvement if they would but address their room acoustics.
In my opinion photographers get off lightly. At least with audio we can, under carefully controlled conditions, objectively measure if a difference exists. Compare that to photography, where some photographers consider that they can clearly see a difference between MFD and 35mm, but cannot define it, and no test can prove it - one way or the other.
Sounds to me like an environment ripe for buyers to be manipulated by sellers.
My office has sound issues as it is almost exactly a cube, so standing waves are a problem...
Standing waves adversely affect every room.
...and my audio doesn't sound as good in the current office as it did in office my previous house. So it needs sorting because I also do film editing at times.
Don't you do that near-field?
-
Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own.
So despite knowing nothing about me, you claim that experience is superior to mine. Well that puts things in perspective. ::)
At least with audio we can, under carefully controlled conditions, objectively measure if a difference exists. Compare that to photography, where some photographers consider that they can clearly see a difference between MFD and 35mm, but cannot define it, and no test can prove it - one way or the other.
That'll come as a big surprise to say the folks at DXO, amongst others.
Standing waves adversely affect every room.
Some far more than others as I've found out.
Don't you do that near-field?
My monitors are near field but even so, the room doesn't sound so nice for music compared to my last far more oblong office with other features to break up standing waves.
-
But standing waves are how it all works.
We sort of have this idea of a column of air from the speaker to our ear, vibrating just so, but that's not it AT ALL.
A room, any room, has a whole whack of resonances. When a speaker vibrates, it excites all those resonances to one degree or another. If it's playing a A440, you'll get a strong cluster of resonances around 440Hz, another around 880, and so on.
Now when a room has some really really dominant resonant frequencies, you can run in to problems, and that's what people generally mean by "standing waves", but in reality it's all standing waves. It's not a column of air, it's a 3 dimensional drumhead, and you're in it, somewhere. And your brain reconstructs that A440 piano note from the incredible dirty mess it gets from the room, it locates the speakers largely by the differences in what one ear hears over another (delays in attack and phase relationships), as well as constructing a surprising amount of information about the room that we're normally unconscious of.
-
What album won? Daft Punk or the Sonny Rollins one.? The latter I'd guess.
Personally I'd choose Daft Punk anyday over that sort of noodly jazz. I love swing music, but later jazz like that track I actively dislike. Whereas most music that I do not positively like, I'm indifferent to. But hey other people love it, so that's fine.
Random Access Memory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_Access_Memories
Here's the Kendrick Sound YouTube for "Get Lucky" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFRzcZz1_6s
Sweet sound! Perfect balance!
Here's some more audio craziness only not for the audiophile but folks who like music as a hair dryer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKEu7e7ESwM
It's a whole other subculture I stumbled upon searching for Audacity bass boost edits on YouTube.
-
From what I've seen in the market it's all over the map making finding the price/quality sweet spot almost impossible if only by chance which I think is how the industry overall wants it.
The way I have approached this problem is to use professional studio equipment. On that side of the fence there is not so much BS and esoteric marketing speak, as buyers actually understand something about the real meaningful quality parameters. So I have no need to worry and upgrade constantly.
So: player: Tascam "industrial" rack player. DAC/Controller: Crane Song Avocet. Power amps: Hypex sourced PMC class-D 200W cigar boxes. Speakers: PMC IB2s transmission line mid field monitors and Genelec 7071A subwoofer.
For multichannel SACD: Denon Pro preprocessor/preamp, OPPO 103 universal player with HDMI out, ADAM X8 and X7 active monitor speakers for center and back channels.
Room: semi dedicated 4x5 meter room with wood floor and paneling, ceiling height from 2.3 to 2.9 meters, 70 cm of padding at the speaker end of the room.
-
Again people talking about things they cannot know.
I have some knowledge about how regular people and people with "audiophile" tendencies decorate their rooms. Based on this knowledge, I think it is fair to say that "many" audiophiles do not alter their room beyond what it was like when they purchased their house, or beyond what any non-audiophile might be expected to do with a room (insert furniture etc).
The amount of sneering going on in this thread is quite remarkable.
What is your point?
People I know who are fussy about their music do actually alter their rooms.
I certainly know _some_ who alter their rooms. The thing is that for every user altering their room, there are (say) 100 users purchasing silly power cables at $100 a piece. My experience selling those cables is that many self-proclaimed audiophiles have some lack of critical thinking combined with an enormous confidence in poorly executed anecdotal experiences ("I felt that the sound was improved, therefore the magic stone must by definition have altered the soundwaves hitting me")
I tend to think that it is important to talk about "borderline beliefs", such as commonly found among audiophiles, homeopaths and what not. These alternate beliefs seems to often include a rejection of science and/or claims of conspiracy. In the case of audiophilia, there is an ecosystem of manufacturers, magazines etc that have an interest in keeping the myths.
-h
-
Good morning jjj,
...despite knowing nothing about me, you claim that experience is superior to mine.
Don't put words in my mouth.
My statement that "all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room" is either correct or incorrect. There is no "superior".
That'll come as a big surprise to say the folks at DXO, amongst others.
Please can you refer me to test(s) carried out by DXO or others under scientifically controlled conditions to determine the existence of the so-called Medium Format look?
-
I tend to think that it is important to talk about "borderline beliefs", such as commonly found among audiophiles, homeopaths and what not. These alternate beliefs seems to often include a rejection of science and/or claims of conspiracy. In the case of audiophilia, there is an ecosystem of manufacturers, magazines etc that have an interest in keeping the myths.
You argued this before and there is also a bunch of people like yourself equally deluded who because they cannot discern any difference then claim equally falsely, that there can be no difference.
I certainly don't buy into some of the daft claims such as those made for the cables in the original post, but I have heard systems sound markedly better simply with decent connectors added. Homemade and very cheap connectors at that. Plus I had no idea the connectors had been changed, so unprompted I asked why the system now sounded better.
-
Don't put words in my mouth.
My statement that "all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room" is either correct or incorrect. There is no "superior".
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.'
Please can you refer me to test(s) carried out by DXO or others under scientifically controlled conditions to determine the existence of the so-called Medium Format look?
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.
-
jjj,
I didn't put any words in your mouth...
I have not claimed that my experience is superior to yours. Don't put words in my mouth.
Unlike the rejigged quote...
The post in question was edited to add "scientifically". You may believe me or not as you see fit.
...which you re-edited to hide your smugness...
There is no smugness. Again, you may believe me or not as you see fit.
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.
I apologise for the confusion. I should have made specific that I referred to the so-called Medium Format look.
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.
Yes, I find I can read larger text more easily than smaller text too.
-
jjj,
I have not claimed that my experience is superior to yours. Don't put words in my mouth.
Yes. You. Did.
'Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own.'
The post in question was edited to add "scientifically". You may believe me or not as you see fit.
The quote I replied to was re-edited to completely change its meaning in your rebuttal.
I replied to
Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own. One has only to read posts by others on audio forums and view videos posted on YouTube to confirm that a majority of those for whom the pursuit of high quality audio is important do little, if anything, to address their room acoustics.
You changed it to....
My statement that "all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room" is either correct or incorrect. There is no "superior".
There is no smugness. Again, you may believe me or not as you see fit.
I apologise for the confusion. I should have made specific that I referred to the so-called Medium Format look.
Yes, I find I can read larger text more easily than smaller text too.
Which demonstrates what you claimed could not be shown. But then you were careless with your writings, again.
BTW different sized sensors do give different renditions if all else is equal, so there is in fact a look specific to each sensor size because of the variation in depth of field, resolution, pixel pitch. Also MF cameras until recently had a different kind of sensor which like the Foveon chip gave a different look to the image.
The fact that if you alter settings, the rendition [or look] due to DoF from different cameras will overlap a certain amount doesn't mean different camera do not look different from each other. If you look at large prints, the differences become even more marked. Though it will be instructive to compare the new Canons at 50MP with a 50MP Hasselblad/Pentax.
-
Now that this thread has been taken over by the children, perhaps it should be moved to the Children's Corner forum.
-
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?
-
That's just MEAN.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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-
-
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?
-
I am just wondering if some of the posters are guilty of listening to the sound rather than listening to the music?
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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 (http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php)). 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,
-
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 (http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php)). 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. ;D
-
It would be ironic if your audio equipment was the limit and not in fact your ears. ;D
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....
-
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....
-
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 ;D
-
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.
-
Says the person who made fun of other people's taste in music.
Huh? When did I do that?
-
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.
-
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
-
Obviously there is at least one cue. There are usually several, in these informal experiments. It's probably not whatever your first impression is, though.
-
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.
I find it funny that most audiophiles are obsessed with high frequencies and demand higher sample rates, super tweeters etc. All that trouble for frequencies they and nobody can hear.
At the same time they have speakers which do not reproduce the lowest octave of musical instruments. So they miss out on sounds which A) do exist in recordings (at least classical/organ) B) which can be easily heard and felt by everybody (even by deaf persons) and C) can be reproduced quite easily.
This is the subwoofer I have: http://www.genelec.com/products/7071a/
Goes both low and loud, perfect for an organ enthusiast and recordist like me.
-
I find it funny that most audiophiles are obsessed with high frequencies and demand higher sample rates, super tweeters etc. All that trouble for frequencies they and nobody can hear.
Hi,
That's a common error that people make. One may not hear the frequencies themselves as well, but the interference with other frequencies, or to draw the analogy to photography, the aliasing artifacts have a lower frequency which may well distort the real frequencies we can still detect. So there is a benefit to oversampling the high frequencies, even the ones we cannot hear.
At the same time they have speakers which do not reproduce the lowest octave of musical instruments. So they miss out on sounds which A) do exist in recordings (at least classical/organ) B) which can be easily heard and felt by everybody (even by deaf persons) and C) can be reproduced quite easily.
I agree, it adds a lot of realism to a recording. Although some can still prefer a certain deviation from absolutely neutral, like in photography we may shift the color temperature to add a bit of mood, I prefer to start calibrating the whole system in its environment of use to a neutral setting.
A useful software utility can be this (Windows) Freeware Holm Impulse (http://www.holmacoustics.com/holmimpulse.php). If you play a Sinusoidal frequency sweep through your system, it will clearly show the frequencies where the tweeters cross-over to mid-tone speakers which in turn cross-over to the woofers, and where the sub-woofers can extend the frequency response of the woofers (it helps if the room is long enough to fully accommodate the low frequency wavelengths). It also allows to tune the output of the extreme ends of the frequency spectrum with the room absorption characteristics (before we compensate for our own hearing deficiencies), and even see how it varies with listening position.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's a common error that people make. One may not hear the frequencies themselves as well, but the interference with other frequencies, or to draw the analogy to photography, the aliasing artifacts have a lower frequency which may well distort the real frequencies we can still detect. So there is a benefit to oversampling the high frequencies, even the ones we cannot hear.
If supersonic signal interference causes audible artefacts at lower frequencies, they are picked up by the microphones during the recording already. There is no need to recreate them by including them on the recording and trying to reproduce them with super tweeters. Is has been also shown that supersonic frequencies on high resolution recordings cause harmful intermodulation distortion in amplifiers, actually lowering the audible fidelity of the signal.
-
Obviously there is at least one cue. There are usually several, in these informal experiments.
Not in this case, there was no physical change done to the system between tests.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If supersonic signal interference causes audible artefacts at lower frequencies, they are picked up by the microphones during the recording already.
Hi,
Not really what I was talking about, aliasing originates from discrete sampling when the analog signal is converted to discrete digital samples (ADC), which is why high sampling frequencies do help. I assume you are referring to sound waves that amplify or dampen each other by interference before the microphone picks it up, but that's not what higher than audible sampling frequencies are about.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually you can drop the fundamental from a low frequency note with almost no perceptual difference. You may have to adjust the levels of the harmonics to produce the same perceived volume, I forget.
Your brain will cheerfully fill the the fundamental back in.
Hearing, like seeing, is a construct of the mind.
-
Huh? When did I do that?
Here.....
And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music.
-
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.
So was one better or were they simply different?
-
Each new generation of audiophiles invents whole new domains of ignorance of digital sampling.
-
Each new generation of audiophiles invents whole new domains of ignorance of digital sampling.
On the subject of ignorance - people's negative lumping together of all audiophiles is exactly like that of when racists slate say black people or immigrants.
Just as bigoted and ignorant. You get the same thing with idiots attacking cyclists in online forums, the 'thinking', language and attitude is indistinguishable from racist behaviour.
-
On the subject of ignorance - people's negative lumping together of all audiophiles is exactly like that of when racists slate say black people or immigrants.
Just as bigoted and ignorant. You get the same thing with idiots attacking cyclists in online forums, the 'thinking', language and attitude is indistinguishable from racist behaviour.
I agree, especially about cyclists, being both a cyclist and at times enraged by the self-centered and self-rightious obnoxiousness of _some_ other cyclists; I did try to warn about that right at the beginning:
More of what gives legitimate lovers of fine audio reproduction a bad name: ...
But contrary to the case with race, national origin or choice of transportation device, I do not see the mockery of the unscientific extremist audiophile fringe leading to any harm to audiophiles (extremists or otherwise); satire of extremism might even have benefits, by warning some people away from succumbing to it.
-
Or otherwise known in logic as generalization or abstraction. Or finding a dominant commonality in statistics.
Or in human terms, bigotry with no connection to any facts needed.
-
I agree, especially about cyclists, being both a cyclist and at times enraged by the self-centered and self-rightious obnoxiousness of _some_ other cyclists; I did try to warn about that right at the beginning
Indeed. Thinking all cyclists are OK is as dumb as thinking all cyclists are red light jumping, rule breakers. However I have wondered if cyclists were armed and allowed to shoot drivers in self defence, would the 'impatience gene' be eradicated within a couple of generations. ;D
Either way any group of humans some will be nice and some will be dicks. That's simply how life works.
But contrary to the case with race, national origin or choice of transportation device, I do not see the mockery of the unscientific extremist audiophile fringe leading to any harm to audiophiles (extremists or otherwise); satire of extremism might even have benefits, by warning some people away from succumbing to it.
Extremism is rarely if ever healthy, but people are being lazy and are talking about/judging an entire group by the behaviour of a few individuals.
What I've noticed now that racism is not tolerated in most places is that the bigotry has migrated to other targets, red heads, cyclists, hipsters, audiophiles and so on. People like to hate/denigrate it would seem :-\
-
Closeted? ! I am completely open about my hatred of racers!
-
Here.....
Please learn to read and understand. I did not knock any particular kind of music, I pointed out that some audiophiles are more interested in the sound quality of the music reproduction than in the music itself. Doesn't matter the genre - classical, rock, jazz, folk, whatever - it can still be bad music, but if the sound quality is "right" they will lap it up.
-
So was one better or were they simply different?
Hum... that's really a matter of taste I would say.
USB with Audirvana is sharper, incredibly defined, but a bit harsh at times.
On the other hand Air though wired internet is more fluid but feels less defined and suffers from interruptions once in a while.
Which works best depends on the kind of music and taste. Overall, I probably prefer ethernet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
USB with Audirvana is sharper, incredibly defined, but a bit harsh at times.
Have you tried running it through a Weiss DAC202 ?
I'd agree with your preference for Ethernet, although Air rules for practicality - but hard wired from a Mac mini into a DAC beats them both, IMO.
Best
M
-
Please learn to read and understand. I did not knock any particular kind of music, I pointed out that some audiophiles are more interested in the sound quality of the music reproduction than in the music itself. Doesn't matter the genre - classical, rock, jazz, folk, whatever - it can still be bad music, but if the sound quality is "right" they will lap it up.
I did read and I did understand that you hold audiophiles in contempt as they listen to, in your words 'horrid music'. Genre is not relevant nor was it mentioned, but it's still the sort of childish behaviour you expect from teenagers, i.e. other people listen to rubbish music, whilst of course you listen to superior music.
You have your taste in what you like, others have their taste in something else. Thinking one's taste is somehow better than others is deluded. It's not, it is simply your taste.
If people listening to their music though whatever sound system enjoy it, does it matter what others think of their music? Whatever the music anyone listens to on any kind of audio system, most people will prefer something else.
-
There you go, Andrew, I bet you didn't know you are a closeted racist ;)
And obviously you do not understand the difference between being a bigot and being a racist.
BTW, My remarks were directed at anyone who slags off entire groups of varied people as a homogenous whole, not just Amolitor.
-
Hum... that's really a matter of taste I would say.
A good answer.
USB with Audirvana is sharper, incredibly defined, but a bit harsh at times.
On the other hand Air though wired internet is more fluid but feels less defined and suffers from interruptions once in a while.
Is Air another player?
And how does Audirvana compare to other software players in your experience?
Now testing Audirvana, but cannot compare to iTunes as Itunes now cannot output unless via Audirvana. Cannot find any way to change that, which is not a good sign. :(
-
I did read and I did understand
No, actually you did not. So be it - conversation closed.
-
I feel sure some people on here are twitting us now, but which ones?
-
Hum... that's really a matter of taste I would say.
USB with Audirvana is sharper, incredibly defined, but a bit harsh at times.
On the other hand Air though wired internet is more fluid but feels less defined and suffers from interruptions once in a while.
Which works best depends on the kind of music and taste. Overall, I probably prefer ethernet.
Cheers,
Bernard
Which connection method gives the best quality with photographs? Most DR, largest gamut?
-
Which connection method gives the best quality with photographs? Most DR, largest gamut?
We all know that subject matters most, don't we! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is Air another player?
And how does Audirvana compare to other software players in your experience?
Now testing Audirvana, but cannot compare to iTunes as Itunes now cannot output unless via Audirvana. Cannot find any way to change that, which is not a good sign. :(
Air is a proprietary Devialet solution that makes the integrated dac of the amp over the network look like a sound card seen from the OS. It is a totally asynchronous solution that re-builds the music stream from the IP packets a few physical mm before the dac inside the amp. In theory nothing should beat it in terms of delivering a jitter free replay.
I have to confess that I have not compared the softwares in a long time. I did compare Audirvana to iTunes and a few others and liked Audirvana best. Now, I found out later that I knew the developper of Audirvana by coincidence, and have not really looked back since then. Audirvana's moment of fame and reputation comes from the support of integer mode on the dacs supporting it. They were also faster to workaround the changes introduced by Apple in recent OSx releases.
I would think that killing both apps and restarting iTunes should fix your problem, but I guess you've tried that already?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have you tried running it through a Weiss DAC202 ?
I'd agree with your preference for Ethernet, although Air rules for practicality - but hard wired from a Mac mini into a DAC beats them both, IMO.
I used to connect my Mac mini to the then Dpremier through a Weiss Int202, but I have decided that set up simplicity was to remain the priority. Weiss products are definitely first class and I love the no crap/engineering only approach of Mr. Weiss.
I am ready to believe that using an external dac may result in yet better sound, but what I have now is already very good and that money will go somewhere else, possibly in an Otus 85mm f1.4 after it becomes available in Japan.
The SAM support of my Wilson Benesch Vectors is the next step, should be there in a few days. Lobbying works sometimes. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am ready to believe that using an external dac may result in yet better sound, but what I have now is already very good ... The SAM support of my Wilson Benesch Vectors is the next step ...
Yes, very good is an understatement ...
Wilson Benesch Vectors - why am I not surprised ?
Best
M
-
We all know that subject matters most, don't we! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I just thought if strange that the (asynchronous) connection method would affect the data content with music files, but not with photo files.
-
Hum... that's really a matter of taste I would say.
USB with Audirvana is sharper, incredibly defined, but a bit harsh at times.
On the other hand Air though wired internet is more fluid but feels less defined and suffers from interruptions once in a while.
Which works best depends on the kind of music and taste. Overall, I probably prefer ethernet.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have used Audirvana for years now and I find it the best player on the Mac. I also got a power supply for the Audiophilleo USB/SPDIF converter I use with my Audio Note DAC. The clean power from the external power supply was clearly making an audible difference compared to powering the converter from the USB power.
I use these speakers http://www.teresonic.com/speakers/ingenium with a special amplifier also designed, voiced and made by Teresonic. The power tubes are 211 and the differences in the audio chain clearly comes out as the speakers are very discriminating. The DAC also has special tubes for improved clarity.
I have tried a number of different playback software for the Mac but found Audirvana to be the best. I use the upsampling to 96Khz for CD ripped material. I have also tried the Weiss DAC's but although they are very clear in the sound they do not sound as good in my opinion as the tube based DAC's. I never heard a solid state DAC that sounded really good. But that's just me :)
-
That's a common error that people make. One may not hear the frequencies themselves as well, but the interference with other frequencies, or to draw the analogy to photography, the aliasing artifacts have a lower frequency which may well distort the real frequencies we can still detect. So there is a benefit to oversampling the high frequencies, even the ones we cannot hear.
Over 20 years or so, academics have tried to device tests that shows hirez audio (PCM @88.2kHz or more, DSD) to be audibly superior in a controllable, repeatable, relevant way. It is reasonable to claim that they have failed.
Oversampling (the process of increasing the sample rate digitally at e.g. playback) works really well on CD-quality material and is a method of moving filter complexity from the analog domain to the digital domain.
Published in the Journal of AES back in 2007:
"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback*", E. BRAD MEYER, AES Member AND DAVID R. MORAN, AES Member, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September
Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different sys- tem or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using suf- ficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high- resolution signals must be supported by properly con- trolled double-blind tests.
-h
-
You argued this before and there is also a bunch of people like yourself equally deluded who because they cannot discern any difference then claim equally falsely, that there can be no difference.
I did not claim that my own experiences is the limit of what others can experience. If that is your claim, then you have a reading issue or a truth issue.
I certainly don't buy into some of the daft claims such as those made for the cables in the original post, but I have heard systems sound markedly better simply with decent connectors added. Homemade and very cheap connectors at that. Plus I had no idea the connectors had been changed, so unprompted I asked why the system now sounded better.
I am sure that your anectdotal experiences are sufficient for your needs. Please be aware that we now have this thing called "science". The physics of audio components, acoustic waves in the air and subjective perception of people when exposed to such waves is actually a topic that people do research. They publish their findings in reputed journals, under the scrutiny of other reasearchers, and yet other researchers will independently try to repeat their experiments. After a while of back-and-forth, the conclusion may (or may not) become a part of "established knowledge".
That mechanism (though with its flaws) is a big factor in being able to send people to the moon or make 80MP cameras. I'd argue that it is a mechanism that explicitly suppress our human nature. We seem to be rigged into seeing sabre-tooth tigers in the bushes, images of jesus in our coffee cups and what not. Humans are incredible poor at really understanding the world around us (myself included), therefore it is quite an accomplishment that we got this far as a society. We are really good at making art (including photography), caring about those that are close to us and lots of other things that more than offsets our scientific limitations, though.
-h
-
Over 20 years or so, academics have tried to device tests that shows hirez audio (PCM @88.2kHz or more, DSD) to be audibly superior in a controllable, repeatable, relevant way. It is reasonable to claim that they have failed.
Again, I'm talking about the ADC quantization phase, not about encoding/storage or DAC output. If I'm to believe my own ears, I do hear the difference between 96kHz or 192KHz quantization and e.g. 44-48KHz, even when played back on 44Khz. It's not a huge difference (and hard to hear without a direct comparison), but e.g. acoustic guitar strings (which pick up a lot of additional sounds/'colour' from the way they are struck), sound a bit better. Part of it may be how it is DAC decoded, but it never sounds worse, even on modest playback equipment.
There are lots of analogies with photography, but there too a lot of people don't care about aliasing unless it's too obvious to miss.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Again, I'm talking about the ADC quantization phase, not about encoding/storage or DAC output. If I'm to believe my own ears, I do hear the difference between 96kHz or 192KHz quantization and e.g. 44-48KHz, even when played back on 44Khz.
The term "quantization" is usually connected with the number of bits used (e.g. 24), while the term "sampling rate" is usually used for e.g. 96kHz.
I believe that ADC and DAC manufactures in the last decades have tended to be oversampling designs, so that even if you request a sampling rate of "48000" from your ADC, it will likely operate at a rate many times that internally, using noise-shaping and downsampling to your desired rate.
Are you processing your recorded audio heavily? If applying things like heavy pitch-shifting, then, yes, any physical difference between A/D-converters can be made audible (just like photoshopping can make any minute sensor differences plainly visible).
There are plausible physical explanations for your observations, such as bad ADC design, bad resampler design but having been fooled many times myself I cannot help but speculate that expectations may be the cause here.
This question can be resolved by using ABX listening. I have used the abx_foo plugin for foobar2k that allows you to listen blind to two recordings (e.g. one where the DAC was set to 44100, another where the DAC was set at 96000, both resampled to the preferred rate of your playback system, e.g. 48000). If you get <5% "probability of guessing", you have established with some confidence that you probably hear some difference.
There are lots of analogies with photography, but there too a lot of people don't care about aliasing unless it's too obvious to miss.
You will find that audio engineers tend to follow Nyquist more closely than their imaging peers.
-h
-
Yes, very good is an understatement ...
Wilson Benesch Vectors - why am I not surprised ?
Yep, they are the perfect accessory for the Zeiss Otus! ;)
But seriously, they are some of the best speakers I've ever heard.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, they are the perfect accessory for the Zeiss Otus! ;)
But seriously, they are some of the best speakers I've ever heard.
Cheers,
Bernard
Was this in a blind listening with a comparator?
-
Just to repeat myself more clearly, in general when you hear a difference between two things that are most likely identical, you are in fact responding to other cues.
There may be slight differences in startup times of a track, say. If something is poorly designed, there may be occasional glitches, which are essentially inaudible, but allow you to subconsciously identify one thing over another, and then apply "more airy soundstage" verbiage to it, when in fact 99% of the time the sound is identical.
The ethernet versus USB versus whatever, for example. If the DAC is properly designed, the actual sound produced will be identical. However, in the case of, say, ethernet, the DAC (being properly designed) may choose to buffer slightly more data to guard against the somewhat stochastic nature of packet delivery on ethernet, resulting in a subtle startup delay. If your DAC actually sounds different, that is, the signal produced for any randomly selected 10 second interval mid-track, is not identical between USB and ethernet, it is broken and should be returned. But it probably does not.
Eliminating these variables is fiendishly difficult and not worth it.
It doesn't matter what the cues actually are. If your experience of the music is better with ethernet, or golden cables, or 500 pound granite turntables, then you are indeed hearing better sound. This is because hearing is a construct of the mind, NOT because the actual acoustic stuff going on in the air is any different. Usually.
Sometimes there's a real difference, usually because something is busted or poorly made.
-
It doesn't matter what the cues actually are. If your experience of the music is better with ethernet, or golden cables, or 500 pound granite turntables, then you are indeed hearing better sound. This is because hearing is a construct of the mind, NOT because the actual acoustic stuff going on in the air is any different. Usually.
Agreed. For me, this is like the fact that I am fairly sure that I get more enjoyment when I occasionally serve good wine in stylish wine glasses than if I were to serve the same wine in recycled jam jars; the "holistic pleasure" goes beyond the ability to discriminate as measured in a double blind A-B-X. (But I wouldn't spend $10,000 upgrading from my current ~$10/each wine glasses; I'll spend the money on the wine itself.)
Should we next debate the recent Riedel (http://www.riedel.com/all-about-riedel/shapes-pleasure/why-shape-matters/) strategy of selling numerous different type of wine glass, one for each grape variety?
-
For all those confused by all the digital audio tech talk concerning quality control through quantization, DAC, high bit data, etc. I offer a more simple but concise explanation by engineer Monty at xiph.org...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
Don't confuse high bit data output with capture input which is the photographic equivalent of claiming more data is seen with 14 bit camera ADC captures processed and interpolated to 16 bit ProPhotoRGB in ACR/LR but viewed on an 8 bit video screen as long as you use a gold plated display cable connection.
How the hell can anyone find the weak link that affects quality in that spaghetti chain of complex inter-connectivity? I've got some special bundled securities I'ld like to unload at a cheap price if you don't ask too many questions.
-
Was this in a blind listening with a comparator?
Definitely not.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanx! Interesting!
Best regards
Erik
For all those confused by all the digital audio tech talk concerning quality control through quantization, DAC, high bit data, etc. I offer a more simple but concise explanation by engineer Monty at xiph.org...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
Don't confuse high bit data output with capture input which is the photographic equivalent of claiming more data is seen with 14 bit camera ADC captures processed and interpolated to 16 bit ProPhotoRGB in ACR/LR but viewed on an 8 bit video screen as long as you use a gold plated display cable connection.
How the hell can anyone find the weak link that affects quality in that spaghetti chain of complex inter-connectivity? I've got some special bundled securities I'ld like to unload at a cheap price if you don't ask too many questions.
-
For performing (strictly for fun these days) and recording my main guitar amp rig consists of a tweed Fender Deluxe, a Vox AC15 Twin and a Marshall 1958 (18 watts, 2x10" speakers). All three amps well-maintained, outfitted with taste-tested NOS tubes of the proper vintages and running at 1960s-era voltages via custom regulators. (The Vox & Marshall run at stepped-up ~220v, the former 'cuz it sounds better that way and the latter 'cuz its power transformer doesn't speak American.) My main guitars are a Fender Telecaster (ahem!), a Gretsch Chet Atkins, a Supro Dual-Tone (AKA the "Les Paul slayer") and a Fender Jaguar. All 1950s & '60s stuff…'cuz sometimes the "older is better" clichés are true!
However when it comes to listening to recorded music I can hear a great performance of a great song or longer-form piece via my iPad's internal speakers just about as well as via anything else. I often listen to music this way in fact. I also sometimes listen through my guitar amps a la Leo Fender (he favored a Twin Reverb). In mono, of course. The Deluxe in particular is great for judging mix quality…it'll tell you whether or not the audible bass frequencies are dialed in right. And I've actually done mono mixing via a Magnatone Custom 280 (it has a pair of 5" "tweeters" in addition to the two 12"ers.)
:)
-Dave-
-
Should we next debate the recent Riedel (http://www.riedel.com/all-about-riedel/shapes-pleasure/why-shape-matters/) strategy of selling numerous different type of wine glass, one for each grape variety?
People may purchase an expensive car, a watch or an expensive camera (or camera accessory) for a variety of reasons. I think it makes sense to be aware that we (as complex social beings) make our choices and preferences in a hard-to-predict manner, one that we often do not comprehend ourselves. Marketing people are perhaps "experts" in what makes people purchase something, but even they cannot perfectly predict how a product will do.
Does this justify being a party-pooper, ridiculing the guy who spent $1000 on Riesling wine glasses? I don't think so. Let people be people, and let us have our interests and quirks. Only when that guy finds himself a soap-box, claiming for the world that his $1000 significantly altered the physical stimuli to his nose and tongue, and that anyone questioning his physical explanations should stop doing so does it make sense to enter the debate to me.
-h
-
How the hell can anyone find the weak link that affects quality in that spaghetti chain of complex inter-connectivity?
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the link.
How, you ask? It's not that hard, if we stick to the basics.
1. We need to sample at a frequency that's high enough to avoid aliasing. IOW, we need to sample at a frequency of more than 2x the highest input signal (Nyquist) frequency.
2. We can store that information in a digital form after quantization. The more bits we use, the lower the quantization noise will be, but we do not need to go to extremes because human hearing can hardly hear the noise below a certain level (and that level also varies other sound levels present at the same time). There are also methods of hiding the noise by filling in some of the non-randomness of the quantization noise with dithering. And there are dynamic compression methods available which allow to use lower precision, fewer bits.
3. Reduce the amount of noise that's added by the equipment that is used in the chain of events leading to output.
4. Make a cost benefit analysis in design, as to where the most benefits can be gotten in the 3 previous steps.
Spending too much of our resources on step 3 without having done some homework on 1 and 2, doesn't make much sense.
Again, these steps are not really different from Digital Signal Processing (DSP) for imaging, the time domain is just exchanged for the spatial domain (usually in 2D).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Does this justify being a party-pooper, ridiculing the guy who spent $1000 on Riesling wine glasses? I don't think so. Let people be people, and let us have our interests and quirks. Only when that guy finds himself a soap-box, claiming for the world that his $1000 significantly altered the physical stimuli to his nose and tongue ... does it make sense to enter the debate to me.
Agreed! But getting back to my original post, the proponents of $10,000 ethernet cables were on that soap box (and using it to sell expensive snake-oil), and so I deem them fair game to have it kicked out from under them.
-
1. We need to sample at a frequency that's high enough to avoid aliasing. IOW, we need to sample at a frequency of more than 2x the highest input signal (Nyquist) frequency.
2. We can store that information in a digital form after quantization. The more bits we use, the lower the quantization noise will be, but we do not need to go to extremes because human hearing can hardly hear the noise below a certain level (and that level also varies other sound levels present at the same time). ...
Isn't that what the CD standard does: sampling at 44.1KHz (EDIT: after low-pass filtering) in order to faithfully handle frequencies up to about 20KHz, and digitizing at 16 bits on the basis of measurements that this goes beyond what the human ear can discriminate. (Aside: I have read that when Phillips and Sony jointly developed the CD audio standard, Phillips first proposed 12-bit, but Sony provided evidence of an audible advantage in going to 16-bit instead.)
I understand that recording often instead uses an even higher sampling rate, and higher ADC bit depths, so that low pass filters with a gentle roll-off can be applied to the sampled signal before down-samping to the 44.1KHz, 16-bit output format.
-
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the link.
How, you ask? It's not that hard, if we stick to the basics.
1. We need to sample at a frequency that's high enough to avoid aliasing. IOW, we need to sample at a frequency of more than 2x the highest input signal (Nyquist) frequency.
2. We can store that information in a digital form after quantization. The more bits we use, the lower the quantization noise will be, but we do not need to go to extremes because human hearing can hardly hear the noise below a certain level (and that level also varies other sound levels present at the same time). There are also methods of hiding the noise by filling in some of the non-randomness of the quantization noise with dithering. And there are dynamic compression methods available which allow to use lower precision, fewer bits.
3. Reduce the amount of noise that's added by the equipment that is used in the chain of events leading to output.
4. Make a cost benefit analysis in design, as to where the most benefits can be gotten in the 3 previous steps.
Spending too much of our resources on step 3 without having done some homework on 1 and 2, doesn't make much sense.
Again, these steps are not really different from Digital Signal Processing (DSP) for imaging, the time domain is just exchanged for the spatial domain (usually in 2D).
Cheers,
Bart
Yeah, but how does all that tell you what to listen for on whether it improved the image or sound with so many other variables up & down the pipeline which was the point I was making. Listening involves a complete package that can't be easily dissected to determine whether each has an influence.
We don't judge music according to what a scientific instrument indicates about the integrity of the source and output data and as far as I'm concerned it's too complicated to bother to find out. But I know I don't need to spend a lot of money to get a really good sound which may be reproducing 90% of the true integrity of the source. It's just no one in the industry makes it easy to see spending the extra money for the 10% is worth it.
But thanks for the effort behind attempting to explain according to how you interpreted my statement, Bart.
-
I understand that recording often instead uses an even higher sampling rate, and higher ADC bit depths, so that low pass filters with a gentle roll-off can be applied to the sampled signal before down-samping to the 44.1KHz, 16-bit output format.
Yup. 24 bit/96KHz is typical, though you'll see sampling rates of 48, 88.2 and even 192KHz too. For playback I can't hear the difference between 24/48 and 24/96 (typically FLAC format) but depending on the source I can hear 16 bit vs. 24. (Though sometimes a 24-bit master will have had gentler limiting applied to it than the 16-bit version, which complicates A/B comparisons.)
-Dave-
-
If we look at typical good listening systems and rooms and habits, it becomes quite evident that 16 bit sampling for the final delivery format is enough.
First, the ambient noise of the room: rooms with 20 dB SPL ambient noise level is exceptionally good. Most rooms we would consider quiet are in the 30-40 dB SPL range. A good stereo system should be able to put out clean uncompressed 105 dB SPL peaks, this is the K85 monitoring level recommendation (85 dB SPL at -20dBFS). Doing simple math shows that with the 0 dBFS hitting 105 dB SPL output level, the theoretical digital noise level of a 16 bit file is at 105-98=7 dB SPL, which is well below the ambient noise of practically ANY room. Using 24 bit sampling would place most of the extra detail so important to audiophiles not only below the room ambient noise, but also below the threshold of hearing. Besides we can in no circumstances discern detail buried under more than 60 dB of louder signal anyway. The very quietest classical recordings that I have heard had bit over 70 dB of DR between peaks and the recoding venue ambient noise, that is over 20 dB less than what 16 bits can accommodate.
I do classical recoding as a hobby, and both converters* I use are "the best in the world" in a broad sense of the word (difficult to establish the truth in this, if there is one, they are damn good anyway). The signal to noise ratio is around 127 dB or 21 bits worth, which seems to be the practical real world limit at the moment. While I wrote that 16 bit sampling is good enough for delivery, I do record at 24/88.2, not 16/44.1. Why?
Using 24 bit sampling gives a lot of extra headroom at the recording stage. Getting the maximum 16 bit quality means trying the set the levels so that peaks hit almost zero, preferably -0.3 dBFS or so, but NEVER CLIP. Nerve wrecking experience especially in live situations where levels can not be exactly set beforehand. Using 24 bits with a world class ADC means almost 30 dB of safety margin for the same end result. In practice I set the levels about 6 dB lower than where I expect the peaks reach.This brings a lot of safety and peace of mind without quality loss. So the 24 bits is more a safety and convenience thing, not something we can actually hear.
Why higher sample rate? This is more for peace of mind, is a client wants a hi-res file afterwards. There is also one slight quality advantage: the best available sample rate converters** are software based (and free, or practically free), so it just might be so that converting a 24/88.2 or 24/96 file into 16/44.1 with those gives a slightly better end result compared to a in-machine 16/44.1 file.
*) Sound Devices 722 field recorder and Prism Orpheus 8-track ADC/CAD converter
**) Izotope SCR bundled with cheap but excellent Audiofile software, or SoX, which is a free command line driven sample rate converter.
Addendum: I made a test file where part of the signal was original 24/96, part 16/44.1 quality edited in at random intervals (converted to 16/44.1 and back to 24/96). I could not hear which parts were 16/44.1. So I am more than skeptical about the "day and night" difference claimed by some.
-
If we look at typical good listening systems and rooms and habits, it becomes quite evident that 16 bit sampling for the final delivery format is enough.
First, the ambient noise of the room: rooms with 20 dB SPL ambient noise level is exceptionally good. Most rooms we would consider quiet are in the 30-40 dB SPL range. A good stereo system should be able to put out clean uncompressed 105 dB SPL peaks, this is the K85 monitoring level recommendation (85 dB SPL at -20dBFS). Doing simple math shows that with the 0 dBFS hitting 105 dB SPL output level, the theoretical digital noise level of a 16 bit file is at 105-98=7 dB SPL, which is well below the ambient noise of practically ANY room. Using 24 bit sampling would place most of the extra detail so important to audiophiles not only below the room ambient noise, but also below the threshold of hearing. Besides we can in no circumstances discern detail buried under more than 60 dB of louder signal anyway. The very quietest classical recordings that I have heard had bit over 70 dB of DR between peaks and the recoding venue ambient noise, that is over 20 dB less than what 16 bits can accommodate.
I'd note that dB SPL may not be a sufficient metric in this context. Acoustic room noise tends to be highly non-flat (lowpass). So while the broad-band acoustic noise power rating may be e.g. 60dB below signal peaks (either in recording or comfortable listening), acoustic signal-to-noise-power at 1-4kHz (where our hearing is most sensitive) or 12kHz could be significantly higher.
Stated simpler: even if room noise completely overwhelms electronic noise at 250Hz (so as to make it irrelevant), this does not exclude the possibility that the situation is reversed at 4kHz or 12kHz.
Using 24 bit sampling gives a lot of extra headroom at the recording stage. Getting the maximum 16 bit quality means trying the set the levels so that peaks hit almost zero, preferably -0.3 dBFS or so, but NEVER CLIP. Nerve wrecking experience especially in live situations where levels can not be exactly set beforehand. Using 24 bits with a world class ADC means almost 30 dB of safety margin for the same end result. In practice I set the levels about 6 dB lower than where I expect the peaks reach.This brings a lot of safety and peace of mind without quality loss. So the 24 bits is more a safety and convenience thing, not something we can actually hear.
Exactly. Just like having 14 stops of DR in our cameras might not be technically _needed_ most of the time, it allows us to be more relaxed with highlight clipping, meaning that we can consentrate on grabbing the right image instead of constantly working to compensate for camera technology.
Why higher sample rate? This is more for peace of mind, is a client wants a hi-res file afterwards. There is also one slight quality advantage: the best available sample rate converters** are software based (and free, or practically free), so it just might be so that converting a 24/88.2 or 24/96 file into 16/44.1 with those gives a slightly better end result compared to a in-machine 16/44.1 file.
An "ADC" is in many ways a "black box". We may (sensibly) speculate that it will typically contain some clock circuitry, an analog stage converting analog voltages into some discrete representation, a digital stage doing filtering and processing in order to shape the samples into a "standard representation" that makes sense outside of proprietary implementations, and an output stage spitting out data over spdif, firewire, USB or whatnot. My point is that the discretization will typically be fixed at some high-rate, few-bit representation that happens to be the most performance:cost optimized at the time of manufacture. Some internal dsp will likely do the equivalent of resampling in order to give both 44.1kHz and 96kHz.
If this is true, I fail to see how one could cathegorically claim that 96kHz followed by software downsampling is the "better" output option. I agree that after careful testing, one might find that a given set of options are "best" for a particular device, but I doubt that anyone will be able to hear this best-ness in a controlled, relevant listening test for anything but seriously flawed products.
Now, if you carefully design your listening test for maximizing the probability of detection, that is another story. I would try recording certain percusive instruments upclose using wide bandwidth microphones, followed by 2x (octave) or more of pitch-shifting downwards. Eventually, the high-frequency details that are dismissed as irrelevant in discussions like these, will be highly audible.
-h