[Steve King]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"Steve King" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

BIG SNIP

In other words, the current practice doesn't require a standard
reference.
No argument there. But, if I had an audio art piece that I felt was best
presented at a particular volume level (other than 'as loud as you
can'),
how would I instruct the listener? Note that I'm simply pressing the
question, not advocating for it.

'NOTHER BIG SNIP --

Where would you stop in your instructions to the listener? Size of
listening room, room accoustics, and ambient noise levels might have even
more impact on the listening experience than the SPL of the loudest
sounds in the recording. No single standard could fit all listening
rooms and all listeners. At some point you have to relenquish control of
the experience. Make the best recording you can. You're done. Unless,
the "audio art piece" will only be presented in a strictly specified and
highly controlled listening environment, come to think of it. Are you
thinking of a museum setting? Or something similar? Is that what this
is all about?

Steve King

The simplest example I can share with you as to why the subject might be
interesting is a live vs recorded demo. Suppose you make a recording of a
man playing a concert grand piano, and want to compare your playback to
the real thing. One moment he is really playing, the next he is just
moving his hands up and down the keyboard pretending to play while the
recording takes over. In this example, we would be interested in some way
to set the playback volume so that it matches the live loudness.

How might we do that? A little difficult to use just the music signal,
because it is percussion and there is not much of a continuous tone to
measure. Whip up a 1k tone or 1k pink noise generator, and match the
recorded volume with the real generator when setting up? Seems workable,
but for a general recording the listeners would not have the tone
generator available for comparison.

So suppose someone made such devices and sold them for high end
audiophiles to use. Would such a system work?

This is just a curiosity question, not intended to start a food fight.
Feel free to brainstorm, but remain in a neutral corner.

Gary Eickmeier

Good idea. From a neutral corner. I believe that there will always be
perceptible differences between the live performance and the playback. I'm
assuming that you are speaking of playing back in the same room as the live
performance. If that is wrong, then what I said earlier in my very self
indulgent, but very fun, for me, reposte still applies. The volume of
playback is the least of the problem. The room, the ambient sound, the
playback system, plus the way a piano radiates sound compared to the way a
speaker does will all conspire to create a different listening experience
compared to being present at the live (recorded) performance. As far as
marketing a pink noise generator and SPL meter kit for audiophiles, that's
a great idea. Use really good components and rebrand the cases/face plates.
Put a really, really, really high price on it. Spread the word on
audiophile sites. Emphasize the limited production. Make only a few
available a month. You'll be rolling in dough. Of course, the fact that
the device won't get you down the road even a millimeter toward duplicating
the live listening experience in random rooms with random playback systems
should not be mentioned in your blog posts. Oxygen! Include high oxygen
copper use in printed circuit boards in all your marketing. I think you
might have a winner.

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The "color temperature" of a fluorescent bulb has little relation to

BIG SNIP


A colorimeter doesn't tell you whether a given hue will look the same
or different under two light sources

My colorimeters give RGB readings of reflected or transmitted color to 32
bit accuracy. Do you have one colorimeter? If so, take a reading of the
chart under the conditions I specified and see if you can come back with
the
same conclusion.

--
best regards,

Neil

I do love it, when the arguments here devolve into "mine's bigger than
yours, so there!" I'm pretty certain that God created Usenet to keep
himself humble by displaying the imperfection of His creations.

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Steve King wrote:

Where would you stop in your instructions to the listener? Size of
listening room, room accoustics, and ambient noise levels might have even
more impact on the listening experience than the SPL of the loudest sounds
in the recording. No single standard could fit all listening rooms and
all
listeners. At some point you have to relenquish control of the
experience.

"We were really stoned when we made this album. You should be that way
when you listen to it."
-- Liner Notes for Hapshash And the Coloured Coat

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

We have a winner, gentlemen.

Steve King

[Frank Stearns]

"Steve King" writes:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/18/2012 11:12 AM, Neil Gould wrote:



BIG SNIP


Well, one would still hear the 10dB SPL DR when played back with 30dB
peaks.
;-) The question, as I understand it, is, how to achieve what artist
intended?


Okay, here's what I want to know. Does anyone who makes recordings for a
living, composer, engineer, musician, singer (I guess one of them at least
must be an 'artiste'), ever consider trying to tell a listener to those
recordings where to set the freakin' volume control? Pipe up and let us

Yes, but not to an absolute number. When there's room, I have the artist add
something like this:

==
A TECHNICAL NOTE: You might find that this recording "plays softer" than others you
own. This recording has been engineered to better preserve natural dynamics. We
invite you to turn up your volume control just a little to enjoy the full bloom of
dynamic range.
==

I still use compression, but judiciously and not automatically, and I've got a good
mastering guy who even though he also does head-banger crap from time to time, is
right there on the same page for the classical and acoustical stuff I bring in.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[William Sommerwerck]

Hmm. They have a real color temperature, since all light sources
do by definition:
http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm

Oh? And what would the color termperature of source emitting magenta light
be?

[William Sommerwerck]

In a broad sense, the color temperature of a light source is the temperature
of a black-body that emits the same visible color (as seen by the eye).

[Steve King]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...
"Steve King" writes:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/18/2012 11:12 AM, Neil Gould wrote:



BIG SNIP


Well, one would still hear the 10dB SPL DR when played back with 30dB
peaks.
;-) The question, as I understand it, is, how to achieve what artist
intended?


Okay, here's what I want to know. Does anyone who makes recordings for a
living, composer, engineer, musician, singer (I guess one of them at least
must be an 'artiste'), ever consider trying to tell a listener to those
recordings where to set the freakin' volume control? Pipe up and let us

Yes, but not to an absolute number. When there's room, I have the artist
add
something like this:

==
A TECHNICAL NOTE: You might find that this recording "plays softer" than
others you
own. This recording has been engineered to better preserve natural
dynamics. We
invite you to turn up your volume control just a little to enjoy the full
bloom of
dynamic range.
==

I still use compression, but judiciously and not automatically, and I've
got a good
mastering guy who even though he also does head-banger crap from time to
time, is
right there on the same page for the classical and acoustical stuff I
bring in.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

That's a useful technical note. (But Scott's quote is still the winner;-)
I should have included you in my list of the people who make this group so
useful. And Richard Webb. And others, you know who you are;-) I get so much
from people actually doing the work compared to those who mostly just talk
about it.

Steve King

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
In common usage, I agree with this. The emission spectrum (the term
I should have used to be more precise) that can not be determined by
that rating.

Once again you are using a word incorrectly and people are jumping on
you. All of the argument you have gotten into in this group has to do
with your incorrect and imprecise use of technical words.

Such as, when you made the same claim about my use of "dynamic range", which
you called "bizarrely incorrect", and then proceded to define it in exactly
the same way as my usage when I pressed you on it? You didn't reply to my
question to you about that, btw, and if you do have a response to clarify
your claim, I would appreciate seeing it.

Incomplete spectrum sources (ie. emission sources) like fluorescent
lamps and LEDs do not actually have a real color temperature.

Hmm. They have a real color temperature, since all light sources do
by definition:
http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

And there are plenty of sources for which the marketing department
can't even cook up a "correlated color temperature." Pick a red LED
for instance, which is a narrowband source.

And, here is another example where I would appreciate a clarification
(seriously!).

From your wikipedia definition:
"The color temperature of a light source is the temperature of an ideal
black body radiator that radiates light of comparable hue to that of the
light source."

and later in the document:
"Many other light sources, such as fluorescent lamps, emit light primarily
by processes other than thermal radiation. This means the emitted radiation
does not follow the form of a black body spectrum. These sources are
assigned what is known as a correlated color temperature (CCT). CCT is the
color temperature of a black body radiator which to human color perception
most closely matches the light from the lamp."

I could fine no restriction that would prevent the assignment of a CCT due
to the bandwidth of the source. So, I find your assertion that LEDs and
other narrow-band light emitters can not be assigned a CCT puzzling. Why did
you make that claim, and what supports your position?

We can all be imprecise at times, just as I was by omitting "correlated"
when stating that all light sources have a "color temperature".

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

From your wikipedia definition:
"The color temperature of a light source is the temperature of an ideal
black body radiator that radiates light of comparable hue to that of the
light source."

and later in the document:
"Many other light sources, such as fluorescent lamps, emit light primarily
by processes other than thermal radiation. This means the emitted
radiation
does not follow the form of a black body spectrum. These sources are
assigned what is known as a correlated color temperature (CCT). CCT is the
color temperature of a black body radiator which to human color perception
most closely matches the light from the lamp."

This is my understanding.


I could fine no restriction that would prevent the assignment of a CCT due
to the bandwidth of the source. So, I find your assertion that LEDs and
other narrow-band light emitters can not be assigned a CCT puzzling. Why
did
you make that claim, and what supports your position?

Because a black-body source is continuous and wideband, you would never be
able to find a black-body source that looked like a red LED.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I could fine no restriction that would prevent the assignment of a CCT due
to the bandwidth of the source. So, I find your assertion that LEDs and
other narrow-band light emitters can not be assigned a CCT puzzling. Why
did
you make that claim, and what supports your position?

Because a black-body source is continuous and wideband, you would never be
able to find a black-body source that looked like a red LED.

The marketing people can wave their arms and toss out a random number. That
is basically where the CCT comes from. It is not a real color temperature,
it comes from someone looking at two curves and saying "those are close enough
that we can get away with that."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Neil Gould wrote (typo and all...):
I could fine no restriction that would prevent the assignment of a
CCT due to the bandwidth of the source. So, I find your assertion
that LEDs and other narrow-band light emitters can not be assigned
a CCT puzzling. Why did you make that claim, and what supports your
position?

Because a black-body source is continuous and wideband, you would
never be able to find a black-body source that looked like a red LED.

The requirement for assignment is the reverse, and based *only* on
perception. Perceptual evaluation is not likely to reliably differentiate
color bandwidths.


The marketing people can wave their arms and toss out a random
number. That is basically where the CCT comes from. It is not a
real color temperature, it comes from someone looking at two curves
and saying "those are close enough that we can get away with that."

I take it that you agree that there is no formal restriction based on the
source's bandwidth, and therefore LEDs and perhaps even laser light can be
given a legitimate CCT value?

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Neil Gould wrote (typo and all...):

I could fine no restriction that would prevent the assignment of a
CCT due to the bandwidth of the source. So, I find your assertion
that LEDs and other narrow-band light emitters can not be assigned
a CCT puzzling. Why did you make that claim, and what supports your
position?

Because a black-body source is continuous and wideband, you would
never be able to find a black-body source that looked like a red LED.

The requirement for assignment is the reverse, and based *only* on
perception. Perceptual evaluation is not likely to reliably differentiate
color bandwidths.

The problem is that LEDs produce colors that are essentially 100% saturated.
A continuous cannot produce a 100%-saturated color, so there can be no
match.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Neil Gould wrote (typo and all...):

I could fine no restriction that would prevent the assignment of
a
CCT due to the bandwidth of the source. So, I find your assertion
that LEDs and other narrow-band light emitters can not be assigned
a CCT puzzling. Why did you make that claim, and what supports your
position?

Because a black-body source is continuous and wideband, you would
never be able to find a black-body source that looked like a red
LED.

The requirement for assignment is the reverse, and based *only* on
perception. Perceptual evaluation is not likely to reliably
differentiate color bandwidths.

The problem is that LEDs produce colors that are essentially 100%
saturated.

Not necessarily. The colors that LEDs produce can be varied by modulation,
and since the best way to prolong the life of an LED is through modulation,
it is no big deal to produce multi-tonal colors at the same time. They still
won't be broad spectrum, but there are other low-bandwidth light sources
with the same K values, too.

A continuous cannot produce a 100%-saturated color, so
there can be no match.

I agree that there would be no match if the measurement was done using
colorimetric devices (and that is likely how the measurements are done in
this day and age), but it isn't in the spec, so that doesn't matter.
Apparently, what one "sees" is good enough, and that can be all over the
place.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
The marketing people can wave their arms and toss out a random
number. That is basically where the CCT comes from. It is not a
real color temperature, it comes from someone looking at two curves
and saying "those are close enough that we can get away with that."

I take it that you agree that there is no formal restriction based on the
source's bandwidth, and therefore LEDs and perhaps even laser light can be
given a legitimate CCT value?

There is no such thing as a legitimate CCT value. It is a bull**** number.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
And there are plenty of sources for which the marketing department can't
even
cook up a "correlated color temperature." Pick a red LED for instance,
which
is a narrowband source.

??
It is easier to determine "color temperature" for a narrowband source than
one which is flat over a wide band.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

It is easier to determine "color temperature" for a narrowband
source than one which is flat over a wide band.

Black-body-radiation sources ARE NOT flat over a wide band. Please do a bit
of reading about this.

Some of the people posting here understand what "color temperature" is and
means. Most do not.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
The marketing people can wave their arms and toss out a random
number. That is basically where the CCT comes from. It is not a
real color temperature, it comes from someone looking at two curves
and saying "those are close enough that we can get away with that."

I take it that you agree that there is no formal restriction based
on the source's bandwidth, and therefore LEDs and perhaps even laser
light can be given a legitimate CCT value?

There is no such thing as a legitimate CCT value. It is a bull****
number.

Then, what is your referenced document writing about? Or is it a bull****
reference? ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It is easier to determine "color temperature" for a narrowband
source than one which is flat over a wide band.

Black-body-radiation sources ARE NOT flat over a wide band. Please do
a bit of reading about this.

In the specification for establishing a color temperature, sent by Scott and
which you claim is "as you understand it", there is no bandwidth requirement
at all. The light should go off in your head that a color temperature value
is based on something other than bandwidth (pun intended), and therefore
Trevor's statement is absolutely in keeping with the spec.

Furthermore, you keep reversing the assessment process, as you do above, by
implying that the black-body radiation source (i.e. heated carbon block) is
used for *anything other* than establishing the *temperature* that generates
a hue similar to the source being tested. Again, no bandwidth measurement is
required, so the bandwidth of the black-source radiator is interesting, but
irrelevant.

Some of the people posting here understand what "color temperature"
is and means. Most do not.

You'd do much better to drop the insults and start thinking about what you
"know".

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

It is easier to determine "color temperature" for a narrowband
source than one which is flat over a wide band.

Black-body-radiation sources ARE NOT flat over a wide band.
Please doz a bit of reading about this.

In the specification for establishing a color temperature, sent by Scott
and
which you claim is "as you understand it", there is no bandwidth
requirement
at all. The light should go off in your head that a color temperature
value
is based on something other than bandwidth (pun intended), and therefore
Trevor's statement is absolutely in keeping with the spec.

Furthermore, you keep reversing the assessment process, as you do above,
by
implying that the black-body radiation source (i.e. heated carbon block)
is
used for *anything other* than establishing the *temperature* that
generates
a hue similar to the source being tested. Again, no bandwidth measurement
is
required, so the bandwidth of the black-source radiator is interesting,
but
irrelevant.

Some of the people posting here understand what "color temperature"
is and means. Most do not.

You'd do much better to drop the insults and start thinking about what you
"know".

A hell of a lot more than you do. The fact that "you started this" by
suggesting an unjustifiable parallel between color temperature and SPL (or
dynamic range -- I don't remember which) show that you don't understand what
color temperature is about.

Color temperature is based on visual equivalence. A continuous source cannot
produce the same visual impression as a monochromatic red LED. Period. It
isn't possible.

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated, but I'll keep repeating
it until it sinks in. Because the eye doesn't respond to light the same way
as photographic materials, a continuous light source and a discontinuous
light source can look different to the eye, yet produce essentially the same
results when exposing film. And vice-versa.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
The marketing people can wave their arms and toss out a random
number. That is basically where the CCT comes from. It is not a
real color temperature, it comes from someone looking at two curves
and saying "those are close enough that we can get away with that."

I take it that you agree that there is no formal restriction based
on the source's bandwidth, and therefore LEDs and perhaps even laser
light can be given a legitimate CCT value?

There is no such thing as a legitimate CCT value. It is a bull****
number.

Then, what is your referenced document writing about? Or is it a bull****
reference? ;-)

It is writing about the difference between a color temperature and a
"correlated color temperature."
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
The "color temperature" of a fluorescent bulb has little relation to
the color temperature of an incandescent lamp, primarily because the
spectrum isn't continuous.

This is closer, but still misses the obvious. For one thing, the color
temperature of lamps will vary by construction, as well. But, to address
the
point, you can't tell the color temperature of a lamp simply by its K
rating!

Then what is the point of the rating?


It is like every other specification - an attempt to characterize something
that can be very complex with just a few (in this case just 1) number.

William, your comment makes me think that you don't know why Neil's
statement is true.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

It is easier to determine "color temperature" for a narrowband
source than one which is flat over a wide band.

Black-body-radiation sources ARE NOT flat over a wide band.
Please doz a bit of reading about this.

In the specification for establishing a color temperature, sent by
Scott and which you claim is "as you understand it", there is no
bandwidth requirement at all. The light should go off in your head
that a color temperature value is based on something other than
bandwidth (pun intended), and therefore Trevor's statement is
absolutely in keeping with the spec.

Furthermore, you keep reversing the assessment process, as you do
above, by implying that the black-body radiation source (i.e. heated
carbon block) is used for *anything other* than establishing the
*temperature* that generates a hue similar to the source being
tested. Again, no bandwidth measurement is required, so the
bandwidth of the black-source radiator is interesting, but
irrelevant.

Some of the people posting here understand what "color temperature"
is and means. Most do not.

You'd do much better to drop the insults and start thinking about
what you "know".

A hell of a lot more than you do. The fact that "you started this" by
suggesting an unjustifiable parallel between color temperature and
SPL (or dynamic range -- I don't remember which) show that you don't
understand what color temperature is about.

The answer to this is "neither", as the parallel that I drew was about THE
USE OF STANDARDS and nothing more. You just didn't get it, and largely
because you didn't understand what I wrote. In one instance, you even asked
about the basic meaning of the words used in the paragraph when you insisted
that I was changing the subject! So, at the very least, you are in no
position to make a comparative analysis of our knowledge level.

Color temperature is based on visual equivalence. A continuous source
cannot produce the same visual impression as a monochromatic red LED.
Period. It isn't possible.

Too bad that the reason for this *can not be* a component of the spec for
reasons that a high school physics student can understand. Ergo, color
temperature (or CCT) can be assigned to any light source in accordance to
the spec. So sad that it doesn't meet with your approval.
--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

The "color temperature" of a fluorescent bulb has little relation to
the color temperature of an incandescent lamp, primarily because the
spectrum isn't continuous.

This is closer, but still misses the obvious. For one thing, the color
temperature of lamps will vary by construction, as well. But, to address
the point, you can't tell the color temperature of a lamp simply by its
K
rating!

Then what is the point of the rating?

This was not a question. It was an ironic/sarcastic remark.

It is like every other specification - an attempt to characterize
something
that can be very complex with just a few (in this case just 1) number.

William, your comment makes me think that you don't know why Neil's
statement is true.

Almost everything Neil says ISN'T true.

I have "prejudices" about color temperature that are related to photography.

In the days of film, it was assumed that any 3200K film could be paired with
any 3200K lamp, and the color balance would be essentially correct.

The introduction of CFL and LED lighting throws the original concept of
color temperature into a cocked hat, because (as far as photographers are
concerned), a 5500K lamp should provide correct (or nearly correct) color
balance -- regardless of what color it appears to the eye.

If I'm missing something here, please tell me what it is.

[William Sommerwerck]

The introduction of CFL and LED lighting throws the original concept of
color temperature into a cocked hat, because (as far as photographers are
concerned), a 5500K lamp should provide correct (or nearly correct) color
balance -- regardless of what color it appears to the eye.

That should have been...

The introduction of CFL and LED lighting throws the original concept of
color temperature into a cocked hat, because (as far as photographers are
concerned), a 5500K lamp should provide correct (or nearly correct) color
balance when the camera is set for 5500K -- regardless of what color it
appears to the eye.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have "prejudices" about color temperature that are related to
photography.

In the days of film, it was assumed that any 3200K film could be
paired with any 3200K lamp, and the color balance would be
essentially correct.

The introduction of CFL and LED lighting throws the original concept
of color temperature into a cocked hat, because (as far as
photographers are concerned), a 5500K lamp should provide correct (or
nearly correct) color balance -- regardless of what color it appears
to the eye.

If I'm missing something here, please tell me what it is.

You're missing several things.

For one thing, photography is not, and never was the sole use of color
temperature values. Therefore, the spec has to be relevant across a broader
usage base. Guess what? It is.

However, even in that area, it is *the film* that determines what an image's
color balace will be; Kodochrome looks different from Ektachrome, Portra,
Ilford films, Elke films and so forth *even when shooting the same subjects
with the same lighting*. Film is also a fairly crude medium with regard to
rendering color. In order to predict what color balances I will get when
shooting, I buy film in blocks. Surely, you don't need to be told why.

Your assumptions have been shown to be incorrect by the very reference that
you claim represents your understanding of the concept and measurement of
color temperature, and still you persist in your belief that I am wrong.

I'm awfully glad that the people that pay me well to do such things as shoot
pictures when color balance is critical have a different opinion of me. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 9/20/2012 1:33 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

The "color temperature" of a fluorescent bulb has little relation to
the color temperature of an incandescent lamp, primarily because the
spectrum isn't continuous.

This is closer, but still misses the obvious. For one thing, the color
temperature of lamps will vary by construction, as well. But, to address
the point, you can't tell the color temperature of a lamp simply by its
K
rating!

Then what is the point of the rating?

This was not a question. It was an ironic/sarcastic remark.

It is like every other specification - an attempt to characterize
something
that can be very complex with just a few (in this case just 1) number.

William, your comment makes me think that you don't know why Neil's
statement is true.

Almost everything Neil says ISN'T true.

I have "prejudices" about color temperature that are related to photography.

In the days of film, it was assumed that any 3200K film could be paired with
any 3200K lamp, and the color balance would be essentially correct.

The introduction of CFL and LED lighting throws the original concept of
color temperature into a cocked hat, because (as far as photographers are
concerned), a 5500K lamp should provide correct (or nearly correct) color
balance -- regardless of what color it appears to the eye.

If I'm missing something here, please tell me what it is.



One thing you guys seem to be missing is that this branch
of the thread should have moved to sci.optics long ago.
[I'd add sci.physics but the noise level there is ridiculous.]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Scott wrote:
There is no such thing as a legitimate CCT value. It is a bull****
number.

Then, what is your referenced document writing about? Or is it a
bull**** reference? ;-)

It is writing about the difference between a color temperature and a
"correlated color temperature."

So, I take it you have issues with Davis' work on the topic? ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have "prejudices" about color temperature that are related to
photography.

In the days of film, it was assumed that any 3200K film could be
paired with any 3200K lamp, and the color balance would be
essentially correct.

The introduction of CFL and LED lighting throws the original concept
of color temperature into a cocked hat, because (as far as
photographers are concerned), a 5500K lamp should provide correct
(or nearly correct) color balance -- regardless of what color it appears
to the eye.

If I'm missing something here, please tell me what it is.

You're missing several things.

For one thing, photography is not, and never was the sole use of color
temperature values. Therefore, the spec has to be relevant across a
broader
usage base. Guess what? It is.

However, even in that area, it is *the film* that determines what an
image's
color balace will be; Kodochrome looks different from Ektachrome, Portra,
Ilford films, Elke films and so forth *even when shooting the same
subjects
with the same lighting*.

Bugger off, moron.

This is exactly what others have been criticizing you for. OF COURSE
Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Ektachrome, etc, etc, etc have different color
balances. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. You are deliberately
misusing terminology to confuse the issue and defend an indefensible point
of view.

You must be a delight to work with.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have "prejudices" about color temperature that are related to
photography.

In the days of film, it was assumed that any 3200K film could be
paired with any 3200K lamp, and the color balance would be
essentially correct.

The introduction of CFL and LED lighting throws the original concept
of color temperature into a cocked hat, because (as far as
photographers are concerned), a 5500K lamp should provide correct
(or nearly correct) color balance -- regardless of what color it
appears to the eye.

If I'm missing something here, please tell me what it is.

You're missing several things.

For one thing, photography is not, and never was the sole use of
color temperature values. Therefore, the spec has to be relevant
across a broader usage base. Guess what? It is.

However, even in that area, it is *the film* that determines what an
image's color balace will be; Kodochrome looks different from
Ektachrome, Portra, Ilford films, Elke films and so forth *even when
shooting the same subjects with the same lighting*.

Bugger off, moron.

You wish.

This is exactly what others have been criticizing you for. OF COURSE
Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Ektachrome, etc, etc, etc have different color
balances. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. You are deliberately
misusing terminology to confuse the issue and defend an indefensible
point of view.

What misuse of terminology this time... the part you deleted to obfiscate
the truth? You claim, above, that "In the days of film, it was assumed that
any 3200K film could be paired with any 3200K lamp, and the color balance
would be essentially correct", which is not true. If color balance is
critical, it is not enough to simply choose "any 3200K film" and pair it
with a 3200K lamp to get correct color balance. Any pro photographer will
tell you the same thing, which is why we shoot a test roll and use film from
the same batch when it's important to get more than a "pleasing color" match
(the part of my post that you deleted to obfiscate the truth).

You must be a delight to work with.

My clients do think so.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

This is exactly what others have been criticizing you for. OF COURSE
Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Ektachrome, etc, etc, etc have different color
balances. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. You are deliberately
misusing terminology to confuse the issue and defend an indefensible
point of view.

What misuse of terminology this time... the part you deleted to obfiscate
the truth? You claim, above, that "In the days of film, it was assumed
that
any 3200K film could be paired with any 3200K lamp, and the color balance
would be essentially correct", which is not true. If color balance is
critical, it is not enough to simply choose "any 3200K film" and pair it
with a 3200K lamp to get correct color balance. Any pro photographer will
tell you the same thing, which is why we shoot a test roll and use film
from
the same batch when it's important to get more than a "pleasing color"
match
(the part of my post that you deleted to obfiscate the truth).

What a maroon.

The color balance of a particular material -- Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, etc -- has
nothing whatever to do with whether that film is balanced for a particular
illumination source. They are not the same sort of balance.

Either Neil doesn't understand this, or he's deliberately trying to confuse
what we were "discussing".

[William Sommerwerck]

These are my final comments on this.

It took me many years to learn that whatever popped into my head wasn't
necessarily correct. I therefore have less than zero patience with people
who do, and give them a bad time about it. To anyone who doesn't like
that... Tough.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Steve King" wrote in message
...

Good idea. From a neutral corner. I believe that there will always be
perceptible differences between the live performance and the playback.
I'm assuming that you are speaking of playing back in the same room as the
live performance. If that is wrong, then what I said earlier in my very
self indulgent, but very fun, for me, reposte still applies. The volume
of playback is the least of the problem. The room, the ambient sound, the
playback system, plus the way a piano radiates sound compared to the way a
speaker does will all conspire to create a different listening experience
compared to being present at the live (recorded) performance.

Steve -

That is amazing to me - where were you when I was talking about the
importance of radiation patterns and "The Big Three" of speaker positioning,
radiation pattern, and the acoustics of the room? It seems I am always
dragged thru the hot coals when I try to emphasize these things and apply
them to the difference between live and recorded.

NOT to start a whole new side topic, just wondering if you had supported me
then or not (?)

No, I don't remember a specific thread or exchange, just speaking in general
about the difficulty I have had in putting this out.

As for loudness, that is the first requirement of any comparison test,
whether blind or sighted. That is why I started this thread, that we have no
way of knowing the "correct" volume to use in playback to compare with even
the recording engineer's memory of the original.

Gary Eickmeier

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
This is exactly what others have been criticizing you for. OF COURSE
Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Ektachrome, etc, etc, etc have different
color balances. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. You are
deliberately misusing terminology to confuse the issue and defend
an indefensible point of view.

What misuse of terminology this time... the part you deleted to
obfiscate the truth? You claim, above, that "In the days of film, it
was assumed that any 3200K film could be paired with any 3200K lamp,
and the color balance would be essentially correct", which is not
true. If color balance is critical, it is not enough to simply
choose "any 3200K film" and pair it with a 3200K lamp to get correct
color balance. Any pro photographer will tell you the same thing,
which is why we shoot a test roll and use film from the same batch
when it's important to get more than a "pleasing color" match (the
part of my post that you deleted to obfiscate the truth).

What a maroon.

The color balance of a particular material -- Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, etc
-- has nothing whatever to do with whether that film is balanced for
a particular illumination source. They are not the same sort of
balance.

Unfortunately, you missed the point yet again. I gave *two examples* of _why
film is more determinant of *an image's color balance* than the K value of
the illumnation_, the first being the film type, and the second being the
difference between film batches. The context of those statements was
established in the first sentence of the paragraph on 9/20/2012 where, after
*you* introduced film into the discussion, I stated, "However, even in that
area, it is the film that determines what an image's color balace will be;".

To make it clear to anyone who really cares at this point, the *subject* is
the _color balance of the *image*_, not, as you assert, "the color balance
of a particular material" (whatever you really mean by that, but I'm not
going there). The variables are 1) the film type, and 2) the film batch. And
the point was that these variables are more determinant of the image's color
balance than the K rating of the lighting. If you disagree with any of
that, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Steve King]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"Steve King" wrote in message
...

Good idea. From a neutral corner. I believe that there will always be
perceptible differences between the live performance and the playback.
I'm assuming that you are speaking of playing back in the same room as
the live performance. If that is wrong, then what I said earlier in my
very self indulgent, but very fun, for me, reposte still applies. The
volume of playback is the least of the problem. The room, the ambient
sound, the playback system, plus the way a piano radiates sound compared
to the way a speaker does will all conspire to create a different
listening experience compared to being present at the live (recorded)
performance.

Steve -

That is amazing to me - where were you when I was talking about the
importance of radiation patterns and "The Big Three" of speaker
positioning, radiation pattern, and the acoustics of the room? It seems I
am always dragged thru the hot coals when I try to emphasize these things
and apply them to the difference between live and recorded.

NOT to start a whole new side topic, just wondering if you had supported
me then or not (?)

No, I don't remember a specific thread or exchange, just speaking in
general about the difficulty I have had in putting this out.

As for loudness, that is the first requirement of any comparison test,
whether blind or sighted. That is why I started this thread, that we have
no way of knowing the "correct" volume to use in playback to compare with
even the recording engineer's memory of the original.

Gary Eickmeier

Supported you? This isn't Fantasy Audio! And, for the last time, there is
no freaking "correct" playback volume, as a general concept.

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
This is exactly what others have been criticizing you for. OF COURSE
Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Ektachrome, etc, etc, etc have different
color balances. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. You are
deliberately misusing terminology to confuse the issue and defend
an indefensible point of view.

What misuse of terminology this time... the part you deleted to
obfiscate the truth? You claim, above, that "In the days of film, it
was assumed that any 3200K film could be paired with any 3200K lamp,
and the color balance would be essentially correct", which is not
true. If color balance is critical, it is not enough to simply
choose "any 3200K film" and pair it with a 3200K lamp to get correct
color balance. Any pro photographer will tell you the same thing,
which is why we shoot a test roll and use film from the same batch
when it's important to get more than a "pleasing color" match (the
part of my post that you deleted to obfiscate the truth).

What a maroon.

The color balance of a particular material -- Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, etc
-- has nothing whatever to do with whether that film is balanced for
a particular illumination source. They are not the same sort of
balance.

Unfortunately, you missed the point yet again. I gave *two examples* of
_why
film is more determinant of *an image's color balance* than the K value of
the illumnation_, the first being the film type, and the second being the
difference between film batches. The context of those statements was
established in the first sentence of the paragraph on 9/20/2012 where,
after
*you* introduced film into the discussion, I stated, "However, even in
that
area, it is the film that determines what an image's color balace will
be;".

To make it clear to anyone who really cares at this point, the *subject*
is
the _color balance of the *image*_,
SNIP

best regards,

Neil

Actually, the subject is loudness control.

Steve King

[Neil Gould]

Steve King wrote:

Actually, the subject is loudness control.

Well, I thought that the *topic* is loundess control, which is what I tried
to clarify 'way back near the beginning, although Gary E., who started the
topic, did not confirm that. Within that topic, many off-topic subjects have
been discussed.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Steve King" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

"Steve King" wrote in message
...

Good idea. From a neutral corner. I believe that there will always be
perceptible differences between the live performance and the playback.
I'm assuming that you are speaking of playing back in the same room as
the live performance. If that is wrong, then what I said earlier in my
very self indulgent, but very fun, for me, reposte still applies. The
volume of playback is the least of the problem. The room, the ambient
sound, the playback system, plus the way a piano radiates sound compared
to the way a speaker does will all conspire to create a different
listening experience compared to being present at the live (recorded)
performance.

Steve -

That is amazing to me - where were you when I was talking about the
importance of radiation patterns and "The Big Three" of speaker
positioning, radiation pattern, and the acoustics of the room? It seems I
am always dragged thru the hot coals when I try to emphasize these things
and apply them to the difference between live and recorded.

NOT to start a whole new side topic, just wondering if you had supported
me then or not (?)

No, I don't remember a specific thread or exchange, just speaking in
general about the difficulty I have had in putting this out.

As for loudness, that is the first requirement of any comparison test,
whether blind or sighted. That is why I started this thread, that we have
no way of knowing the "correct" volume to use in playback to compare with
even the recording engineer's memory of the original.

Gary Eickmeier

Supported you? This isn't Fantasy Audio! And, for the last time, there
is no freaking "correct" playback volume, as a general concept.

Steve King

Beggin' yer pardon General, but I just intended that as a technical
question, not did you become my blood brother. Why do audio people have to
"war" rather than discuss? Nothing personal intended.

As for volume, again, do you not seek a volume in playback that makes a
particular recording sound the most real? Not talking about background
music, elevator music, doing homework music, but rather attempts at high
fidelity playback. It is my sense that first of all, there is some volume
that seems most realistic. Secondly, lower volumes begin to lose details in
the lowest loudness regions of the recording, and thirdly there is a "too
loud" setting that becomes obnoxious and unpleasant and unrealistic.

So just tell me, is that not your sense as well, as an experienced listener?
We all know about Fletcher and Munson - but I am asking about King and
Eickmeier - would you support those opinions?

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

As for volume, again, do you not seek a volume in playback that makes a
particular recording sound the most real? Not talking about background
music, elevator music, doing homework music, but rather attempts at high
fidelity playback. It is my sense that first of all, there is some volume
that seems most realistic. Secondly, lower volumes begin to lose details in
the lowest loudness regions of the recording, and thirdly there is a "too
loud" setting that becomes obnoxious and unpleasant and unrealistic.

Since this perfect level varies with program material, playback systems,
acoustic environments, and listener preferences, Mr. King's statement,
_there is no freaking "correct" playback volume, as a general concept_
holds up quite well in my audio world.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[William Sommerwerck]

As for volume, again, do you not seek a volume in playback that makes a
particular recording sound the most real? Not talking about background
music, elevator music, doing homework music, but rather attempts at high
fidelity playback. It is my sense that first of all, there is some volume
that seems most realistic. Secondly, lower volumes begin to lose details
in
the lowest loudness regions of the recording, and thirdly there is a "too
loud" setting that becomes obnoxious and unpleasant and unrealistic.

So just tell me, is that not your sense as well, as an experienced
listener?
We all know about Fletcher and Munson - but I am asking about King and
Eickmeier - would you support those opinions?

Gary Eickmeier

Broadly speaking, I agree with Gary. There is a range of levels at which the
music sounds "right". Too low, and you lose impact. Too high, and the sound
becomes "clamorous".

Coincidentally... Last night I was listening to the second disk of the
Janowski "Dutchman". After a scene with Senta and her dad, the chorus came
in -- and at a level that struck me as being too low. I raised the volume
2dB and listened to the rest of the opera at that level, even though it was
a bit "too loud".

One's opinion of the correct levels /within/ a work can be different from
the producer's.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

As for volume, again, do you not seek a volume in playback that makes a
particular recording sound the most real? Not talking about background
music, elevator music, doing homework music, but rather attempts at high
fidelity playback. It is my sense that first of all, there is some
volume
that seems most realistic. Secondly, lower volumes begin to lose details
in
the lowest loudness regions of the recording, and thirdly there is a
"too
loud" setting that becomes obnoxious and unpleasant and unrealistic.

Since this perfect level varies with program material, playback systems,
acoustic environments, and listener preferences, Mr. King's statement,
_there is no freaking "correct" playback volume, as a general concept_
holds up quite well in my audio world.

No, but for acoustic music there is a range of subjectively "correct"
levels, which I suspect covers no more than 6dB. (I'm assuming attentive,
focused listening, not late-night or background, or cranking the volume past
11 for an intentionally visceral effect.)