Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of the
mind that audio is near death for having neglected this: Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the timed to read. http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/ Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this neglect and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers continue. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:43:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of the mind that audio is near death for having neglected this: Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the timed to read. http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/ Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this neglect and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers continue. Gordon was frustrated by the path that most equipment manufacturers were taking - chasing millionaires. Youngsters were demonstrating that they would rather listen to portable devices on headphones than on stereo gear, and with few of them becoming audiophiles, Gordon saw most manufacturers heading that growing part of the market, the millionaire. These guys want to show-off their wealth so, when they build a new house, they set aside a "music room" where a (never played) grand piano shares the space with a half-million dollar stereo (also never played). He was disgusted that the mid market was being abandoned, and that the magazines were following this up-market migration with their reviews of this cost-is-no-object bling. But he was wrong in his conclusions (thankfully). The record crowds at audio shows world-wide indicate that the interest in high-end audio is not waning and the hobby isn't dying |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Perhaps a good analogy would be photography or video. I certainly was fascinated by both growing up, and have tried endlessly to get more realistic reproduction of still pictures and movies. We went through the digital revolution as well, to our great joy. But now EVERYONE has a camera or several cameras, and they go around shooting movies vertically composed without tripods and watch it on cel phones or Youtube. They couldn't care less about projecting movies onto a big screen or even surround sound systems. Well, all this is saying in effect is that people other thanm nerds are enjoying themselves with the hobby. They really couldn't care less; this is not a bad thing. Andrew. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote: wrote: J. g. holt the founder of stereophile at the end of his life was of the mind that audio is near death for having neglected this: Interview in stereophile, of which the entire thing is worth the timed to read. http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/ Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. It is ironic the very mag he founded was in the forefront of this neglect and of promoting voodoo audio., as it and fellow travelers continue. All true enough, but I am afraid the death of audio is more of a generational thing. We were fascinated by the technology of sound reproduction because we grew up first in the "hi fi" era and then when stereo came out we were convinced that the goal of "being there" could be achieved, so we kept on at it with the dedication of an alchemist. The paths we took were many and the opportunity for profit sometimes shameful. Nowadays, audio is still with us in the many forms you have mentioned, plus motion pictures, car stereo, and the web. Having grown up with these fully mature systems they think nothing of it, tehy just use it like appliances to listen to pop tunes. Perhaps a good analogy would be photography or video. I certainly was fascinated by both growing up, and have tried endlessly to get more realistic reproduction of still pictures and movies. We went through the digital revolution as well, to our great joy. But now EVERYONE has a camera or several cameras, and they go around shooting movies vertically composed without tripods and watch it on cel phones or Youtube. They couldn't care less about projecting movies onto a big screen or even surround sound systems. Not due to the industry committing suicide, just familiarity with the toys we have created and unimpressed with them because they grew up with all of them. Gary Eickmeier Good point. In my day, using, again your photography analogy, the only people who used "good cameras" were photography buffs. Lots of people bought them (GIs in PX's around the world) but few actually used them. Most people used simple box cameras, and in my day, a box camera was simply that * a box camera. You shot on roll film, by "clicking" the shutter and "winding the camera 'till the next number showed up in the little red window. Then you dropped the film off at the drug store and waited for your pictures to come back to you as you wondered which ones will "come out". The process depended on the fact that the film had rather wide latitude and would produce acceptable images even though everything was fixed: shutter speed, aperture, focus. Only photo buffs dealt with light-meters, and adjustments. But photo buffs loved it. I remember learning all of the processes involved. Developing B&W, color negative film, as well as color slide film. I made prints from my enlarger for all of them. Audio was similar. I built kits for the electronics, my dad and I built speaker cabinets together, and having a fine stereo as a teen was a point of pride with me. Like the photography hobby, I enjoyed learning about the equipment and the processes involved on both ends of the recording chain. Today, like photography, the equipment is just there. One really need not think about it. You want sound, you buy the box that does that. Everybody has a receiver and a pair of speakers and they don't give a hoot or a hollar about the stuff. Likewise, everybody has a decent digital camera (I have a 10 megapixel, 5X zoom digital camera that I keep in the car. I paid $50 for it!). While technology has made all the fiddling redundant, to the average joe, all he needs do is point and shoot just like his dad did with the family Brownie, only today, all of his pictures come out. I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography. Yet anyone with a cell phone or a tablet today is a photographer. You might find this article interesting. Actually, that's pretty irrelevant to the point. When I say "photographer" in the sense that it's a hobby, I mean that the person is likely to have "high-end" cameras like a Nikon D600 or a Canon EOS-6D and a variety of lenses to go with it. People who take photography seriously as in someone who goes out on a Saturday morning, for instance, with the sole purpose of "taking pictures." There aren't as many people like that as there used to be, as computers and digital imaging have made that "less fun" for many of us while making it more possible for the average "Joe" to take more and better pictures. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/2...l-camera-dead/ On the other hand, a quote pulled from the above article states: "These devices donąt displace serious photography equipment, such as the gear I usually carry on vacation or when going on the road to cover events.* Cell phones and tablets donąt have much flexibility in terms of zoom, lighting, and sound for videos, for instance, and anything other than snapshots requires a higher level of technology..." If the author is correct....the likely outcome for people who want to enjoy high end hardware photography with all the lens and filters etc. will find the cost skyrocketing as equipment manufacturers find themselves catering to a shrinking niche market....just as "high-end" audio manufacturers. Of course the kids will be enjoying video and become accomplished at even greater image creation through the use of software while old school photographers cry about a dying art. Nothing wrong with empowering people and sparking the interests of kids to get interested in the art of photography. I don't doubt that many people ONLY need a smartphone to do their photography with, but I'd say that merely empowers casual, snapshot photography and by its very ubiquitous nature is more of a modern "Brownie" than a modern Hassleblad. And music playback devices, such the same smartphones and iPod-like appliances have cut into the bottom of the audio market, somewhat, but I don't see High-End audio being impacted that much. Prices have gone up as much due to inflation as due to portable devices and the "iPod Generation." Again, iPods and similar devices empower people who have no real interest in audio or music (except for their generation's pop music) to hear this music wherever they go and whenever they want. It does not lessen the ability those who truly love music and want to hear it reproduced correctly. But what modern society as a whole has done, is to reduce the number of THOSE people by restricting young minds' access to culture in general by dropping music and art appreciation classes from the modern school curriculum. When I came into the hobby of audio, Classical music sales were about 10% of all recordings sold. Now it's far less than 1% and shrinking. Walk through a college dorm in my day and you heard mostly classical and jazz coming from the radios and record players of the male students' rooms. Not it's hip-hop and rap. Not casting any aspersions here, just stating an obvious contrast in the change. Audio_Empire ScottW --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography. Yet anyone with a cell phone or a tablet today is a photographer. You might find this article interesting. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/2...l-camera-dead/ If the author is correct....the likely outcome for people who want to enjoy high end hardware photography with all the lens and filters etc. will find the cost skyrocketing as equipment manufacturers find themselves catering to a shrinking niche market....just as "high-end" audio manufacturers. Of course the kids will be enjoying video and become accomplished at even greater image creation through the use of software while old school photographers cry about a dying art. ScottW Audio_Empire, that is interesting and true for me. I never thought of it before. I wonder why that is the case. ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , ScottW wrote: On Friday, June 28, 2013 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: I have noted many times that if you talk to another audiophile, chances are good that you'll find that his "other" hobby is photography. Yet anyone with a cell phone or a tablet today is a photographer. You might find this article interesting. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/2...l-camera-dead/ If the author is correct....the likely outcome for people who want to enjoy high end hardware photography with all the lens and filters etc. will find the cost skyrocketing as equipment manufacturers find themselves catering to a shrinking niche market....just as "high-end" audio manufacturers. Of course the kids will be enjoying video and become accomplished at even greater image creation through the use of software while old school photographers cry about a dying art. ScottW Audio_Empire, that is interesting and true for me. I never thought of it before. I wonder why that is the case. ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it. Precisely. Of course there's always the 'infinite number of monkeys behind an infinite number of typewriters' analogy with regard to people and cell phones containing digital cameras, but mostly good pictures come from good photographers, not just people with cell phones. Many cell phones can be used as audio recorders as well, but I don't expect the next "Reference Recording" release to come from one of them. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:54:49 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it. Kind of like some audiophiles listen to amazing quality music on MP3 players and earbuds. ScottW Not quite. The first digital cameras were only about 2Mb. I use a Nikon that is 4Mb and I believe iPhones are 5 with an increasingly good lens. You can easily get 20-30Mb today but once you get to about 300 dpi on a print you aren't going to be able to see more resolution without a magnifying glass. OTOH, if you print at 50 dpi you are going to see it right away compared to 300 but not necessarily by itself. Maybe that is the real audio analogy. High-end fanatics are using a magnifying glass. MP3 listeners are using 50 dpi but since they haven't seen 300 dpi they don't know how much better it is. My first audio experience was listening to an old AM radio. I was only in it for the music and it sounded fine. Later I heard better equipment and my tastes improved. Today I probably couldn't bear to listen to that old AM radio. OTOH, I can't really hear the difference in a 3000 dpi rig without ignoring the music in favor of the sound. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , ScottW wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:54:49 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it. Kind of like some audiophiles listen to amazing quality music on MP3 players and earbuds. ScottW Not quite. The first digital cameras were only about 2Mb. I use a Nikon that is 4Mb and I believe iPhones are 5 with an increasingly good lens. You can easily get 20-30Mb today but once you get to about 300 dpi on a print you aren't going to be able to see more resolution without a magnifying glass. OTOH, if you print at 50 dpi you are going to see it right away compared to 300 but not necessarily by itself. There is certainly some correlation in your analogy, however, you are way off on your resolution by an order of magnitude. An 8 X 10 print, using a good color printer (1440 X 1440 DPI or better) made from a 2 or even a 4 Mp (you said Mb; I think you meant Mp (for megapixel) camera is going to look pretty soft. I edit and do the layout for a car magazine every month, and my 8.5 X 11 covers have pictures that come from many different sources. I have to reject many as being too low resolution for publication. My rule of thumb in 10 Mp minimum. The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for resolution - yet. Maybe that is the real audio analogy. High-end fanatics are using a magnifying glass. MP3 listeners are using 50 dpi but since they haven't seen 300 dpi they don't know how much better it is. The analogy works, but only just. MP3 listeners don't notice the artifacts, or if they do, the artifacts simply don't bother them. A 50 DPI picture, OTOH, wouldn't really be adequate to anybody. One probably couldn't make out what the picture was supposed to be at that resolution. Of course, the latter relies an awful lot on how far away the viewer is from the picture and the whole picture's relative size. My first audio experience was listening to an old AM radio. I was only in it for the music and it sounded fine. Later I heard better equipment and my tastes improved. Today I probably couldn't bear to listen to that old AM radio. OTOH, I can't really hear the difference in a 3000 dpi rig without ignoring the music in favor of the sound. I don't understand your point with that last sentence. You seem to have mixed your metaphors. "hear the difference" in 3000dpi? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:54:49 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it. Kind of like some audiophiles listen to amazing quality music on MP3 players and earbuds. ScottW Not at all. Photography is proactive. What is done with it as a medium is totally based on the photographer's perception of when to click the shutter and how to frame the subject to get a great picture. IOW, were he still with us, Ansel Adams could take an iPhone and make great landscape art with it and Henri Cartier-Bresson could take great candid pictures of people with it. The average Joe would likely get nothing but snapshots for Facebook from the same iPhone camera. OTOH, Listening to music is almost totally passive. The listener has no real control over it (other than playback volume and perhaps some EQ) and is at the mercy of the actual recording and the playback quality of the listening device. The correct analogy here would be looking at one of Adams' or Cartier-Bresson's pictures, not producing one. Furthering the analogy, it would be the difference between seeing these great pictures from Adams or Cartier-Bresson on television or seeing them through a museum window. Audiophiles (or anyone else for that matter) cannot "listen to amazing quality music on MP3 players and earbuds." because that quality is not there. By definition, the MP3 algorithm has discarded up to more than 90% of it! You might not notice that it's gone (depending upon your listening skills among other things), but it's hardly "amazing quality music" and other than choosing to listen to it, the "audiophile" in question, ostensibly, had no part in the music-making process. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2013 4:18:29 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: In article , ScottW wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:54:49 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: ScottW, everybody takes pictures. Few people who take pictures are photographers. Several actual photographers have done remarkable work with iPhones. It isn't the equipment. It's what you do with it. Kind of like some audiophiles listen to amazing quality music on MP3 players and earbuds. ScottW Not at all. Photography is proactive. What is done with it as a medium is totally based on the photographer's perception of when to click the shutter and how to frame the subject to get a great picture. IOW, were he still with us, Ansel Adams could take an iPhone and make great landscape art with it and Henri Cartier-Bresson could take great candid pictures of people with it. The average Joe would likely get nothing but snapshots for Facebook from the same iPhone camera. An average joe photographer I used to know (and software engineer in real life) used his iphone to photograph a 360 degree panoramic view of Paris from some lofty perch and brought those shots home where he used some freebie software to stitch them seamlessly together and print a picture of the Paris cityscape that now wallpapers his office. Ansel Adams couldn't even dream of such a photograph. ScottW Only because the equipment to do it easily didn't exist when Adams was alive and actively taking photographs. On the other hand, panorama tripod heads have been available almost as long as photography has existed as an art form. Therefore we have to assume that Mr. Adams didn't take such a panorama because he didn't want to. Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which is your somewhat non-sequitur remark that taking great pictures with a cellphone is somehow akin to listening to "amazing quality music" from an MP3 player. I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does! Audio_Empire --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Audio_Empire writes: snip I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does! And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate = 192 and you'll see that they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs music will enjoy, which includes me. An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored sectors to exact the data. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for resolution - yet. That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this stuff, so maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct impression that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of film. I know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and even my medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24 Mp. That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi! I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are talking about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right? Gary Eickmeier |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
On 2 Jul 2013 21:54:32 GMT, Audio_Empire
wrote: snip Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which is your somewhat non-sequitur remark that taking great pictures with a cellphone is somehow akin to listening to "amazing quality music" from an MP3 player. I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does! Audio_Empire --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- MP3 doesn't come anywhere near to throwing away 90% of the music; 90% size compression doesn't equal 10% of the music. Do an invert comparison between MP3 and lossless/wav - it's remarkable just how small the differences between the waveforms actually are, without even mentioning ABX testing etc... |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
(David E. Bath) wrote: In article , Audio_Empire writes: snip I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does! And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate = 192 and you'll see that they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs music will enjoy, which includes me. An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored sectors to exact the data. I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here (and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish, of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the results are often very listenable and enjoyable. My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent" by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent." --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
n article ,
ScottW wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:54:32 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: Only because the equipment to do it easily didn't exist when Adams was alive and actively taking photographs. On the other hand, panorama tripod heads have been available almost as long as photography has existed as an art form. Capable of a seamless high resolution 360 view? It was AM radio in comparison. Since Adams used 8 X10 view cameras, I'd say that such a panorama would have been VERY high resolution (and the panoramic tripod head would have guaranteed seamlessness). You must realize that digital has a way to go to even match 35mm Kodachrome resolution, much less 8 X10 resolution! Therefore we have to assume that Mr. Adams didn't take such a panorama because he didn't want to. Way to drill down to root cause. A more probable explanation is because the results would have been unimpressive. A panorama made out of a bunch of 8 X 10 contact prints would have been unimpressive? Are you sure that you have any idea at all about what you are talking about here? Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which is your somewhat non-sequitur remark that taking great pictures with a cellphone is somehow akin to listening to "amazing quality music" from an MP3 player. The point that you seem to miss is that high-end audio...like high-end photography hasn't died. It's simply become ubiquitous. I'm not missing it at all. It's just that you (A) by using mediocre examples, you failed to express the point very well, and (B) you keep extolling mediocrity in both images and music reproduction by calling it "high-end" when neither are anything of the sort. Both lossy compression in music and digital cameras are compromises of convenience over quality. Of course we all look forward to the day when digital photography matches the resolution of Kodachrome film - and I have no doubt that it will get there, but lossy music compression will never sound as good as even a 16-bit/44.1-KHz CD, much less something more high-resolution such as SACD or 24-bit LPCM. All that remains is your highly subjective and rather pompous argument that people don't listen right. If your definition of being correct is pomposity, Then I guess I'm pompous. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:45:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 =20 The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and =20 pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to =20 fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for =20 resolution - yet. =20 =20 =20 That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this stuff, so= =20 =20 maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct impressi= on=20 =20 that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of film. I= =20 =20 know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and even my= =20 =20 medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24 Mp.= =20 =20 That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi! I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color transparency fi= lm which was "non-substantive". This means that after processing, there was= no silver halide left in the film. it has all be replaced with color dyes = (which were added to the slide during the processing) this is in stark cont= rast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all c= olor negative films) which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers w= ere placed on the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on th= is film after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially grain= less. That's why, when Kodachromes were projected onto large screens, the i= mages remained sharp and crisp. Ektachromes (and other substantive films) h= ad some grain and this could be seen on the screen when projected (although= today's pro ktachrome 100 is very fine grained and compares fairly well wi= th Kodachrome. It's hard to make a direct comparison between film and digit= al images, but I think that we can all agree that in digital imaging a sing= le pixel is the smallest image element that any digital camera can possibly= resolve. Obviously, the more megapixels, the higher resolution because mor= e pixels will cover the same imaging space making the smallest detail that = the camera can register much smaller than the smallest detail registered by= a camera with fewer pixels for the same virtual image area. Right now, goo= d image sensors in consumer cameras are 16-24 Megapixels, which means prett= y good resolution, but comparisons with film are dicey, because consumer ca= mera image sensors are considerably smaller than a frame of 35mm film and t= he distribution of the pixels on a camera sensor are orderly, i.e. arranged= in neat rows and columns and they never overlap. In film, the grain sizes = are random as is their distribution, and they can overlap. This makes film = SEEM to have a higher resolution even if the number of pixels and the numbe= r of grains per unit of measure are exactly the same (which they aren't). I= n order for a digital camera to have the same apparent resolution and sharp= ness to that of film, it would have to have far more and smaller pixels tha= n a film image.=20 =20 =20 =20 I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are talk= ing=20 =20 about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right? That's right, I'm talking about 35mm. The same principles apply to larger f= ormats as well, only more so. Remember, a larger piece of film has more emu= lsion on it than a smaller piece, yet the grain for the same type and speed= of film remains the same size no matter how much area the emulsion covers.= Meaning that larger than 35mm film has much higher resolving power because= the picture is covering a much larger area on the film. In fact, with larg= e format cameras like 8 X 10 inch view cameras, the limitation for resoluti= on becomes the large-format lens, not the dilm.=20 =20 =20 =20 Gary Eickmeier |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Audio_Empire writes: In article , (David E. Bath) wrote: In article , Audio_Empire writes: snip I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does! And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate = 192 and you'll see that they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs music will enjoy, which includes me. An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored sectors to exact the data. I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here (and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish, of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the results are often very listenable and enjoyable. My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent" by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent." I did totally mis-read what you said and I strongly apologise. And I don't want anyone to think that I use MP3s for all of my listening, only via a portable player and in my car. I always use either CDs or LPs for listening at home. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:45:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for resolution - yet. That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this stuff, so maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct impression that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of film. I know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and even my medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24 Mp. That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi! I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during the processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films) which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially grainless. That's why, when Kodachromes were projected onto large screens, the images remained sharp and crisp. Ektachromes (and other substantive films) had some grain and this could be seen on the screen when projected (although today's pro ktachrome 100 is very fine grained and compares fairly well with Kodachrome. It's hard to make a direct comparison between film and digital images, but I think that we can all agree that in digital imaging a single pixel is the smallest image element that any digital camera can possibly resolve. Obviously, the more megapixels, the higher resolution because more pixels will cover the same imaging space making the smallest detail that the camera can register much smaller than the smallest detail registered by a camera with fewer pixels for the same virtual image area. Right now, good image sensors in consumer cameras are 16-24 Megapixels, which means pretty good resolution, but comparisons with film are dicey, because consumer camera image sensors are considerably smaller than a frame of 35mm film and the distribution of the pixels on a camera sensor are orderly, i.e. arranged in neat rows and columns and they never overlap. In film, the grain sizes are random as is their distribution, and they can overlap. This makes film SEEM to have a higher resolution even if the number of pixels and the number of grains per unit of measure are exactly the same (which they aren't). In order for a digital camera to have the same apparent resolution and sharpness to that of film, it would have to have far more and smaller pixels than a film image. I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are talking about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right? That's right, I'm talking about 35mm. The same principles apply to larger formats as well, only more so. Remember, a larger piece of film has more emulsion on it than a smaller piece, yet the grain for the same type and speed of film remains the same size no matter how much area the emulsion covers. Meaning that larger than 35mm film has much higher resolving power because the picture is covering a much larger area on the film. In fact, with large format cameras like 8 X 10 inch view cameras, the limitation for resolution becomes the large-format lens, not the dilm. Well, all that is very learned, but, as with audio, we need some sort of comparison testing to tell whether one is better than another. Without a DBT in audio, we are talking through our hats. Can you point out any studies or comparison tests that support yor claim? Gary Eickmeier |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during the processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films) which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially grainless That's not quite true: you certainly can see dye globules if you magnify enough. I realize that we're getting rather off-topic here, but the limiting resolution of Kodachrome isn't grain but the thickness of the film. Light scatters within the emulsion layers, and this causes a drop-off in sharpness. [1] Because of this, the MTF of Kodachrome (i.e. its spatial frequency response) is already down to 50% at 50 cycles/mm and it falls off very rapidly after that. Kodak didn't even measure it finer than 80 cycles/mm, where the MTF was almost down to 10%. Perceptual sharpness depends on high-frequency contrast. David B. Goldstein puts it this way: "And while [Popular Photography] did in fact note in its review of the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II that these cameras produced superior pictures to those of film cameras despite slightly lower resolution, its editors did not generalize these findings to a conclusion that good MTF at moderate spatial frequencies was more important than greater-than-zero MTF is at the highest frequencies." [2] Andrew. [1] The Reproduction of Colour, 6th Edition R. W. G. Hunt, Chapter 18, Image Structure In Colour Photography. [2] Physical Limits in Digital Photography, David B. Goldstein, http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/a...mits_long.html |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
(David E. Bath) wrote:
In article , Audio_Empire writes: In article , (David E. Bath) wrote: In article , Audio_Empire writes: snip I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does! And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate = 192 and you'll see that they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs music will enjoy, which includes me. An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored sectors to exact the data. I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here (and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish, of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the results are often very listenable and enjoyable. My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent" by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent." I did totally mis-read what you said and I strongly apologise. And I don't want anyone to think that I use MP3s for all of my listening, only via a portable player and in my car. I always use either CDs or LPs for listening at home. MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:45:02 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: The digital Camera that I currently use is more than 18 Mp and pictures from it can be blown up to poster size before they start to fall apart. No digital cameras can compare with 35mm Kodachrome for resolution - yet. That statement caught my eye. I trust your experience with this stuff, so maybe you could expand on that a little. I am under the distinct impression that modern digital cameras have way surpassed the resolution of film. I know I have had many negatives scanned for digital printing, and even my medium format stuff doesn't compare to digital. My newest DSLR is 24 Mp. That would make a 13 x 20 print at 300 dpi! I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during the processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films) which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially grainless. That's why, when Kodachromes were projected onto large screens, the images remained sharp and crisp. Ektachromes (and other substantive films) had some grain and this could be seen on the screen when projected (although today's pro ktachrome 100 is very fine grained and compares fairly well with Kodachrome. It's hard to make a direct comparison between film and digital images, but I think that we can all agree that in digital imaging a single pixel is the smallest image element that any digital camera can possibly resolve. Obviously, the more megapixels, the higher resolution because more pixels will cover the same imaging space making the smallest detail that the camera can register much smaller than the smallest detail registered by a camera with fewer pixels for the same virtual image area. Right now, good image sensors in consumer cameras are 16-24 Megapixels, which means pretty good resolution, but comparisons with film are dicey, because consumer camera image sensors are considerably smaller than a frame of 35mm film and the distribution of the pixels on a camera sensor are orderly, i.e. arranged in neat rows and columns and they never overlap. In film, the grain sizes are random as is their distribution, and they can overlap. This makes film SEEM to have a higher resolution even if the number of pixels and the number of grains per unit of measure are exactly the same (which they aren't). In order for a digital camera to have the same apparent resolution and sharpness to that of film, it would have to have far more and smaller pixels than a film image. I know a lot depends on format size and lenses, so I presume you are talking about 35mm slides and not 6 x 7 or something, right? That's right, I'm talking about 35mm. The same principles apply to larger formats as well, only more so. Remember, a larger piece of film has more emulsion on it than a smaller piece, yet the grain for the same type and speed of film remains the same size no matter how much area the emulsion covers. Meaning that larger than 35mm film has much higher resolving power because the picture is covering a much larger area on the film. In fact, with large format cameras like 8 X 10 inch view cameras, the limitation for resolution becomes the large-format lens, not the dilm. Well, all that is very learned, but, as with audio, we need some sort of comparison testing to tell whether one is better than another. Without a DBT in audio, we are talking through our hats. Can you point out any studies or comparison tests that support yor claim? Gary Eickmeier It's not a claim. You can count pixels and you can measure film resolution using graticle charts, etc. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I'd be happy to expand on it. Kodachrome, which was a color transparency film which was "non-substantive". This means that after processing, there was no silver halide left in the film. it has all be replaced with color dyes (which were added to the slide during the processing) this is in stark contrast to Ektachrome, FujiChrome and AgfaChrome transparency films (and all color negative films) which were "substantive" meaning that the dye-layers were placed on the film during manufacture and silver halides remained on this film after processing. This meant that Kodachrome was essentially grainless That's not quite true: you certainly can see dye globules if you magnify enough. Dye "globules" aren't the same thing as "grain". I realize that we're getting rather off-topic here, but the limiting resolution of Kodachrome isn't grain but the thickness of the film. Light scatters within the emulsion layers, and this causes a drop-off in sharpness. [1] Because of this, the MTF of Kodachrome (i.e. its spatial frequency response) is already down to 50% at 50 cycles/mm and it falls off very rapidly after that. Kodak didn't even measure it finer than 80 cycles/mm, where the MTF was almost down to 10%. Perceptual sharpness depends on high-frequency contrast. David B. Goldstein puts it this way: "And while [Popular Photography] did in fact note in its review of the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II that these cameras produced superior pictures to those of film cameras despite slightly lower resolution, its editors did not generalize these findings to a conclusion that good MTF at moderate spatial frequencies was more important than greater-than-zero MTF is at the highest frequencies." [2] Andrew. All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the resolution of the best 35mm film. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Mats Peterson wrote: (David E. Bath) wrote: In article , Audio_Empire writes: In article , (David E. Bath) wrote: In article , Audio_Empire writes: snip I'll tell you what's amazing: that MP3 is listenable by anyone under any circumstances. It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does! And I'll repeat what many others in this forum have said: If you believe that, then you haven't listened to any well made MP3s. Try a well made Variable Bit Rate MP3 at a rate = 192 and you'll see that they can sound quite good, good enough that someone who actual LIKEs music will enjoy, which includes me. An excellent tool to make your own MP3s is Exact Audio Copy with the LAME encoder. It is also an excellent tool to recover tracks from a damaged CD in that it will automatically sjow down and re-read errored sectors to exact the data. I certainly wish that people would read what's actually written here (and then correctly interpret it!), rather than what they think, wish, of hope was written! What do you think I meant when I stated: " It's just amazing that throwing away more than 90% (in many cases) of the music leaves anything that sounds even remotely LIKE music. But it does!" means? It means that in spite of the indignities inflicted upon the music by the lossy compression algorithm called MP3, that the results are often very listenable and enjoyable. My only beef was with the PP's non sequitur remark that MP3 can give excellent quality. The best MP3 IS listenable, but it's not "excellent" by any stretch of the meaning of the word "excellent." I did totally mis-read what you said and I strongly apologise. And I don't want anyone to think that I use MP3s for all of my listening, only via a portable player and in my car. I always use either CDs or LPs for listening at home. MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats I think most of us do use either Apple Lossless or FLAC for the majority of our listening when using compression. OTOH, I still find the ability to listen to stereo "broadcasts" from around the world via internet radio to be simply spellbinding and amazing. My ability to "tune in" WCRB in Boston, for instance on a Saturday evening from my easy chair in California and hear a live broadcast of the Boston Symphony, Pops or Tanglewood concert in stereo from clear across the country makes the MP3 artifacts that accompany those concerts fade into relative insignificance. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote: MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old t= ime=20 radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable= =20 player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at= =20 home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson=20 http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ =20 =20 When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstr= ate=20 an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. = =20 Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of = high=20 quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolu= tely=20 no audible degradation. Let's not go too far in the other direction either. Perhaps YOU can't hear = the artifacts with high VBR, but believe me, they are there. In my experien= ce it depends a lot on what kind of music you are compressing. I agree that= pop music, jazz and even symphonic classical, with a VBR of 240+ it's prob= ably pretty difficult for many to hear any artifacts. But believe me these = artifacts become very audible (on headphones, at least - they are pretty fa= r down) when you compare solo acoustic guitar, harpsichord, even some piano= recordings. Even people who swear that they can't hear the artifacts, find= that they can hear them clearly once they have been pointed out by someone= switching between the uncompressed source and the ripped file. On speakers= , I can't hear it either, but I can easily hear 192 Bps either VBR or fixed= ..=20 I've never checked this, but it seems to me that I read somewhere that by t= he time one employed a VBR high enough to be essentially transparent, that = one might as well use some kind of lossless compression scheme like FLAC or= ALE, because the file sizes become about equal at that point. Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have lower= =20 distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the in room=20 response of nearly any conventional speaker. Since my ear lacks the fold that allows most people to use ear-buds, I'll h= ave to take your word about that. I can't get ear-buds to stay in long enou= gh for me to hear whether they're any good or not, but, frankly, I don't se= e how anyone can get a seal good enough for the buds to have any bass.=20 |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the resolution of the best 35mm film. Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when comapred with a good digital camera. Andrew. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote: MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation. Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have lower distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the in room response of nearly any conventional speaker. ScottW Perhaps it's you who has an extreme lack of hearing? I can hear the difference between 320 kbps and lossless without any problem. But let's not start that old debate again, it's rather tedious. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote: MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation. Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have lower distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the in room response of nearly any conventional speaker. ScottW Furthermore, I think I'm one of the more experienced persons here (if that's the word you would like to use when it comes to this inferior technology) when it comes to MP3. Over the years I have tried a lot of different encoders, because they do differ in quality. I'm still not happy with the results. I know there is better stuff like AAC, etc, but in the end you always lose bits of the audio that are important for the depth and dimension of the music, even if the creators don't think so. And now we're talking encoding of full-range content. Once again, I'm fine with MP3 when it comes to old time radio, etc. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the resolution of the best 35mm film. Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when comapred with a good digital camera. Andrew. That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best digital projector you can find. Next get a top quality 35mm slide projector (like my Lietz Pradalux); project a Kodachrome slide to 60" X 80". Now take a 24 Megapixel digital picture and project it to the same size, both on matte screens. Now, stand 5 feet in front of each and tell me which image has held together better. In case you don't get to try that experience, I'll give you the results. I think that you will find that The Kodachrome will show a little inconsistent color gradation, but far less discernible grain (or picture elements if you prefer) when enlarged that much, but the digital picture will have broken down into individual pixels and diagonal lines will have become stair-steps. Now, some sources will sat that the most recent emulsion of Kodachrome is equal to 20 Megapixesl digital, but that's misleading.. All digital pixels are the same dimension for a given sensor, and they are usually rectangular, rather than square, so the number of pixels/inch is different in the horizontal and the vertical plane. film emulsion is more random with individual grains being different sized and different shaped. This randomness makes the eye less able to concentrate on the grains than with digital where the hard edges follow the symmetry of the individual pixels, drawing the viewer's eye to them. So, even if a digital camera picture and a fine-grained film image did have similar numbers of "picture elements", the film image would still seem sharper. [ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics. Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr] |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , ScottW wrote: On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote: MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation. Let's not go too far in the other direction either. Perhaps YOU can't hear the artifacts with high VBR, but believe me, they are there. In my experience it depends a lot on what kind of music you are compressing. I agree that pop music, jazz and even symphonic classical, with a VBR of 240+ it's probably pretty difficult for many to hear any artifacts. But believe me these artifacts become very audible (on headphones, at least - they are pretty far down) when you compare solo acoustic guitar, harpsichord, even some piano recordings. Even people who swear that they can't hear the artifacts, find that they can hear them clearly once they have been pointed out by someone switching between the uncompressed source and the ripped file. On speakers, I can't hear it either, but I can easily hear 192 Bps either VBR or fixed. Thank you. Another sane person in this group. And yes, it depends of course on the type of music how well you will hear the degradation, but it will always be there. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , ScottW wrote: On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote: MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation. Let's not go too far in the other direction either. Perhaps YOU can't hear the artifacts with high VBR, but believe me, they are there. In my experience it depends a lot on what kind of music you are compressing. I agree that pop music, jazz and even symphonic classical, with a VBR of 240+ it's probably pretty difficult for many to hear any artifacts. But believe me these artifacts become very audible (on headphones, at least - they are pretty far down) when you compare solo acoustic guitar, harpsichord, even some piano recordings. Even people who swear that they can't hear the artifacts, find that they can hear them clearly once they have been pointed out by someone switching between the uncompressed source and the ripped file. On speakers, I can't hear it either, but I can easily hear 192 Bps either VBR or fixed. Thank you. Another sane person in this group. And yes, it depends of course on the type of music how well you will hear the degradation, but it will always be there. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , ScottW wrote: On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote: MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation. Let's not go too far in the other direction either. Perhaps YOU can't hear the artifacts with high VBR, but believe me, they are there. In my experience it depends a lot on what kind of music you are compressing. I agree that pop music, jazz and even symphonic classical, with a VBR of 240+ it's probably pretty difficult for many to hear any artifacts. But believe me these artifacts become very audible (on headphones, at least - they are pretty far down) when you compare solo acoustic guitar, harpsichord, even some piano recordings. Even people who swear that they can't hear the artifacts, find that they can hear them clearly once they have been pointed out by someone switching between the uncompressed source and the ripped file. On speakers, I can't hear it either, but I can easily hear 192 Bps either VBR or fixed. Thank you. Another sane person in this group. And yes, it depends of course on the type of music how well you will hear the degradation, but it will always be there. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the resolution of the best 35mm film. Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when comapred with a good digital camera. That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best digital projector you can find. Next get a top quality 35mm slide projector (like my Lietz Pradalux); project a Kodachrome slide to 60" X 80". Now take a 24 Megapixel digital picture and project it to the same size, both on matte screens. Now, stand 5 feet in front of each and tell me which image has held together better. In case you don't get to try that experience, I'll give you the results. I don't think there are any 24 megapixel digial projectors. [ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics. Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr] Alright, I will. There is a parallel here between audio and photography: a tendency to concentrate on perceptually irrelevant concerns at the expense of what really matters. We've certainly seen that with jitter measurements and measurements of "distortion" in MP3 streams. Andrew. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the resolution of the best 35mm film. Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when comapred with a good digital camera. That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best digital projector you can find. No. That's not a reasonable comprison, since no digital projector I've ever seen can get close to the resolution of a digital camera. [ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics. Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr] Okay. I promise not to respond further. I do not that there is no digital camera currently made with rectangular pixels, but never mind. It's not the first thing about which Mr. Empire is wrong, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :-) Andrew. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:43:42 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: All true. Not that makes anything I stated, untrue. The main point ANYWAY YOU CUT IT is that consumer digital has yet you equal the resolution of the best 35mm film. Well no, that's really not true, for the reasons that I stated: MTF at 10% is not perceptually relevant. Kodachrome is not sharp when comapred with a good digital camera. That's simply incorrect from what I can tell. Try this. Get the best digital projector you can find. No. That's not a reasonable comprison, since no digital projector I've ever seen can get close to the resolution of a digital camera. [ Please steer the conversation back towards audio topics. Photography has ceased to serve a metaphorical purpose here and is now being discussed in its own right. -- dsr] Okay. I promise not to respond further. I do not that there is no digital camera currently made with rectangular pixels, but never mind. It's not the first thing about which Mr. Empire is wrong, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :-) Well, he's not wrong here. I place pictures into a publication I edit every month. When I zoom in using Photoshop, the pixels are rectangular, not square. And If I knew your e-mail address, I could prove it. That's my last word on this subject, since we have been asked to get back on topic. Audio_Empire |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
On Friday, July 5, 2013 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
ScottW wrote: On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote: MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously. Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely no audible degradation. Further...the "el cheapo" earbuds that came with my Sansa clip have lower distortion and flatter and more extended HF response than the in room response of nearly any conventional speaker. ScottW Perhaps it's you who has an extreme lack of hearing? I can hear the difference between 320 kbps and lossless without any problem. But let's not start that old debate again, it's rather tedious. Not to add fuel to the fire, here, but It's the old story that lots of people who consider themselves audiophiles or at least audio enthusiasts have never bothered to teach themselves how to listen to reproduced music. There are many reasons for this. With some, it's a matter of their musical tastes. They have been listening to overproduced and highly volume compressed pop music exclusively for their entire audiophile "career" and have simply, never listened to enough real, unamplified live music to know what they should be listening to or for. Then there are the audio "experts" who consider themselves "above and beyond" audiophiles, (which they consider a dirty word) who eschew all high-end audio, and pride themselves on KNOWING that everything sounds the same because the numbers say that it's so. These people never actually listen because everything sounds the same. They won't believe that any component sounds superior to any other, and if they hear an instance where there is a difference, then it's obviously because one of the components being auditioned is defective or some other anomaly has occurred. At any rate they would never acknowledge that they heard a difference. After all, a $100 Panasonic receiver bought from Costco, sounds identical to a $5000 Krell amp of similar power. While they CAN be right in many instances about the physics, these people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They never use their ears. Measuring equipment, is, after all, much more accurate. Another group are those who simply can't hear. I know a number of people in this latter category. They say they want good sound, but really don't know it when they hear it. These people tend to ape the opinions of others, being incapable of forming any of their own. I suspect that there are a number of these latter in our midst on this NG, and I KNOW there are several in the previous category and could (but won't) name them.. You can't be much of an audio enthusiast when you (A) don't know what live, unamplified music actually sounds like (and refresh that knowledge often by attending live concerts) and (B) can't, don't, or won't trust your ears. Audio_Empire |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
Not to add fuel to the fire, here, but It's the old story that lots of people who consider themselves audiophiles or at least audio enthusiasts have never bothered to teach themselves how to listen to reproduced music. There are many reasons for this. With some, it's a matter of their musical tastes. They have been listening to overproduced and highly volume compressed pop music exclusively for their entire audiophile "career" and have simply, never listened to enough real, unamplified live music to know what they should be listening to or for. Then there are the audio "experts" who consider themselves "above and beyond" audiophiles, (which they consider a dirty word) who eschew all high-end audio, and pride themselves on KNOWING that everything sounds the same because the numbers say that it's so. These people never actually listen because everything sounds the same. They won't believe that any component sounds superior to any other, and if they hear an instance where there is a difference, then it's obviously because one of the components being auditioned is defective or some other anomaly has occurred. At any rate they would never acknowledge that they heard a difference. After all, a $100 Panasonic receiver bought from Costco, sounds identical to a $5000 Krell amp of similar power. While they CAN be right in many instances about the physics, these people tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They never use their ears. Measuring equipment, is, after all, much more accurate. Another group are those who simply can't hear. I know a number of people in this latter category. They say they want good sound, but really don't know it when they hear it. These people tend to ape the opinions of others, being incapable of forming any of their own. I suspect that there are a number of these latter in our midst on this NG, and I KNOW there are several in the previous category and could (but won't) name them. You can't be much of an audio enthusiast when you (A) don't know what live, unamplified music actually sounds like (and refresh that knowledge often by attending live concerts) and (B) can't, don't, or won't trust your ears. Audio_Empire Now the real subject was whether the MP3 artifacts are inaudible or not. You're straying away from it somewhat here. But I do agree on what you're saying, nevertheless. Now please let's end this thread. I'm afraid it won't lead anywhere (as usual). Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
In article ,
Mats Peterson wrote: You can't be much of an audio enthusiast when you (A) don't know what live, unamplified music actually sounds like (and refresh that knowledge often by attending live concerts) and (B) can't, don't, or won't trust your ears. Audio_Empire Now the real subject was whether the MP3 artifacts are inaudible or not. You're straying away from it somewhat here. But I do agree on what you're saying, nevertheless. Now please let's end this thread. I'm afraid it won't lead anywhere (as usual). Mats Well, my point simply was that people who, for whatever reason, can't don't or won't hear reproduced music in a critical way, are unlikely to be able to point-at digital compression artifacts for what they are, either. So to this rather wide group of MP3 listeners, there are no artifacts, and depending upon the nature of their "hearing affliction", either can't, don't or won't acknowledge them. That doesn't mean that they don't exist however. It's like the guy who pulls up beside you at a stop-light with his car radio blaring so loud that its in a state of constant "clipping'. You wonder how he can stand to listen to something that's essentially pure distortion. But he doesn't notice it. He just knows that his "tunes" are playing very loudly, and he likes that. Certainly. one who can listen through all that distortion is not going to be bothered by a few compression artifacts. 8^) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The death of audio
Audio_Empire wrote:
Now the real subject was whether the MP3 artifacts are inaudible or not. You're straying away from it somewhat here. But I do agree on what you're saying, nevertheless. Now please let's end this thread. I'm afraid it won't lead anywhere (as usual). Mats Well, my point simply was that people who, for whatever reason, can't don't or won't hear reproduced music in a critical way, are unlikely to be able to point-at digital compression artifacts for what they are, either. So to this rather wide group of MP3 listeners, there are no artifacts, and depending upon the nature of their "hearing affliction", either can't, don't or won't acknowledge them. That doesn't mean that they don't exist however. It's like the guy who pulls up beside you at a stop-light with his car radio blaring so loud that its in a state of constant "clipping'. You wonder how he can stand to listen to something that's essentially pure distortion. But he doesn't notice it. He just knows that his "tunes" are playing very loudly, and he likes that. Certainly. one who can listen through all that distortion is not going to be bothered by a few compression artifacts. 8^) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Yes, that is true enough. I was perhaps exaggerating a bit regarding "straying away" from the subject. I do see your point. A major problem with leading a discussion like this one, is of course that we all hear differently. But that won't make the degradation of MP3 compression go away. And after all, MP3 has little to nothing to do with high-end audio whatsoever. It is best discussed in a dedicated group such as alt.music.mp3. Mats -- Mats Peterson http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/ |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A Serious, nay...Life-And-Death Audio Issue. | Pro Audio | |||
Death to spammers | Pro Audio | |||
Only death is sure | General | |||
Audio Snake Oil Dies Another Death | Audio Opinions | |||
The Death of Vinyl? | Audio Opinions |