The disappearance of darkness

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, May 7, 2013.

  1. Me

    Trevor Guest

    "Me" <> wrote in message
    news:kmsfo9$lct$...
    > That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
    > powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
    > expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
    > system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
    > 6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
    > installing the 300kg or so sound system.
    > On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
    > CD and SACD.


    Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
    they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
    opinion of course.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, May 14, 2013
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    Me Guest

    On 14/05/2013 5:23 p.m., Trevor wrote:
    > "Me" <> wrote in message
    > news:kmsfo9$lct$...
    >> That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
    >> powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
    >> expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
    >> system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
    >> 6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
    >> installing the 300kg or so sound system.
    >> On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
    >> CD and SACD.

    >
    > Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
    > they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
    > opinion of course.
    >

    This could well be true. I didn't choose the CDs, and music I don't
    particularly enjoy is "device independent" - it can't be improved.
     
    Me, May 14, 2013
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:16:31 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Bill_Dill/MattMe

    >
    > > yerScript.htm

    >
    > >

    >
    > > The Top 10 Reasons to Teach Film to the Video Generation:

    >
    >
    >
    > that contradicts itself too.


    Where ?

    >
    >
    >
    > Twenty years ago, it was a rare opportunity for a filmmaker to get
    >
    > his or her story on the silver screen. The digital revolution has
    >
    > democratized filmmaking, making some of the filmmaking tools that
    >
    > were once only available to a privileged few more easily available to
    >
    > the masses.


    Where does it say that the films are better now than they were ?


    > First and foremost, the equipment is far more affordable than even a
    >
    > few years ago. Editing software, which takes the place of the
    >
    > Moviola, film lab and optical house, is now frequently included as
    >
    > part of the bundle of software that comes with new computers. Another
    >
    > benefit of working with video is speed. Students today can edit their
    >
    > scenes immediately after they�re shot, without having to wait days
    >
    > for dailies. As a result, 48-hour and 24-hour film festivals are
    >
    > commonplace, with filmmakers racing to complete an entire film in one
    >
    > or two days. There�s even a four-hour film challenge in the U.K..
    >
    >
    >
    > in other words, digital wins.


    Like my microwave meals they are faster therefor better than a 'home cookedmeal' or one cooked by pros in a resturant. My meals are also cheaper so are better too, such as easy argument to win isn;t it.


    > There are serious side effects to the digital revolution, which are
    >
    > especially problematic for the educators of this new wave of
    >
    > videomakers.


    Yep digital isn't always best because they don;t really understand it.
    Explaining nois ewin digitasl is difficult beacuse it's either noise or inst so digitally you can get rid or all noise surely.



    > translated "teachers are having a tough time adapting to new technology
    >
    > to be able to teach it to students."


    No, it means they can't teach students end of story.
    Or how would you expalin to a studeent that 33.3% percent is more accurate than a 1/3rd of something ?


    > The very traits that have made the media available to the masses have
    >
    > seriously undermined its quality.


    Yes digital has lowered the quality.


    > Many videos produced by high school
    >
    > and college students will not be seen in a movie theater, but will be
    >
    > streamed on YouTube or other Web sites. The image is heavily
    >
    > compressed with severe artifacts, but that doesn�t matter much
    >
    > because it�s viewed in a window the size of a playing card. Although
    >
    > other capture devices are capable of delivering high resolution
    >
    > images, why bother if the final product is destined to be viewed on a
    >
    > cell phone? As a result, many student videos pay scant attention to
    >
    > lighting, composition or camera movement, and are shot quick and
    >
    > dirty without a tripod.


    exactly doing this for video, reducing quality for the mass market.


    >
    >
    >
    > who cares? the fact is they're making movies, capturing moments, and
    >
    > learning as they do it. that's a good thing.


    They're learnijng how to get things domne on teh cheap and not bothering about quality because cheapness and mass production is see as better.


    > > 1. It�s an investment:

    >
    >
    >
    > it's not an investment. it's a waste of money. invest in digital
    >
    > equipment, which will be useful going forward. film won't be.


    Buy today and it's out of date before the warrenty ends.



    > > When a student realizes that he or she is burning a

    >
    > > buck every second of the shoot, that student approaches the production

    >
    > > differently. Lines are rehearsed. Movements are set up more carefully. And

    >
    > > lighting is set up more carefully, because audiences will be seeing the

    >
    > > images on higher resolution screens. The result is better filmmaking, which

    >
    > > carries over to video projects.

    >
    >
    >
    > that's just bullshit.
    >
    >
    >
    > you can still rehearse each line, block the scenes, etc., just as much
    >
    > with digital.


    You can but you don;t because it's easier to delete the scene.


    > > for the others go to the link.

    > that link is just more of the usual idiocy.


    Anologue or digital idiocy.

    >
    >
    >
    > It looks better: The fact is, there�s more resolution in film than
    >
    > 1080 HD. There�s even more resolution in film than a 4K scan can
    >
    > produce. There�s also a wider dynamic range than HD, and an organic
    >
    > �feeling� that film gives that you still can�t obtain in video.
    >
    >
    >
    > that's flat out false. digital has higher resolution and whatever look
    >
    > 'organic feeling' is supposed to be can be done digitally.


    The 2005 king kong was pretty shit compatred to the original, digital and colour didn;t make it better, well not in most peoples eyes.
    They still have to use real actors to move like they did in LoTR and the like.
    Digital is still dividing the real wold up.

    >
    > movie theaters are all going digital these days anyway. film is on its
    >
    > way *out*.


    Down to costs thats why, digital is cheaper to produce for most things.


    > The concepts of cinematography are better honed: It�s a lot easier to
    >
    > understand what an aperture is when you can look inside the lens, or
    >
    > what the focal plane is when you can see the film gate. The same goes
    >
    > for shutter speed, depth of field, gamma, film speed, etc.
    >
    >
    >
    > more idiocy. you can look inside the lens with digital too. you can
    >
    > turn on live-view and see what is imaged on the focal plane. you can
    >
    > adjust the shutter speed, depth of field, etc. and see the effect
    >
    > *immediately*.


    1/ it's not live because it's digital it can't be live because there's electronics reading valuse which takes times and then outputing it to a displaydevice that too takes time.

    > > Digital being cheap and costing nothing gives a studetn the idea that time

    >
    > > isn't money either. When they see a physical product being used and notable

    >
    > > to be reused that makes an impact .

    >
    >
    >
    > not really. tell them they have to do just one take, no editing.
    >


    They will not understand, they will not undertsand that taking 1000s shots of a scene isn;t better than spending time thinking about it.


    >
    >
    > > Also

    >
    > > while in Tokyo I was working on a small project titled: �Dark Skies Over

    >
    > > Tokyo� � a project about the irony of Japanese society:they are one of the

    >
    > > richest countries in the world, yet have one of the highest depression and suicide

    >
    > > rates. Shooting film helped me stay focused on the project and the whole-picture,

    >
    > > rather than individual images.

    >
    >
    >
    > nothing about film makes someone stay focused on a project any better.


    That's up to the individual.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 14, 2013
    #83
  4. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:16:24 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > You can't normnlly afford to hand out even 5 DLSRs where'as 5 old film

    >
    > > cameras no problem.

    >
    >
    >
    > sure you can. the least expensive dslr is around $400-500,


    I could get boxes of film cameras for that.


    > which is
    >
    > about $150-180 in 1980 dollars, back when film was king.
    >
    >
    >
    > or just have the student get their own camera.


    buy their own camera before they understand what they're buying brillant idea.


    > > > > Digital is better for taking pictures, but I think film is still bettere at

    >
    > > > > teaching photography or at least makes it easier to get the concepts over

    >
    > > > > to the person that wants to do more than socail media pictures.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > No it's better for getting images NOT photography.

    >
    >
    >
    > getting images *is* photography.


    Not for most it isn't. Or who becomes a good photographer from downloading images from websites. Usually that sort of thinhg is calsedd as plagarism or just plain copying, at it really doesn't matter iof it analogue or digital.
    if I download music does that make me a musician?



    >
    >
    >
    > > You're forgetting photography is the art of manipulating light.

    >
    >
    >
    > you can do that (and more) with digital.


    What's the more part?


    >
    >
    > > A photography is create by light not paint or pigments or ink or toner..

    >
    >
    >
    > so prints on photo paper made from negatives are not photography?


    Not for me they aren't, photo paper is photo paper and negs are negs.,
    Photogrphy is the art or process.
    Also baking and flour aren't the same.



    > > > there's no point in doing that, but if you want to ignore all of the

    >
    > > > advancements in the last 40 years, you can ignore them.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It's not about ignoring them it's about understanding them or do you think

    >
    > > it's good that a photograher doesn't understand things like lighting levels

    >
    > > because his camera will cope and give him/her a good result.

    >
    >
    >
    > nothing about digital prevents someone from understanding lighting.


    But that's not what happens.
    It's like saying a car doesn't stop people walking.


    >
    > > There's a lot more to 'proper' photgraphy than handing over a good camera.

    >
    >
    >
    > there is, and it's easier to learn it on digital.


    Easier in that you don't have to learn anything.


    > you can change the lighting and see how it looks moments later. can't
    >
    > do that with film.


    How can you change the lighting, the suns in the sky, you can't change it, you can hope it appears if you're in London but you can't change it.



    > in fact, film photographers used to use polaroid to check the lighting
    >
    > before taking the real shots. on occasion, those were the best shots,
    >
    > but they were stuck with a crappy polaroid.


    Why were they stuck with it ? Those that I've seen have more than one camera with them, poloriod or not.

    >
    > > Whem all they do is end up with loads of so.. so.. shots and never get to

    >
    > > actually improve as they hardley ever review their shots because there's just

    >
    > > to many to sift through.

    >
    >
    >
    > again, that's up to the person.


    Which goes to explain why limiting them on the number of shots is a good idea when teaching photography.


    > they don't have to shoot zillions of
    >
    > photos.


    They learn that from people like you who equate more as better.


    > they *can* if they want to, and for no extra cost. or, they can
    >
    > shoot very few. up to the user to decide.


    Better to teach them slowley get them to watch the persons head and feet and not cut them off rather than just point and shoot 10 frames with the hopeone will be good. Perhaps those cameras with smile detect really do make better photgraphers too.


    > > With digital you don;t even need to be there, soem of the fist digital images

    >
    > > I produced were using Bryce I never had to leave home.

    >
    >
    >
    > those aren't photos, those are 3d renderings.


    No they are images in 2D they were printed on paper just like any other photo.


    > > And now in 3D far beter than anything Ansel adams has done, so is the person

    >
    > > that produces these images a better photographer ?

    >
    >
    >
    > not with a rendering,


    why, they are manipulating light with is what photography is.

    > but there will come a time when you won't be able
    >
    > to tell the difference between a synthetically generated image and a
    >
    > real one, probably sooner than you might think too.


    Depends how much you think, so why isn't this photography.

    One thinsg whicbannoys me is when they use artists impressions of the Roveror plantetscapes is photography is art and for me that's differnt from photography.
    i.e once yuo stop manuplkuating the liught ands start couring in sand or filling in areas with colour that wasnt; their it's no longer photography.

    Or was john connstable a photography, he used his eye as a lens as do photogrphers and he used his hand and tools to create an image.


    > > > you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just

    >
    > > > the tools that are different.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > The tools used to be a camera and enlarger now it the camera and computer and

    >
    > > I spend far longer on the computer but I don't call that photography.

    >
    >
    >
    > doesn't matter what you call it. it's photography.


    So anyone that produces an image is now a photograper ?



    > if an enlarger is photography, so is photoshop.


    But an enlarger isn't photography it's a tool.

    BTW I have a KROKUS 3 COLOR ENLARGER with the middle extention, and a LPL 7700,
    need to dispose of them soon. Photoshop isn't photography either it's a software tool I have PS too.


    > > On one thread here there's a discussion on the picture on teh front of a new

    >
    > > star trek book, I don;t consider that picture to be a photo as in someone

    >
    > > took that photo, it's just a collection of manupulated images unless of

    >
    > > course you can tell me who the photographer is/was.

    >
    >
    >
    > you could do that in the darkroom too. it was a lot more work but it
    >
    > was still possible.


    Yes lots of things were donme with photos long before digital made it easier for the average person to do it.
    Digital helps mucisians too, that auto tuning can turn the magrity into singers, but are they better singers now.

    > with digital, you have so many more possibilities.


    Yep lots more levels of failure, in fact it's virtually impossible to not get a resonable shot.



    > > When of the reasopn I got fed up of 'photography was that the club I went to

    >
    > > started on insisting the work be mounted in a particualr way with say X

    >
    > > inches on teh side Y inches op and bottom and the edged has to be beveled for

    >
    > > compition entries, alnfg with that anf having to title them in letraset, I

    >
    > > was spending more time on this than taking the photo.

    >
    >
    >
    > they wanted it standardized.


    Since when has art been standadised, it's putting it in boxes the digital.
    I've alwyas though the colour and size of the mount should depend partly onthe picture/subject.


    > > > plus, you can look at the images on a big display, much bigger than any

    >
    > > > print would have been.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Why's that an advantage most 35mm of the time couldn't get beyond 20X16and

    >
    > > the limit at my club was around 16X12 inches, partly due to cost. And why is

    >
    > > bigger better anyway, does it make you a betere photogrpher to be able to

    >
    > > print bigger, I always thought that was done to the quality of the equipment.

    >
    >
    >
    > i'd rather look at photos on a 27" lcd display than a stack of 8x10 or
    >
    > 11x14 prints.


    Why ? what's wrong with a 40" display and is size all that's important.
    I prefer my ~9" iPad retina to my 24" mac screen and prefer either to most TVs screens, I still have a CRT TV. I hate the jaggies I see on LCDs/plasmas.


    > or maybe you would rather go back to slide shows in darkened rooms with
    >
    > a noisy slide projector and a screen that has to be rolled up and maybe
    >
    > there's a tear in the side too. blech.


    I'd prefer that for showing to a large group of people I'd hate to have 30 people around my computer screen or iPad.
    Even with digital we still watch movies in a darkened room why if it;'s so pad to project why do we project digital ?


    > > I rememreb having to decide what enlarge lens to buy as well as what camera

    >
    > > lens now all I need to do is work out processor speeds and storage noneof

    >
    > > which change the quality of photography or of the resultant image.

    >
    >
    >
    > whatever you did in the darkroom can be done in photoshop.


    Didn;t realse you could have sex in photoshop I must have missed out on that version of CS.


    > > >you

    >
    > > > can shoot fewer photos. it doesn't matter if it's digital or film.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > it does, in most case you have limited time whether it be wedding or sports,

    >
    > > you have to get it right, sure it's so much easier being able to take 1000s

    >
    > > shots of the coulpe kissing and maybe that makes it better, but if someone

    >
    > > came to me and said I'll get it right 1 time in 1000 I wouldn't employ them.

    >
    > > Thre's plenty of example of digital photographers not having a clue but

    >
    > > having the equipemtn that can take good photos.

    >
    >
    >
    > there are plenty of examples of film photographers not having a clue
    >
    > too. big deal.


    I'm betting there's more digital photographers that havent; a clue.
    A friend teaches them a recent tesat showed a student though the battery was the most important. Maybe they could get therei head past digital in thatpphotos cantl; be taken without a battery, the answer sahould have been light, you can't take photos without light.


    >
    > > > > > most of the time, i don't even take the charger with me. battery life

    >
    > > > > > is not an issue.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > Hasn't really been for me either, not even with my canon A1.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > in other words, film has no advantage.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It has the advantage of techin gyuo about light and the manupulation ofit

    >
    > > which is what photography is rather than altering shapes on a canvas.

    >
    >
    >
    > you were talking about battery life. as long as the battery lasts
    >
    > longer than a day, it doesn't matter. just plug it in at night.


    You don;t need to plug film in.




    > > Of couse your original pooi ntwas that no one prefered film, so even ifthere's just one

    >
    > > person that prefers iut that makes you wrong.

    >
    >
    >
    > my original point was that those who cling to film don't understand
    >
    > that digital does everything their precious film does and does so
    >
    > better,


    That was NOT the point.

    but if they want the 'film look', they can do it in software.

    But they know it's not the same, well those that have used both film and digital that is. Go ask thoske uising digital camera what the most important thing they need for a good photo ? they won;t think about lighting it's be something to do with technology, if fact I doubnt moist know that they have a lens on their phone, I bet they won;t knopw thaqt a lens inverst the image either.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 14, 2013
    #84
  5. Me

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Me <> wrote:
    >
    > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
    > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
    > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
    > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
    > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
    > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
    > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.


    While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
    distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
    probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
    midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
    real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
    IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
    at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
    will hear the 1khz difference tone.)

    Peter.
    --
     
    Peter Irwin, May 14, 2013
    #85
  6. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmsn0v$2ig$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > >> On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
    > >> CD and SACD.

    > >
    > > Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
    > > they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
    > > opinion of course.
    > >

    > This could well be true. I didn't choose the CDs, and music I don't
    > particularly enjoy is "device independent" - it can't be improved.


    if that's true, then the difference is with the mastering, not that one
    is cd and the other sacd.

    for the same source material, there is no audible difference between cd
    and sacd.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #86
  7. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > The fad which used to irritate me was the use of large rubber rims to
    > increase the rotational inertia of CDs with the aim of reducing wow
    > and flutter. The fact that the data on the CD was read into a buffer
    > from which it was released at a precisely controlled rate meant
    > nothing to the supporters of this fad. They wanted to reduce the
    > effect of rotational speed errors which they were certain must exist.


    don't forget using green marker pens on the edges.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #87
  8. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmtnlo$7c9$>, Peter Irwin <>
    wrote:

    > > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
    > > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
    > > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
    > > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
    > > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
    > > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
    > > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.

    >
    > While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
    > distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
    > probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
    > midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
    > real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
    > IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
    > at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
    > will hear the 1khz difference tone.)


    that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.

    if you have crappy source material it will sound like crap, and it will
    sound just as crappy with or without the snake oil. if you have good
    source material, it will sound just as good with or without the snake
    oil.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #88
  9. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
    > >a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

    >
    > It's not a recent fad: I've been using it for +25 years.


    so has everyone else. most wire is oxygen free, and silver is a better
    conductor anyway but the name doesn't sound as cool.

    > >"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    > >RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
    > >
    > >(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

    >
    > I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
    > ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.


    you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
    ohm make no difference and are not audible.

    > It's not
    > blindingly obvious but using any one of several (vinyl) test records I
    > was able to demonstrate an audible difference via several double blind
    > tests. If you can't hear the difference it may say more about your
    > equipment than the cables.


    of course it's not blindingly obvious, because there is no difference
    to be heard.

    if you guessed correctly, it was pure luck.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #89
  10. Me

    Peter Irwin Guest

    nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <kmtnlo$7c9$>, Peter Irwin <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
    >> > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
    >> > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
    >> > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
    >> > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
    >> > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
    >> > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.

    >>
    >> While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
    >> distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
    >> probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
    >> midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
    >> real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
    >> IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
    >> at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
    >> will hear the 1khz difference tone.)

    >
    > that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.


    You were claiming that linear accuracy of waveform / THD at
    high frequencies was unimportant because you can't hear harmonics
    on high frequency tones. My point is that linearity at high
    frequencies is important because of intermodulation.

    It is legitimate (not snake-oil) for B&W to use exotic materials
    to reduce distortion in tweeters. Loudspeakers generally do have
    audible non-linearity distortion and B&W has a long history of
    caring about it more than most loudspeaker companies. (They are
    a legitimate research oriented company.)

    Peter.
    --
     
    Peter Irwin, May 14, 2013
    #90
  11. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmu24j$7un$>, Peter Irwin <>
    wrote:

    > >> > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
    > >> > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
    > >> > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
    > >> > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
    > >> > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
    > >> > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
    > >> > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.
    > >>
    > >> While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
    > >> distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
    > >> probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
    > >> midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
    > >> real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
    > >> IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
    > >> at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
    > >> will hear the 1khz difference tone.)

    > >
    > > that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.

    >
    > You were claiming that linear accuracy of waveform / THD at
    > high frequencies was unimportant because you can't hear harmonics
    > on high frequency tones. My point is that linearity at high
    > frequencies is important because of intermodulation.


    i wasn't making that claim. someone else was.

    if the distortion is within the audio range (20-20k), then it is
    probably audible. if the distortion is outside that range, it's not
    audible.

    plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they
    once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end.

    > It is legitimate (not snake-oil) for B&W to use exotic materials
    > to reduce distortion in tweeters. Loudspeakers generally do have
    > audible non-linearity distortion and B&W has a long history of
    > caring about it more than most loudspeaker companies. (They are
    > a legitimate research oriented company.)


    reducing distortion is fine.

    reducing distortion when it's beyond the limits of human hearing is
    snake oil.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #91
  12. Me

    Me Guest

    On 15/05/2013 6:46 a.m., nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
    >>> a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

    >>
    >> It's not a recent fad: I've been using it for +25 years.

    >
    > so has everyone else. most wire is oxygen free, and silver is a better
    > conductor anyway but the name doesn't sound as cool.
    >
    >>> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    >>> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
    >>>
    >>> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

    >>
    >> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
    >> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.

    >
    > you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
    > ohm make no difference and are not audible.
    >

    The system that Eric refers to doesn't use conventional speakers - "ESL"
    = ElectroStatic Loudspeaker.
    The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
    resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
    becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
    high at low frequencies).
    If he says he could hear the difference with this setup - then I believe it.
     
    Me, May 14, 2013
    #92
  13. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmu3do$5q3$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > >>> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    > >>> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
    > >>>
    > >>> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their
    > >>> heads).
    > >>
    > >> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
    > >> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.

    > >
    > > you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
    > > ohm make no difference and are not audible.

    >
    > The system that Eric refers to doesn't use conventional speakers - "ESL"
    > = ElectroStatic Loudspeaker.


    i checked the equipment he mentioned but it doesn't matter.

    > The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
    > resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
    > becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
    > high at low frequencies).


    speakers are a reactive load. wire is a resistive load. inductance and
    capacitance of straight wire is *so* incredibly tiny that it can be
    assumed to be zero (nanohenries & picofarads versus milliohms).

    the most that can happen with audiophile wire is that it will be a
    fraction of an ohm lower (and that's being incredibly optimistic),
    which isn't going to make any difference. this is measurable. it's not
    a question of can you hear it.

    for example, 25 feet of 14 gauge wire is just 0.063 ohms. the impedance
    of the speaker is typically 8 ohms. that's over 100x as much.

    <http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>

    > If he says he could hear the difference with this setup - then I believe it.


    if the electrical properties of the wire are the same, the audio will
    be the same. it's basic physics.

    moving the speaker closer or further away from the wall will have far
    more of an effect than any cable could ever have, but you can't sell
    that.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #93
  14. Me

    Me Guest

    On 15/05/2013 8:21 a.m., nospam wrote:
    > In article <kmu3do$5q3$>, Me <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>>> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    >>>>> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their
    >>>>> heads).
    >>>>
    >>>> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
    >>>> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.
    >>>
    >>> you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
    >>> ohm make no difference and are not audible.

    >>
    >> The system that Eric refers to doesn't use conventional speakers - "ESL"
    >> = ElectroStatic Loudspeaker.

    >
    > i checked the equipment he mentioned but it doesn't matter.
    >
    >> The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
    >> resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
    >> becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
    >> high at low frequencies).

    >
    > speakers are a reactive load. wire is a resistive load. inductance and
    > capacitance of straight wire is *so* incredibly tiny that it can be
    > assumed to be zero (nanohenries & picofarads versus milliohms).


    ESL tend to be /much/ more reactive than conventional speakers - IIRC,
    impedance can vary from <1 ohm to > 100 ohm depending on frequency. They
    were very effective at frying conventional amplifiers.
    >
    > the most that can happen with audiophile wire is that it will be a
    > fraction of an ohm lower (and that's being incredibly optimistic),
    > which isn't going to make any difference. this is measurable. it's not
    > a question of can you hear it.
    >
    > for example, 25 feet of 14 gauge wire is just 0.063 ohms. the impedance
    > of the speaker is typically 8 ohms. that's over 100x as much.
    >
    > <http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>
    >
    >> If he says he could hear the difference with this setup - then I believe it.

    >
    > if the electrical properties of the wire are the same, the audio will
    > be the same. it's basic physics.
    >
    > moving the speaker closer or further away from the wall will have far
    > more of an effect than any cable could ever have, but you can't sell
    > that.
    >
     
    Me, May 14, 2013
    #94
  15. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmu6hg$d3g$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > I expect Peter Irwin's comments about intermodulation distortion are
    > true. Nice thing is that with sound system connected to a PC, with
    > frequency generator easily accessed rather than setting it up on a test
    > bench with special equipment, it should be easy to test when I get a chance.


    intermod distortion within audible frequencies can make a difference.
    anything within audible frequencies can make a difference.

    outside the audible range, it doesn't matter what it is. you can't hear
    anything at 30khz, distorted or not.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #95
  16. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <kmu6pf$df5$>, Me <>
    wrote:

    > >> The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
    > >> resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
    > >> becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
    > >> high at low frequencies).

    > >
    > > speakers are a reactive load. wire is a resistive load. inductance and
    > > capacitance of straight wire is *so* incredibly tiny that it can be
    > > assumed to be zero (nanohenries & picofarads versus milliohms).

    >
    > ESL tend to be /much/ more reactive than conventional speakers - IIRC,
    > impedance can vary from <1 ohm to > 100 ohm depending on frequency. They
    > were very effective at frying conventional amplifiers.


    even at 1 ohm inductance, different speaker wire isn't going to matter.
    the differences are a tiny fraction of an ohm.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #96
  17. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    > >> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
    > >>
    > >> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their
    > >> heads).

    > >
    > > I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
    > > ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference. It's not
    > > blindingly obvious but using any one of several (vinyl) test records I
    > > was able to demonstrate an audible difference via several double blind
    > > tests. If you can't hear the difference it may say more about your
    > > equipment than the cables.

    >
    > The difference in resistance is negligible for the same gauge and length.
    >
    > If the 'other' cable was truly limiting current to the point of
    > affecting sound, then you would have done as well by just going to a
    > fatter gauge ordinary wire.


    exactly, and save a significant amount of money in the process.
     
    nospam, May 14, 2013
    #97
  18. Me

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    > >> >RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
    > >> >
    > >> >(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their
    > >> >heads).
    > >>
    > >> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
    > >> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.

    > >
    > >you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
    > >ohm make no difference and are not audible.

    >
    > It was a long time ago and my memory is coming back to me. I am using
    > a low-oxygen cable but not the fancy stuff that the audiophiles pay
    > heaps for. I can't the conductor cross section but it is generous.


    in other words, standard wire.

    > What I was testing against was a fancy cable where the in and out
    > conductors each employed three sets of wires which were interwoven. I
    > think that this may have been the conductor which achieved fame by
    > blowing up a Naim amplifier as soon as it was connected. Fortunately
    > the Quad 606 is "Unconditionally stable with any load and any signal".
    > In any case, I could hear the difference and dumped the fancy cable.


    woven wire looks nice. electrically it's meaningless.

    > >> It's not
    > >> blindingly obvious but using any one of several (vinyl) test records I
    > >> was able to demonstrate an audible difference via several double blind
    > >> tests. If you can't hear the difference it may say more about your
    > >> equipment than the cables.

    > >
    > >of course it's not blindingly obvious, because there is no difference
    > >to be heard.
    > >
    > >if you guessed correctly, it was pure luck.

    >
    > It was much better than pure luck.


    it was luck. electrically, the cable is the same, therefore no
    difference to be heard.

    > Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know.


    the impedance of wire is for all intents, zero. as noted before, 25' of
    14ga wire is 0.063 ohms and any reactive component is many orders of
    magnitude lower than that.

    > Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the
    > speaker.


    it's close enough to zero that it can be considered zero.

    > Quad puts it as "For optimum performance it is necessary to
    > ensure that the impedance of the cable is small relative to the
    > impedance of the load". This makes sense as the amplifier is able to
    > poke out more than 10 amps under the right conditions.


    the impedance of the wire *is* small relative to the load.

    the wire is 0.063 ohms and the load is nominally 8 ohms. even if the
    load drops to 1-2 ohms at certain frequencies, the wire is still
    insignificant.

    > In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the
    > unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable.


    definitely not. what you were hearing was what you wanted to hear.
     
    nospam, May 15, 2013
    #98
  19. Me

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:27:53 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kmu24j$7un$>, Peter Irwin <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > >> > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold

    >
    > > >> > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic/

    >
    > > >> > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance

    >
    > > >> > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify thisbased

    >
    > > >> > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,

    >
    > > >> > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the

    >
    > > >> > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.

    >
    > > >>

    >
    > > >> While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same

    >
    > > >> distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is

    >
    > > >> probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the

    >
    > > >> midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some

    >
    > > >> real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible

    >
    > > >> IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz

    >
    > > >> at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you

    >
    > > >> will hear the 1khz difference tone.)

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You were claiming that linear accuracy of waveform / THD at

    >
    > > high frequencies was unimportant because you can't hear harmonics

    >
    > > on high frequency tones. My point is that linearity at high

    >
    > > frequencies is important because of intermodulation.

    >
    >
    >
    > i wasn't making that claim. someone else was.
    >
    >
    >
    > if the distortion is within the audio range (20-20k), then it is
    >
    > probably audible. if the distortion is outside that range, it's not
    >
    > audible.


    But tehre;s more ir it than that due to harmonics and even if yuo can;t hear 25KHz that if it exists in teh signal will alter the dynamics of teh speaker due to power disapation, this is one of the things that used to blow uptweeters as it doesn;t take much at high frequancy, hopefully those frequancies are filered out before amplification.


    > plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they
    >
    > once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end.


    Yes but it can still matter to the overall sound.


    > > It is legitimate (not snake-oil) for B&W to use exotic materials

    >
    > > to reduce distortion in tweeters. Loudspeakers generally do have

    >
    > > audible non-linearity distortion and B&W has a long history of

    >
    > > caring about it more than most loudspeaker companies. (They are

    >
    > > a legitimate research oriented company.)

    >
    >
    >
    > reducing distortion is fine.
    >
    >
    >
    > reducing distortion when it's beyond the limits of human hearing is
    >
    > snake oil.


    If you're only interest is in what the human ear can hear.
    But just because it's out of hearing range doen;t mean it doesn;t affect things.
    If you want to know what's really going on in a cable you soemtimes need something a bit special.
    We might need to buy this ...
    http://webstore.rohde-schwarz.com/us/r-srzv-z193.html

    we've got 4 of the cheaper versions which were about £75 each.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 15, 2013
    #99
  20. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:


    >> >For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
    >> >a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

    >>
    >> It's not a recent fad: I've been using it for +25 years.


    > so has everyone else. most wire is oxygen free, and silver is a better
    > conductor anyway but the name doesn't sound as cool.


    >> >"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
    >> >RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
    >> >
    >> >(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

    >>
    >> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
    >> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.


    > you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
    > ohm make no difference and are not audible.


    Except when they do make a difference of course. Such as the notorious
    case of some amps when driving electrostatic loudspeakers through
    unusually low resistance cables becoming unstable and distorting
    because they needed the very slight cable resistance to stay stable
    with an ELS load. IIRC it was some early models of NAIM amps.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 15, 2013
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ric

    Bookmark Icon Disappearance

    ric, Apr 9, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    966
    Splibbilla
    Apr 9, 2005
  2. CarlO

    Disc Disappearance

    CarlO, May 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    417
    Ben Myers
    May 17, 2005
  3. Max Christoffersen

    Wilner's Bizarre Disappearance..

    Max Christoffersen, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    125
    Views:
    2,548
    vanpall
    Feb 9, 2004
  4. Gary

    Minimizing window causes disappearance

    Gary, Aug 12, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    409
  5. Evensong

    Partition Disappearance problem.

    Evensong, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    324
    Evensong
    Feb 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page