A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Link



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 4th 12, 10:08 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Mike Benveniste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
  #2  
Old January 5th 12, 12:17 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Link

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius


See also
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp
or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn

After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
tone than the modern one.

Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
really could tell the difference between the two.

For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.

Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
forms on oscilloscope.

He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
vice versa.

Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
to exit under the door.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #3  
Old January 5th 12, 01:46 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Link

On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius


See also
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp

or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn

After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
tone than the modern one.

Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
really could tell the difference between the two.

For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.

Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
forms on oscilloscope.

He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
vice versa.

Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
to exit under the door.

Regards,

Eric Stevens


In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.

  #4  
Old January 5th 12, 02:39 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Link

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:46:46 +0000, Pete A
wrote:

On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius


See also
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp

or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn

After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
tone than the modern one.

Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
really could tell the difference between the two.

For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.

Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
forms on oscilloscope.

He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
vice versa.

Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
to exit under the door.

Regards,

Eric Stevens


In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.


Not to ignore the supposed sound advantage to be obtained by adding a
flywheel like mass to a CD to help move out the wow and flutter of the
drive. [Note: the CD reads into a buffer which downloads digital data
to the DAC at a constant rate governed by a clock.]

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #5  
Old January 6th 12, 01:02 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Link

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

There's nothing particularly surprising in that research. The real reason for
buying a Stradivari instrument isn't that it plays better or sounds better.
It's to "prove" that you're a good enough (and successful enough) performer to
justify shelling out the necessary cash.

But it raises the obvious question for the likes of us: Where is the point
beyond which the aquisition of more and more expensive photographic equipment
serves only that same purpose in our world?

Bob
  #6  
Old January 6th 12, 01:05 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Link

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:17:22 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
: wrote:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius
:
: See also
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp
: or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn
:
: After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
: difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
: was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
: tone than the modern one.
:
: Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
: ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
: amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
: challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
: really could tell the difference between the two.
:
: For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
: somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
: were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
: ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
: better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.
:
: Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
: did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
: forms on oscilloscope.
:
: He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
: depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
: amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
: arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
: component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
: vice versa.
:
: Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
: sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
: actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
: to exit under the door.

I assume that they were allowed to pass their fat heads out through the
window. ;^)

Bob
  #7  
Old January 6th 12, 01:07 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Link

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:39:54 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:46:46 +0000, Pete A
: wrote:
:
: On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
:
: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
: wrote:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius
:
: See also
: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp
:
: or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn
:
: After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
: difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
: was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
: tone than the modern one.
:
: Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
: ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
: amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
: challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
: really could tell the difference between the two.
:
: For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
: somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
: were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
: ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
: better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.
:
: Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
: did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
: forms on oscilloscope.
:
: He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
: depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
: amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
: arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
: component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
: vice versa.
:
: Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
: sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
: actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
: to exit under the door.
:
: Regards,
:
: Eric Stevens
:
: In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
: optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.
:
: Not to ignore the supposed sound advantage to be obtained by adding a
: flywheel like mass to a CD to help move out the wow and flutter of the
: drive. [Note: the CD reads into a buffer which downloads digital data
: to the DAC at a constant rate governed by a clock.]

Why does that remind me that Kodak is about to go bankrupt?

Bob
  #8  
Old January 6th 12, 02:11 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Link

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:02:11 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

There's nothing particularly surprising in that research. The real reason for
buying a Stradivari instrument isn't that it plays better or sounds better.
It's to "prove" that you're a good enough (and successful enough) performer to
justify shelling out the necessary cash.

But it raises the obvious question for the likes of us: Where is the point
beyond which the aquisition of more and more expensive photographic equipment
serves only that same purpose in our world?

It seems to be agreed that the Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins
were better than those which followed them over the next one or two
centuries. Much research has gone into the reasons with the major
arguments being built around the qualities of the varnish and,
separately, the wood. It is now being argued that the quality of the
wood was enhanced by the conditions leading up to the Little Ice Age.
Later violins used later wood which led to violins which sounded
different.

In any case, over the last fifty years there has been much research
into the factors making the Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins so
evidently superior to the violins made by others which followed and as
the URL above shows the best of modern violins are the equal of the
17th~18th century violins from Cremona.

The current situation in photography is quite different. There has
been no transitory period of high quality followed by a period of
lower quality. Whether film or digital, photographic technology has
been steadily improving and we are far from the point where it is
leveling off.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #9  
Old January 6th 12, 05:59 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default Link

Robert Coe writes:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
wrote:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

There's nothing particularly surprising in that research. The real reason for
buying a Stradivari instrument isn't that it plays better or sounds better.
It's to "prove" that you're a good enough (and successful enough) performer to
justify shelling out the necessary cash.


You state that as a fact -- but violinists I talk to disagree with you.
(Well, this decade the Strads are getting to be too old; but when they
developed their modern high prices, the experts thought they WERE worth
it to play.)

But it raises the obvious question for the likes of us: Where is the point
beyond which the aquisition of more and more expensive photographic equipment
serves only that same purpose in our world?


My funds limits (or willingness to spend limits) kick in well before
that, for me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #10  
Old January 8th 12, 08:32 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Link

On 2012-01-06 00:07:44 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:39:54 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:46:46 +0000, Pete A
: wrote:
:
: On 2012-01-04 23:17:22 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
:
: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0500, Mike Benveniste
: wrote:
:
:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...t-stradivarius

:
: See also
:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptiveca...ad?sc=fb&cc=fp

:
: or http://tinyurl.com/7jg8mpn
:
: After listening to the sound tracks I found that I could hear a
: difference between the violins but I didn't know enough to know which
: was which. The Strad had a slightly deeper, richer (darker chocolate)
: tone than the modern one.
:
: Reminds of the double-blind test Peter Walker of Quad amplifier fame
: ran about 40 years ago. All the gurus were saying that the Linn
: amplifier sounded more 'musical' than the Quad. Peter Walker
: challenged them to a double blind test to see whether or not they
: really could tell the difference between the two.
:
: For some strange reason all the #1 critics found reasons to be
: somewhere else that day. However a sufficient range of the #2 critics
: were 'volunteered' to enable the tests to be run. Guess what? The
: ability of the listeners to tell a Quad from a Linn was found to be no
: better than selecting the amplifiers by random chance.
:
: Then, to top all this off, Peter Walker told the critics that a Quad
: did sound different from a Linn and showed them why by displaying wave
: forms on oscilloscope.
:
: He went on and explained why there should be this difference. It all
: depended on the placement of a capacitor in the
: amplifier's output circuit. Quad and Linn used two different
: arrangements. He then showed that by changing over the way this
: component was installed he could make a Quad sound like a Linn and
: vice versa.
:
: Finally, he explained why the Quad arrangement gave more accurate
: sound and why the Linn added enhancements to the music which weren't
: actually there in the original. At this point he allowed the critics
: to exit under the door.
:
: Regards,
:
: Eric Stevens
:
: In recent times we read of the large differences in sound between
: optical digital interconnects, even when the digital error rate is zero.
:
: Not to ignore the supposed sound advantage to be obtained by adding a
: flywheel like mass to a CD to help move out the wow and flutter of the
: drive. [Note: the CD reads into a buffer which downloads digital data
: to the DAC at a constant rate governed by a clock.]

Why does that remind me that Kodak is about to go bankrupt?

Bob


Absolutely no idea why your wrote that comment. However, it reminds me
that most people cannot discern the difference between Kodachrome 25
and consumer grade films just as most cannot tell the difference
between a good concert piano and a Yamaha "electric" piano.

I have two of Yamaha's exemplary keyboard instruments: organ and
effects synthesizer. They are old yet the sound is far beyond the
capabilities of MP3 recording, just not quite up to the best CD audio.
Recent top of the range Yamaha Clavinovas and Electones are capable of
producing sounds that truly defy the imagination. Sadly, by the time
they've gone through the "mixing for most profit" recording studios
their magic has been destroyed, making them sound only like a Technics
et al.

On my wish list is to play both a Moog synthesizer and a Fender Rhodes
electric piano. Look what happened to those fine instruments aeons ago.
I'm amazed by how often the Fender Rhodes sound is emulated in 21st
century popular music.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
7D link Charles[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 1 September 18th 09 05:18 AM
30D PC link alandav123 Digital Photography 4 October 7th 07 11:28 PM
30D PC link alandav123 Digital Photography 0 October 6th 07 10:21 PM
Some useful link jassica Digital Photography 0 March 26th 07 03:35 AM
New Link Eros In The Darkroom 0 January 23rd 05 06:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.