Link

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 19:32:52 +0000, Pete A
wrote:
: 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.

If Kodachrome 25 wasn't a consumer-grade film, I can't imagine what was.
Kodacolor? I doubt that it ever outsold Kodachrome when the two competed
head-to-head. IIRC, Kodak made a professional version of Kodachrome that cost
more and had more precisely calibrated colors for consistency across
production lots. But I'd call the Kodachrome 25 they sold in drug stores the
quintessential consumer-grade color film, maybe of all time.

As for my quip about Kodak going broke, it's just that trying to give a CD the
characteristics of a flywheel reminded me of Kodak's flailing and thrashing as
it circled the drain. If the analogy doesn't fit, I withdraw it.

Bob

On 2012-01-08 21:43:03 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 19:32:52 +0000, Pete A
wrote:
: 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.

If Kodachrome 25 wasn't a consumer-grade film, I can't imagine what was.
Kodacolor? I doubt that it ever outsold Kodachrome when the two competed
head-to-head. IIRC, Kodak made a professional version of Kodachrome that cost
more and had more precisely calibrated colors for consistency across
production lots.

My fault Bob, I meant Kodachrome 25 Pro versus the much cheaper films
around at the time. I used to buy it in batches, as I did Professional
Ektar 100 negative film, then store them in the fridge until a few days
before use.

I also loved the exquisite look of Kodachrome 200 Pro, but it took me a
long time to learn how get the best out of it.

When Ektar 100 first came out I took advantage of the special offer of
having it processed by a designated Kodak pro lab - not only did the
prints blow my socks off, there was an accompanying letter with very
useful comments about my exposure and focus accuracy, depth of field,
and my use of colour balancing filters. That's what I call exemplary
service.

I still refer to my three hardback Kodak books about photography (I
should've bought the whole set). I've reluctantly discarded a
collection of Kodak film data-sheets: obviously they serve no current
purpose, but decades ago Kodak UK added me to its free mailing list
just because I'd once made a request to obtain technical data on a
specific film.

But I'd call the Kodachrome 25 they sold in drug stores the
quintessential consumer-grade color film, maybe of all time.

Yes indeed.

As for my quip about Kodak going broke, it's just that trying to give a CD the
characteristics of a flywheel reminded me of Kodak's flailing and thrashing as
it circled the drain. If the analogy doesn't fit, I withdraw it.

Very appropriate and thanks for explaining it :-)