The disappearance of darkness

On 5/8/13 6:16 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:27:02 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article , Trevor

wrote:



There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some

misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak

will mourn the passing of wet film.



Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what

can be printed from digital.



for no good reason.

Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and sifting
through them for the 'best'.


anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital

a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really

what they want.

I remmber doing solarization in a darkroom, it felt liek I was actually
achiving something special, I don't get that filing by going to a filter menu,
it hardley seems like doing nowadays.


the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new

technology.

I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the
bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the
excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
down the sink.


So, you are also a member of the Brown Fingernail Society, eh?!?

On 9/05/2013 12:29 a.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Me" wrote:
On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:


There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
misplaces
preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
mourn the
passing of wet film.


Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).

Count me as a guitarist who thinks said preference is misplaced. I've
owned a lot of amps, tube and solid state, and the tube amps have all
been noisy, ugly of sound, heavy, and a pain in the butt. Of course, I'm
into a clean sound and my "effects chain" consists of just a single
cable between guitar and amp. The folks who hate the sound of their
guitar (i.e. use effects) and love ugly sounds like tube amps.

Hold on a minute...
Whoops - you just accused (with very few exceptions) the (electric)
guitarists featuring in practically every top 100 list of rock / pop /
blues / jazz musicians, of "hating the ugly sound" of the equipment that
they use.
As I mentioned in another post, SS amps are used for clean sound,
sometimes jazz, blues, steel guitar etc. I've got an example here (my
son's) from the '80s, a SS stereo chorus 2 x 12" combo, ideal for that
kind of thing. But for tone, it sucks big time compared with a small
1x12 valve combo amp, at half the size and weight. He's performed at
gigs using the valve amp miked to large PAs (support band - I insist
that he gets a day job before ever committing to the idea of performing
music for money) . No - he doesn't play heavily distorted metal, but
blues and country influenced rock. (He plays the banjo as well).
The tube amp he normally uses has the same set of tubes as when he
bought it new about 3 years ago.


The cabinets and speakers used are way more important than the
amplifier. But there aren't a lot of other guitarists with degrees in
EE. (One place I play has a solid state pedal steel guitar amp with a
15" speaker; my guitar (a hand-made Gibson L-4 equivalent) sounds
insanely wonderful through it, despite the player.)

There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as
digital sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called
"modelling amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear
response) of valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in
photoshop etc, to replicate the look of film.

Yes. But as of this month, Fujifilm is still making film (including both
Velvia 50 and Velvia 100), and has even released a new ISO 400 color
negative film.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?

BTW Your statement was
"the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology."

When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
a proper introduction.

digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
goes on, the difference will get bigger.

digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
results.

Not the issue - see above

it's *exactly* the issue.

the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
it happens to be.

the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
software.

Stop shape shifting.
You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
accept new technology." I called you on it.

you did not call me on anything nor am i shape shifting.

Now when do you want to meet
real people who do not fit your classification.

i have no immediate plans to go to new york. maybe photo plus next fall.

that is the sole issue.

your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
being an argumentative twit.

In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
software.

Stop shape shifting.
You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept
new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
people who do not fit your classification.

Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film (X-rays
for instance, but even then...),

x-ray is not what this is about, but even that has gone digital.

digital x-ray is faster, uses lower power x-rays which is safer for the
patient and the technician, has lower storage costs and is easier to
manage. it can also be instantly sent to another doctor anywhere in the
world.

but essentially almost all who still use
film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around to
buying new equipment yet.

that's exactly what i said. they aren't embracing new technology.

some claim film looks better, but whatever film look they like can be
done in software, so that excuse won't fly.

Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just by
looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the highest
standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).

how do you know if you were right? did it say in the magazine which
film they used?

Sure film has improved since then, but has now been completely overhauled by
digital.

exactly.

the film luddites refuse to acknowledge this.

Similarly in the late 1980's I could tell when Signal Radio was playing CD's
by ear as I drove along the M6 because the sound quality was so much better.
This was despite the fact that Signal obviously had top quality vinyl decks,
it had a radio segment and was playing in my relatively noisy car.

On my home system it is easy to forget and leave the amp is on because the
noise level is so low with no signal you just can't hear it. There would be
[intrusive] audible hiss from a valve amp.

People who think vinyl is better than CD, valves amps are better than
transistor and since fairly recently film is better than digital are just
deluding themselves.

yep, and sometimes it's funny how far they'll go to rationalize it.

These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
digital] interconnects...

that's nothing.

i've seen $300 usb cables and $500 ethernet cables, the latter which
has directional arrows on it so it's not plugged in backwards.
apparently, network packets only go in one direction. who knew. it's a
good thing usb cables have different plugs on either end so you can't
plug it in backwards.

but none of that matters until you replace the power cables.

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2011/nov/power-cable.cfm
An audio power cable costing over £20,000 has been described as "the
most advanced cable technology ever developed"

that's over $31k as of right now. for a power cable.

for some reason, the regular wire inside the walls of the house, out to
the pole and the miles back to the power company don't need to be
replaced.

On 2013.05.07 20:11 , Doug McDonald wrote:
On 5/7/2013 3:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
"push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
class B amplifier).

That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
1/1000th of a percent of listeners.
Uh ... class A versus class B has NOTHING to do with tube versus solid
state.

I was comparing tube amps to class B. I never brought up class A.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013.05.08 06:04 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

On 5/7/2013 3:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
whereas transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the
"push" transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a
class B amplifier).

That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
1/1000th of a percent of listeners.

Well class B is a very old design, I remember reading about it as a kid in
th sixties, OTOH you can do class B using transistors.

It's a practical, long lived design. A compromise that works very well
and efficiently in all respects.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013.05.07 22:53 , Me wrote:
On 8/05/2013 8:42 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:


There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
misplaces
preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
mourn the
passing of wet film.


Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
to replicate the look of film.


The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is snip
No.

Yes. Precisely as described. Crossover distortion between the -ve and
+ve sides of the circuit has always been the chief criticism of class B
amps. Not that Joe Consumer or Audi O'Phile can hear it.


But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.

Many musicians experiment with new sounds over time and that includes
emulating or experimenting with the sounds of other musicians. Not
necessarily to copy in performance but as part of a voyage somewhere
else. It's part of the creative process and discovery.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013.05.08 06:16 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:


There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
misplaces
preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
mourn the
passing of wet film.


Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
to replicate the look of film.


The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range whereas
transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
amplifier).

Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but +5V
to +25V.

That would be a class A amplifier. Very energy inefficient.


A class B amp has, essentially, 2 identical circuits, one "pulling" and
one "pushing". Here's a conceptual circuit for you with the current
flow marked and the crossover distortion illustrated.

http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/...ier/amp_6.html

Pay attention to the "waveforms" at the output.

(And you don't need that transformer - indeed you don't want it).



Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.

Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they outperformed
valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.

I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the
sole true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier, eg:
crossover distortion at 0 V between the -ve and -ve circuits.

Very old issue.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:51:19 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:


"Me" wrote in message
...
On 8/05/2013 10:16 p.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:


There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
misplaces
preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
mourn the
passing of wet film.


Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
to replicate the look of film.


The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
whereas
transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
amplifier).

Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but
+5V
to +25V.

Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.

Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they
outperformed
valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.

Example - a basic EF81 (AF valve) was over £1 retail in 1973, when they
were
still in mass production - that is about £11 ($16) today. Even now an
equivalent transistor would cost less than a dollar and out perform it in
every way.

Some still are in mass production - perhaps just not in the kind of volume
as 50 years ago, ie:
http://www.jj-electronic.com/
There are also makers in Russia and China.

No doubt - quite a good design IIRC.



It's moved on a bit recently too, with class D amps setting efficiency
standards, increased efficiency means less heat, smaller size. For large
concert PA systems - this type of audio amp may be used these days:
http://www.powersoft-audio.com/en/pr...eries/k20.html
2 x 9000w in a small rack mount unit, 12kg weight.
(but you can almost guarantee that the guitarist will still be using his
valve amp, miked in to the PA)

My partner worried when I bought a Sony AV amp (7x100W) - note sure what she
would make of 18kW!


Many years ago Dr Leak used 12W to generate the same sound pressure
level in the Royal Festival Hall as the hall organ. Mind you, he had
some enormous speakers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013.05.08 16:05 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
digital] interconnects...

If you dig around you can find a story about some audiophiles having an
epic fail when coat hangers were used in lieu of some high end speaker
cable in an ABX test.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton