The disappearance of darkness

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.

Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits
- more so in processing.

DSP is used in "modelling amps" which attempt to replicate the waveform
of over-driven valve amps combined with particular guitar speaker
non-linearity and "break-up" characteristics.
They are getting pretty good - in blind tests, it's hard to tell, ie
between a Vox AC30, and a Vox modelling amp set to sound like a Vox AC 30.
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.

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
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. And far more who think the archival qualities
are superior to digital at the moment. That may change, but the nostalgia
won't. Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
prefer the ritual. And many will still get a kick out of watching an image
appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals
anyway!)

Trevor.

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.

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.

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

And far more who think the archival qualities
are superior to digital at the moment.

those who do are very mistaken.

with digital, you can make unlimited perfect copies forever. with
analog you cannot. every 'backup' (which isn't a backup at all) is
lossy.

with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
the better.

plus, as computers and software improves, so do the images. for
instance, noise reduction gets better, so those old images taken with
what are now considered noisy sensors look better than they did before.

That may change,

the only thing that will change is that those who think film is more
archival realize they are mistaken.

digital is and will always be more archival.

but the nostalgia
won't.

it will when those who are nostalgic move on to the great darkroom in
the sky.

Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
prefer the ritual.

digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip' the
record, and maybe put a motion sensor in the floor so if you dance to
the music a bit too enthusiastically, the record skips.

the only good thing about vinyl is the cover art was 12" and not 5".

And many will still get a kick out of watching an image
appear under the safelight. (for as long as they can get paper and chemicals
anyway!)

that can be emulated digitally.

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/7/2013 4:36 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Me
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.

add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.

add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.

those who want accuracy don't do either.


And those who want art, may do either, neither or both. they may also use
tons of filters in any of millions of combinations.

You would not drape a lace curtain in front of an old master.


--
PeterN

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
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.

Nothing. Zero.

In either case NO modern circuit comes even close to class B.

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.


Doug McDonald

"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.




That discontinuity in transistor based circuits is audible to about
1/1000th of a percent of listeners. IOW, even "audiophiles" cough with
the best trained ears would fail to pick it out in an ABX test.

Anything related to the "tone" can be done in analog or digital circuits -
more so in processing.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
but has never actually done it.
OTOH a Brit can do it standing up...
-Pierre Berton

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.


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)

"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.

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.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 5/8/2013 12:27 AM, 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.

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.

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.


--
PeterN

On 5/8/2013 5:36 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/7/2013 4:36 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Me
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.

add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.

add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.

those who want accuracy don't do either.


And those who want art, may do either, neither or both. they may also use
tons of filters in any of millions of combinations.

You would not drape a lace curtain in front of an old master.


No! But our Department of Justice did, to the tune of eight thousand
dollars.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm

What is wrong with the use of filters to create art.

--
PeterN