Audio folks as bad as us...

Kuba Shadow

A
Kuba Shadow

  • 0
  • 0
  • 11
Watering time

A
Watering time

  • 2
  • 0
  • 40
Cyan

D
Cyan

  • 2
  • 0
  • 31
Sunset & Wine

D
Sunset & Wine

  • 5
  • 0
  • 37

Forum statistics

Threads
199,104
Messages
2,786,188
Members
99,812
Latest member
ronron
Recent bookmarks
0

polyglot

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,467
Location
South Australia
Format
Medium Format
Funnily enough I'm just finishing the assembly of my active crossovers (6.2 channel, 3-way, 4th order Linkwitz-Riley - it's been a lot of soldering). Nothing gold-plated, just a shirtload of TL074s and associated passives, driving way too many channels of power-amp. Flat within 2dB from 16Hz to 22kHz (until I crank the bass a tad), Q is about 0.7 and phase is pretty linear from 35Hz up. Double-brick walls will quake and dammit, that's what matters. I'll finally get to retire the speakers I built in high school; they're going strong but look seriously ratty.

The audio people are 100x worse than camera people (OK, maybe not Leica) for snake-oil though; my biggest LOL was an article going on about a "muddying reflection" apparently from the listener's eye-glasses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
Technically, neither do photons, if you get my d-d-d-drift.

Yep, and let's keep going with that - because you know, an effectively linear digital curve is the same as a non-linear analog curve, right? It's like claiming electrons don't know the difference between 1/2" tape or 20-bit A/Ds - hence "it's all the same, why bother..."

Tape compression, film shoulder compression, tape saturation, film over-exposure, etc., etc.

...pry the character-unique analog materials from my cold dead hands.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
I've heard great sound from Quad ESL-63's, so I'd expect nothing less from the CLS's! BTW, the 63's were driven by a whopping 25 wpc amp! But I'll also admit that they don't go to ear-bleed volume!

The CLSs are really awesome speakers. With acoustic music, small jazz ensembles, chamber music, vocal music, etc they are so very sweet to listen to. I heard some early 60's Paul Desmond, Miles Davis, and Johnny Hodges on a pair, via Audio Research and a Wavelength DAC, and I was thoroughly impressed. But, they frustrate the $hit out of me when it comes to rhythm driven music that has real energy, because I just don't think they can deliver a punch. Nowhere near a pair of Von Schweikert, Vandersteen, or even a pair of old Vortex Screens or Snell E.
The CLSs are amazing speakers, an engineering feat of massive proportions and do some things better than almost anything I have ever heard. Their treble comes to mind especially. It is so sweet, stretched out, and gives truly fantastic imaging. But they are not everybody's taste, and even if I could afford them, or fit them in my house and do them justice, I would never want to own them, and it is because I think they fall flat on their nose with high energy, rhythm driven music.

You might find them to be the best thing since sliced bread and disagree with me profoundly, it certainly wouldn't be the first time somebody does :smile: Just don't be surprised if you in fact are disappointed...

But, enough of that. Sorry for the digression.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
357
Location
Nova Scotia
Format
35mm
"But, enough of that. Sorry for the digression."

But that's my favorite part!

I don't think that audiophiles are that different than photographers - to my way of thinking it's about having a passion. And following it. A lot comes down to experience - if you want to get better you have to actively participate.
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
"But, enough of that. Sorry for the digression."

But that's my favorite part!

I don't think that audiophiles are that different than photographers - to my way of thinking it's about having a passion. And following it. A lot comes down to experience - if you want to get better you have to actively participate.

Well, having a passion and following it is one thing. Edward Weston did that, succesfully, with rather minimal equipment. The Leicaphools and audiophools end up obsessed with the meaningless minutiae, losing sight of the goal, which is to make photographs and hear music respectively. It's a mild form of mental illness - obsession and passion are not the same.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Well, having a passion and following it is one thing. Edward Weston did that, succesfully, with rather minimal equipment. The Leicaphools and audiophools end up obsessed with the meaningless minutiae, losing sight of the goal, which is to make photographs and hear music respectively. It's a mild form of mental illness - obsession and passion are not the same.

You generalize. Whatever camera people choose to use, don't you think there are personal reasons beyond the brand, that are well thought out and actually providing a benefit to their photography?
Example: I used (still use) Pentax 35mm SLR cameras. I tried out a Leica, and did a practical comparison from print to print, and decided that results wise it really didn't matter much if I used a 50mm Pentax or a 50mm Summicron. There was, in my prints on a Leitz Focomat, using the same film and developer, no technical or quality difference that was substantial enough to care about. But, and this is the big stickler for me, that Leica was just soooooooo much nicer to handle and use. This means I'm more confident and swift with the camera, which in turn simply gives me prints that are better framed, more spontaneous, and I am simply happier with my output now than before getting that camera.

The brand of the camera couldn't matter less; the good part for me is simply how it handles and what in the end comes out of it. I hope that you meant something else, like people who buy and use Leicas just because it's a Leica and then brag about how much better they are, without paying attention to the utility.
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
The brand of the camera couldn't matter less; the good part for me is simply how it handles and what in the end comes out of it. I hope that you meant something else, like people who buy and use Leicas just because it's a Leica and then brag about how much better they are, without paying attention to the utility.

I thought I made this clear. "...to make photographs and hear music..."
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
I thought I made this clear. "...to make photographs and hear music..."

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but it wasn't clear to me, probably because I read your post too quickly.
 

Roger Cole

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
I read it, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. If the goal were simply to make photographs I'd shoot digital. With a good DSLR the quality is close enough to good medium format as to make no practical difference at realistic print sizes, and it is far, far easier. But I enjoy the process of conventional photography. I enjoy getting away from the computer and getting my hands wet. It is, for me, clearly not solely about the image; it's also about the process.

Of course your point about equipment is valid. I enjoy the process just as much with my old consumer grade Ricoh XR-7 as with my Pentax LX. Well, almost as much - the Ricoh is small, light, handles well and has exposure memory lock which the LX bizarrely lacks. But the LX is clearly a piece of fine equipment while the Ricoh is consumer plastic.

But it's not just about the results produced. It it were, pianists could just compose music on a computer and have a synth program play it. Same with analog photographers.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,109
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format
But it's not just about the results produced. It it were, pianists could just compose music on a computer and have a synth program play it.

Some do.


Steve.
 

holmburgers

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
4,439
Location
Vienna, Austria
Format
Multi Format
But our tools are not quite so simple. There are very complex relationships going on, beyond just saying that a midi keyboard is fundamentally identical to a piano.

Sure they both have a 12-key per octave keyboard, but because there are possibilities available in the midi keyboard that are not there in a piano, and vice versa, the musician/composer will make different decisions along the way, ultimately leading to something completely different.

The same is true with any tool or instrument. It'll be intrinsically suited to a certain way of working, determined by its design, and the way that we adapt to it will be in large part completely involuntary.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
I read it, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. If the goal were simply to make photographs I'd shoot digital. With a good DSLR the quality is close enough to good medium format as to make no practical difference at realistic print sizes, and it is far, far easier. But I enjoy the process of conventional photography. I enjoy getting away from the computer and getting my hands wet. It is, for me, clearly not solely about the image; it's also about the process.

I see your point, Roger, but I see it differently for my purposes. For me, it's all about getting a piece of equipment that gets out of the way of what I'm doing. The less clutter and options, the more time I can spend with the subject matter, and to me that's what really counts.

The whole process thing I think is almost a natural thing for film/darkroom photographers. We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't love making our prints with the aid of a fully tangible, smelly, and chemistry laden process.

I guess to me it's two separate processes:

1. Shooting film - it's the least expensive way to make negatives for the silver gelatin print sizes I desire. I could shoot digital and make digital negatives, but that would be infinitely more expensive for me.
I tremendously enjoy the anticipation of seeing what the negative does in the darkroom. I passionately hate developing film, though, so the more standardized that process is, the happier I am. Shooting = fun, processing = sucks. :smile:

2. Darkroom work - this is what I burn with passion to do, and where my creative juices really start flowing. This is where I work with the negatives to eke as much out of them as I possibly can, and I spend hours on end doing it, and I can't get enough.

Those two processes are separate in my mind, and for the film shooting part I need equipment that is as transparent as possible, meaning that it's so intuitive to use that it vanishes from my chain of decision.
In the second process, printing, I want equipment and materials that enable me to get the very most out of a printing session, and why I end up spending a fair bit of time with each print, making sure I don't have to come back and re-print it later on, because I likely never will, unless it sells.

It's about having fun, so your whole 'might as well shoot digital' doesn't hold water for some people. The shooting part I probably would be just as happy with a Leica M9, but I would be 100% miserable doing post processing on a computer.

So, to get back to the audio analogy - some people focus only on the music, listening intently for lyrics or musical element of the music that they enjoy, or just plain like it. Others just satisfy the intellectual challenge of building a truly awesome stereo, spending thousands of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars on equipment. Then there are those who do both, actual lovers of music with enough energy and funds to build an incredible audio setup, so that they can enjoy their music EVEN MORE. It is so good that it gets out of the way of the music, and gets you focused on the music rather than the equipment.
One of my friends come to mind, and I would guess that for every $1,000 he spends on CDs and vinyl, he probably spends about $100 on equipment. He has struck an amazing balance in his system, to the point that it's chameleon versatile and plays just about everything with real vigor and authority. But it's all to bring out the best in the music. Often we go to the gym together, and he enjoys what I play for him on my crappy car stereo...

With that long wound reply, I guess some people pursue really good equipment in order to enable themselves to be absolutely 'free to see' when the time comes to click the shutter. The tools are a means to an end, and you can sort of feel the process rushing through your head and veins, imagining what the picture will look like once transformed into a print. That, to me, is the tool to strive for, and I might look for it with a highly selective mind, to get just what I want. Unfortunately these cameras tend to be Hasselblads and Leicas, at least for me.
 

Lionel1972

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
332
Location
France
Format
Multi Format
I discovered hi-end Hi-Fi equipment a couple of years before I rediscovered analog photography. Just when, 3 years later I did with Large Format and Medium Format, I stumbled onto some websites exposing the surprising qualities of analog (vaccum tube based) audio gear. Just like I started to feel the need to own at least one 4x5 and one MF camera when I had my mind blown away at the sight of some 4x5 Kodachromes from the 40's online, after I read how some old technology based equipment could enhance my listening experience, I looked online and found out I could actually afford a small integrated hybride tube amp (DARED MP-5). It came at my house along with small shelf Klipsch loudspeakers. Once I played a Coltrane CD (Love Supreme) I just couldn't believe my ears! I've played the saxophone in a small band during high school, and suddenly, right in front of me my ears and brain were fooled to the point that I could almost see and feel the instrument and all its little noises just as real as I remembered them. I just didn't know such realistic sound reproduction was possible. In a similar way the first time I looked into the blue eyes of my father with a loupe over my first 4x5 transparency portrait, I couldn't beleive my eyes, it felt as if I could reach and touch him. Again I did not know such things were possible. No digital device before nor since has giving me this experience. The non-linear properties of analog technology cannot be overlooked as equaled by "good enough" ditigal approximations. Our phyisical experience of the world is far more sensitive to those differences than what measurements and theories are able to envision so far. Oddly enough, recently I thought I would get a better source by playing my CDs on a brand new Sony Blu-Ray player. Ended up very disappointed as my old hard-discount supermarket DVD player (50 euros paid more than 5 years ago) does produce a better, more 3-dimensional and natural sounding source. Yet I get the most real-like (almost touchable) sound from good vinyls on my PE34 Hi-FI turntable from 1964 that I bought at a charity flea market for less that I paid for the DVD player.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

vpwphoto

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
1,202
Location
Indiana
Format
Multi Format
....buurpppp. Sorry I started this one.

Anyway... listening to stuff on the Marantz 2225 from the feed from the MacPro.. editing DSLR images today unfortunately.
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
Non-linear curves,
Non-linear curves,
Non-linear curves,
...

If anything, audiophiles attempting to minimize signal "distortion" along the path are more digital than they are analog.

Film and print people are more similar to tube and tape people than they are generic audiophiles.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

tkamiya

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
4,284
Location
Central Flor
Format
Multi Format
I think it's important to realize, being technically superior and being "good" isn't always the same thing. In terms of linearity and S/N ratio, the latest digital gears do far better job than most tube gears. Human ears aren't quite linear and human minds aren't always logical either. I think when one departs from looking for what's good and starts to look for better numbers, there starts a beginning of much larger problem.

With that...
Let me just add, now a famous quote at my household, by my girlfriend....
In response to my explaining what 'soft focus filter' does... she said,
"you spent all this money for the best and sharpest lens and now you want to make it blurry?"
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,109
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format
being technically superior and being "good" isn't always the same thing.

Think how awful rock and roll guitar would sound if technically perfect audio amplifiers were available in the 1940s and 1950s.


Steve.
 

R Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
137
Location
wonderful ne
Format
Medium Format
I discovered hi-end Hi-Fi equipment a couple of years before I rediscovered analog photography. Just when, 3 years later I did with Large Format and Medium Format, I stumbled onto some websites exposing the surprising qualities of analog (vaccum tube based) audio gear. Just like I started to feel the need to own at least one 4x5 and one MF camera when I had my mind blown away at the sight of some 4x5 Kodachromes from the 40's online, after I read how some old technology based equipment could enhance my listening experience, I looked online and found out I could actually afford a small integrated hybride tube amp (DARED MP-5). It came at my house along with small shelf Klipsch loudspeakers. Once I played a Coltrane CD (Love Supreme) I just couldn't believe my ears! I've played the saxophone in a small band during high school, and suddenly, right in front of me my ears and brain were fooled to the point that I could almost see and feel the instrument and all its little noises just as real as I remembered them. I just didn't know such realistic sound reproduction was possible. In a similar way the first time I looked into the blue eyes of my father with a loupe over my first 4x5 transparency portrait, I couldn't beleive my eyes, it felt as if I could reach and touch him. Again I did not know such things were possible. No digital device before nor since has giving me this experience. The non-linear properties of analog technology cannot be overlooked as equaled by "good enough" ditigal approximations. Our phyisical experience of the world is far more sensitive to those differences than what measurements and theories are able to envision so far. Oddly enough, recently I thought I would get a better source by playing my CDs on a brand new Sony Blu-Ray player. Ended up very disappointed as my old hard-discount supermarket DVD player (50 euros paid more than 5 years ago) does produce a better, more 3-dimensional and natural sounding source. Yet I get the most real-like (almost touchable) sound from good vinyls on my PE34 Hi-FI turntable from 1964 that I bought at a charity flea market for less that I paid for the DVD player.

I had almost the same experience. Went from mp3 format to wav. then to optical digital output and 5 channel sound, and I liked it. Then I found a ancient cd player at the junk store , and replaced the output filters from the dac with tube outputs.
It sounds as if the performers are in the same room with you , with all sorts of nuances coming out of the music . Even my daughter noticed(Why does it sound so good?). I almost always use it now even though it can't handle anything more than a standard CD ( it IS a dinosaur). Digital has a place but so does analog, and sometimes they can work together very well.
r paul
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
Consider too the recording methods used for music produced today vs music produced in the past. Previously, 60s-70s-80s-early 90s, a lot of music was tracked to tape, with 24-32 track 2" tape being in wide-use by professional studios in the 80s. Then a final mix would be mixed down to 2-track (tape) and sent off to a mastering house - where the final master would be "cut". After that it'd either be cut do vinyl masters, 8-track, cassette or early CDs.

Then came along the digital multi-track combined with final mix to 2-track tape - then eventually to never leaving the computer, sent to masters via DAT or CD-R and later electronically.

Even ignoring the whole loudness and compression wars that came along with all of this "march" of technology, consider the difference in mediums used for tracking/recording and final mix downs.

Then consider why an album from the 70s or 80s (again, ignore the compression part) just has a different sound/sheen/warmth vs a modern post 2000 album. Analog mediums were responsible for some of that.
 

EASmithV

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,984
Location
Virginia
Format
Large Format
Vacuum tube audio card? SWEET I love vacuum tubes.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom