The disappearance of darkness

[Me]

An interesting interview on Radio New Zealand this morning, with Robert
Burley:
Toronto-based photographer whose book The Disappearance of Darkness:
Photography at the End of the Analogue Era chronicles the rapid speed at
which film and the huge factories that produced it have almost vanished.
Link to MP3 file:
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130507-1008-feature_guest_-_robert_burley-048.mp3

[RichA]

> Link to MP3 file:http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130507-1008-feature_guest_-_ro...

Film is destined for a small but enthusiastic audience of geeky niche
players, just like vinyl. Now, vinyl though still a fraction of sales
of CD's and electronic downloads is growing, but represents only about
a $70M market in the U.S. Can the film producers (who would also have
to offer processing or production of chemicals to do it) make a
business of film, whats left of it and can they survive while film
continues to fall further?
Film is where vinyl was around 1985, still dying before its slow rise
again.

[Me]

I think that was discussed in the podcast. It's relatively inexpensive
to set up to press vinyl records.
Not so to set up to produce and process photographic film (except
monochrome). When the market was massive - there were only a few players
in that game.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ee1af9e-fc00-4621...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

Fair analogy, however at least with a vinyl record you have something that
is scarcely less convenient than a CD or download.

Film on the other hand : -

Is expensive to buy and process. The marginal cost of digital is nil.
The results can't be seen at the time of filming (other than in hyper
expensive 70mm movie cameras which video at the same time), but takes a
while to come back - digital can be viewed immediately and distributed for
free.
Is limited to tens of shots per reel. You can get thousands on a micro SD
card.
IIRC the resolution of 35mm film is about 12Mp (the same as my phone).
Current digital resolutions exceed this in a smaller form factor, so in
future film cameras will be seen a big and cumbersome.

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.

[Me]

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.

[nospam]

In article <kmbnve$40f$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>

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.

[Alan Browne]

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. 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."
-Pierre Berton

[nospam]

In article <PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> 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).

which can be done with a transistor amp but is almost never done.

another factor is the characteristics of the distortion. tube amps are
less harsh, but who runs their amps where they continually distort?

under normal conditions, there is no difference that anyone can hear.

> 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.

probably less than that.

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

yep.

[PeterN]

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

--
PeterN

[Doug McDonald]

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.

Doug McDonald

[Me]

On 8/05/2013 8:51 a.m., nospam wrote:

>
> another factor is the characteristics of the distortion. tube amps are
> less harsh, but who runs their amps where they continually distort?
>

Many electric guitarists - it's probably the rule rather than the
exception for other than acoustic, some jazz/blues, and slide guitar.
There are a handful of guitarists who perform using solid state amps,
and even then they're very particular about which SS amp - I think BB
King is one, but there are a few others.

[Me]

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.

[Trevor]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:PrSdnV6yrrKzZhXM...@bt.com...

> 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.

[nospam]

In article <kmcgpk$oa7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
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.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:51899567$0$10844$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

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

>
> --
> PeterN

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Doug McDonald" <jdmc...@illinois.edu> wrote in message
news:kmc51a$i9i$1...@dont-email.me...

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
>

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...

> 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

[Me]

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/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/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)

[David J. Littleboy]

"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

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 12:27 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kmcgpk$oa7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> 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

[PeterN]

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

[nospam]

In article <518a6438$0$10808$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> 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.

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.

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.

if someone wants a 'film look,' they can duplicate it digitally. they
can add back grain or match what kodachrome or velvia would have done
or whatever else is needed to match their favourite film. there are
plug-ins that do this automatically with a couple of clicks, or it can
be done manually. or do both, run the plug-in then tweak it some more.
the possibilities are endless.

or, they can decide to stay with the higher quality of digital and not
intentionally make the image worse.

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <518a6438$0$10808$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<snip>

>>> 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


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518a960c$0$10823$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> 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.

[PeterN]

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.

that is the sole issue.
--
PeterN

[R. Mark Clayton]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:518a661f$0$10752$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

> On 5/8/2013 5:36 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

SNIP

>>
>> 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.

Nothing, but don't pretend that inferior technology is better.

>
> --
> PeterN

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Me" <anywh...@here.com> wrote in message
news:kmddkj$1bv$1...@news.albasani.net...

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/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/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!

>

[R. Mark Clayton]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:518aaa9f$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

> On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <518a960c$0$10823$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>

SNIP

>>
>> 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...), 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.

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

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.

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

[Me]

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.

[nospam]

In article <518aaa9f$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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.

[nospam]

In article <TJGdnTv0O8VmMhfM...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> 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.

[Alan Browne]

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.

[Alan Browne]

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.

[Alan Browne]

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.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 06:16 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...
>> 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/amplifier/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

[Eric Stevens]

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

[Tony Cooper]

Typical of nospam not to understand that the preference is based on
the process and not the result. He must think that a woodworker who
lovingly makes a table in his workshop is someone who refuses to
accept new technology because he won't buy a mass produced table from
Rooms To Go.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Alan Browne]

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.

[nospam]

In article <WZ-dnZg4NPtVVhfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> 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.

i bookmarked that long ago.

<http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-
between-monster-cable-and/>

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

news:jcmdneFL25r4XxfM...@giganews.com...

> On 2013.05.08 06:16 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...

>>> 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.
>

Well at low output anyway, probably not a big deal with a basic TV or radio
outputting a watt or two.

>
> 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/amplifier/amp_6.html
>
> Pay attention to the "waveforms" at the output.
>
> (And you don't need that transformer - indeed you don't want it).

Usually is a feature in class B though. The trouble with the
transformerless design in your article is getting NPN and PNP transistors
with matching parameters was near hopeless.

>
>
>>
>> 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 slight compared to the soft clipping in a valve amp (this is the
[distorted] sound valve amp lovers like). Of course over-drive a transistor
amp and the clipping is vile.

[Me]

On 9/05/2013 9:18 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> 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.
>

No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.
Your argument may have merit for discussion about "hifi" applications,
but until recently (using DSP - in "modelling amps" which I referred
to), clipping from over-driven class AB or B SS amps have completely
undesirable harmonics, as well as typically a bias / asymmetry in
waveform leading to equipment damaging effects (DC burn of speaker voice
coils).

>
>> 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.
>

Sure. I expect that if you were to design an instrument based on the
needs behind the creation of original violins or pianos, but using 2013
materials and technology, then you'd come up with a result completely
different from what most people would consider to be a piano or violin.
It could be "better" technically - but it probably wouldn't be
considered to be be a violin as such, and a musician would still likely
covet a stradivarius - not just for "investment value".
The history may be shorter (but getting close to a century now) for
electric guitar rigs (which include amplification), but the same things
apply. There is evolution, but not revolution there. Solid state guitar
amps are an alternative (but not a replacement).
Revolution might be something like "autotune" as used by singers who
can't hold a note (ie they can't sing). That's allowed the truly
talentless to prosper - a tragic outcome IMO.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 18:44 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:jcmdneFL25r4XxfM...@giganews.com...
>> On 2013.05.08 06:16 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Well at low output anyway, probably not a big deal with a basic TV or radio
> outputting a watt or two.

At any output. It's always driving. I seem to recall somewhere
something saying it uses as a _minimum_ 2x as much power as a class B
arrangement - and probably a bit more (headroom?).

A class B "push" is 0 current during the "pull" and v-v. No energy
(almost) is being used on the 0 current side.

>>
>> 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/amplifier/amp_6.html
>>
>> Pay attention to the "waveforms" at the output.
>>
>> (And you don't need that transformer - indeed you don't want it).
>
> Usually is a feature in class B though. The trouble with the
> transformerless design in your article is getting NPN and PNP transistors
> with matching parameters was near hopeless.

That 'design' is a tutorial.

My class B amp has that design (in principle) and of course no
transformer at all. (Transformers bring all sorts of other issues from
20 to 20,000 Hz).

There is a BFR (R=resistor) which I assume soaks up the DC during the
transient. Can't be much current at that point in the cycle.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:080520131703026234%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <TJGdnTv0O8VmMhfM...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospam...@btinternet.com> 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.

Indeed - making the point perfectly. The only issue I would anticipate is
the X-rays gradually ruining the sensor.

>
>> 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?

Indeed they did - that was how I noticed and was then able to check by
looking at the acknowledgement.

Oh yes and you need $$$$ digital interconnects too. Funnily enough my phone
company manages to deliver 8Mbps though miles of thin corroded and often
submerged aluminium phone cable, with half a dozen rubbish joints from their
50yo exchange with a BERR of about one a week, which of course gets
corrected. True if I want 80Mbps they will run fibre to within a few
hundred metres. For domestic hi-fi this means that HDMI cables from the
pound shop are just fine.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Tony Cooper" <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:liilo81ila3ei1hvh...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:14:44 -0400, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <518a6438$0$10808$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>

> Typical of nospam not to understand that the preference is based on
> the process and not the result. He must think that a woodworker who
> lovingly makes a table in his workshop is someone who refuses to
> accept new technology because he won't buy a mass produced table from
> Rooms To Go.

This might be true for something hand crafted with aesthetic qualities, like
a table.

It is not true for items with technical perfomance issues - like a car.

Time was hand crafted cars like Rolls Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin were
seen as the best. By the 1980's they had been overtaken (figuratively and
lterally) by mass produced top end cars like BMW, Audi and Mercedes. All
these grand marques are now owned by big makers and whilst the leather seats
and wooden dash boards might still be made by loving craftsmen, the engines
and running gear are made by engineers in factories.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:080520131810500289%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they can
be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:
>>
> No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
> electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
> the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
> over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.

Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
they are rather out of vogue).

I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).

Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.

On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.

[Doug McDonald]

>
> 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.
>

You may be right about film. I won't argue.

But I will about B&W prints. There as aspects of silver ... not
to even include platinum or palladium or gold ... that cannot be
duplicated. Certain types of papers have reflection characteristics that
cannot be duplicated without metals in the emulsion. Of course,
digital images can be printed on those papers.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

On 5/8/2013 5:44 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>
>> I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the sole
>> true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier,

But that is like comparing a tube amplifier to a tube amplifier!

Or a solid state amplifier to a solid state amplifier!


"tube" versus "class B" is meaningless ... you are not specifyin the
class of the tube amp!

Is it class A, class AB1, class B or even class C?
(you really can't use class C for audio without modulation, in which
case its called "class D".
)


Tube does NOT imply that it isn't class B!!!
In fact amps exceedingly close if not actually class B were at one time
used to mudulate (a typo, but I think I'll leave it in!) AM radio
transmitters. The efficiency gain was important at megawatt power levels.

Doug McDonald

[Me]

Yup - hum is pretty normal and probably exacerbated by high gain setting
from the preamp section, as well as (probably) the amps SRV would have
used probably would have had "tank" reverbs (old-fashioned springs
between two audio transducers - a sender and receiver - still in common
use today), and also IIRC SRV played a standard fender strat with single
coil pickups (as opposed to dual "humbucker" pickups) and wait there's
more - the standard guitar cable and amp input sockets are old style 2
wire (shielded) phono connector with unbalanced signal, even though
balanced signal has been pretty much standard (using TRS phono sockets
or xlr) for other instrument and microphone signal cables for a long
time, with the result being able to do much longer runs of cable, with
much less noise.

I'm using a small "tri-amped" active speaker system as a home hifi
system ATM. In this case, class D for subs and main drivers, class AB
amps for the HF drivers, connected through a small mixer by balanced
XLR. It is phenomenally loud in a domestic setting, "only" about 2000
watts, but claimed maximum SPL is approaching 130dB at 1 metre. At full
volume (only ever used for demo purposes and to /really/ get the
neighbours upset <G>) There's no hum I can hear, but a very faint hiss
which isn't coming from the power amp circuits but the mixer (if I turn
the master gain down, then the hiss disappears). Unlike old-style small
PAs, it sounds excellent at lower volume and the close listening
distances in a typical house. I put most of this down to DSP, with
digital x-over at a very high 28dB/octave, built in digital delay
between drivers to avoid phase difference issues, and pre-set DSP
correction of spectral non-linearity of speaker response. This is not
high-end, but relatively middle of the road equipment (Mackie), in the
same sort of market as JBL etc.
It is however pretty ugly and industrial. It is also a "hifi purist's"
worst nightmare - especially those who believe that small low powered
amps can faithfully reproduce rock music - as it was meant to be heard.

[J. Clarke]

In article <E7mdnWkDndRLRRfM...@bt.com>,
nospam...@btinternet.com says...

It's rather sad that the job market has declined to the point where
engineers have to work on production lines, however you really need to
explain what underemployment has to do with product quality.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Me <anywh...@here.com> wrote:

> 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.

Of course. Art is often made to be hard. "Hand painted",
for example. Costs more and usually is of lesser quality than
proper manufacturing techniques (or is way more expensive).

But is sells ...

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

I wasn't aware there were so many who are police photographers
recording crime scenes, or producers of facsimiles of old
paintings.

-Wolfgang

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 3:51 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Me" <anywh...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:kmddkj$1bv$1...@news.albasani.net...

>> On 8/05/2013 10:16 p.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:PvednX8r77e--hTM...@giganews.com...

>>>> 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/products/touring-amplifiers/k-series/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!
>

I didn't know I had such pretensions. And I don't know what you mean by
inferior technology.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/8/2013 4:05 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:518aaa9f$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <518a960c$0$10823$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>>> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
> SNIP

>>>
>>> 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...), 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.
>

> 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).

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

I seem to recall Ecktachrome as haveing the blueish cast, and Kodachrome
as being warmer. For that reason, and its higher ASA, I used Ektachrome
for my underwater photography.

> 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.
>

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

>> that is the sole issue.

>> --
>> PeterN
>
>


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.

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

That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
BASIC meaning.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Wow you just hit a chord. I once made a hand inlaid chess table, out of
birch and maple. It took months. When my daughter was in grade school,
she wanted to play the cello. After renting one for the first year, I
picked up an old beat up cello that had been carelessly covered with
shellac, for $5. We spent a summer stripping the instrument to bare
wood, staining it, and hand finishing it with violin varnish. Her music
teacher commented that it was rare to see a beginning student playing
such a fine instrument, and that it was worth over a thousand dollars.
My original reason was so that my daughter would help finish the
instrument, therby having an investment in it. She kept her interest for
about seven years. But, I guess nospam would prefer a machine made
Chinese instrument.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-08 21:15:54 -0700, PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> said:
>
> BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
> BASIC meaning.

Yup! More than "some" less than "all".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <kmeqgp$2ni$1...@dont-email.me>, Doug McDonald

print the digital image on silver based paper, as you mentioned.

in fact, that's what photofinishing shops do. the negatives are scanned
and then digitally printed on photo paper.

don't tell the film luddites though. they'll probably have a fit.

[nospam]

In article <518b22f2$0$10806$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
engineering would be invalidated.

nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.

> >> that is the sole issue.
> >
> > your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
> > being an argumentative twit.
>
> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.

you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.

[nospam]

In article <YMidnWf5MuCqRxfM...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they can
> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).

i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
wire.

there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> 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 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's not an inherent charcteristic difference between transistor and
tube amps, it's simply a difference in the way te amplifier is
designed, e.g. class A, B, etc.. Neither device inherently can make
the +ve to -ve transistion. Tube amps managed it by simply biassing
themselves high so that the zero signal point was handled half way up
its voltage range. In the earky days of transistor amps the devices
didn't have the power to do that, so they chose to switch between
devices, one handling the +ve side, the other the -ve.

But teansistors are now powerful enough to run in the smae mode as
tube amps, i.e. with the zero signal point biassed half way up their
voltage range. And for those who care there are transistor amps made
to that design.

> That discontinuity in transistor based circuits

or tube amps operating the same mode.

> 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.

There were more differences than that. When tube amps were pushed past
their limits the distortion started rising, but it did so gracefully
and slowly. Whereas transistor amps pushed past their limits move very
rapidly into higher levels of distortion, and also a kind of
distortion which has a harsher sound. Since the loudest music tends to
be when lots of instruments (or voices) are playing at once, this
difference was most obvious as a muddying of clarity in loud
orchestral or large choir passages. Those with keen ears could also
pick up it with instruments which had very large sharp transient peaks
in the attack of their notes, such as a piano.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> 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.

I once built a speaker comparison control box which let you switch
instantly between different speakers at the same sound level. You
could keep switching back and forth and replaying passages until you'd
clarified the differences.

I invited several interested friends around to try it out. Once I'd
got everyone seated nicely and introduced to each other I went off to
make coffee for us all. While I was off making the coffee they started
playing records and using the comparator box. When I came back with
the coffee most of them had made up their minds about the differences.
They mostly agreed with one another about the clear superiority of A
over B. One wasn't yet sure and wanted more testing. One couldn't hear
any difference.

He was right. I hadn't switched the box into the circuit yet. They'd
been flicking disconnected switches :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:24:37 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:
>>>
>> No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
>> electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
>> the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
>> over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.
>
>Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
>point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
>the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
>they are rather out of vogue).
>
>I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
>to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
>system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).
>
>Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.

More likely an earth-loop. :-(

>
>On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
>is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
prefer film?

>
>>>> that is the sole issue.
>>>
>>> your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
>>> being an argumentative twit.
>>
>> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.
>
> you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.
>

Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518be3b1$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.
> >
> > that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
> > know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
> > engineering would be invalidated.
> >
> > nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
> > take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.
>
> What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
> prefer film?

everything.

since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
digitally.

they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.

> >>>> that is the sole issue.
> >>>
> >>> your inability to understand basic english is the issue, along with
> >>> being an argumentative twit.
> >>
> >> That's typical of you. When proven wrong you shift to name calling.
> >
> > you haven't proven me wrong and you are talking out your ass.
> >
> Can't justify your inane statement, so you resort to a personal attack.

you're not the one to criticize someone for resorting to personal
attacks, something you do at every opportunity.

[PeterN]

On 5/9/2013 3:05 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <518be3b1$0$10819$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Naturally, your statement would be proven wrong.
>>>
>>> that would be quite the feat, because for it to be wrong, everything we
>>> know about sampling theory, semiconductor physics and electrical
>>> engineering would be invalidated.
>>>
>>> nevertheless, if your buddy really thinks he can prove it, then best he
>>> take that proof to mit. it's an easy drive from new york.
>>
>> What does that have to do with your statement regarding people who
>> prefer film?
>
> everything.
>
> since digital surpasses film, anything they like about film can be done
> digitally.
>
> they don't like it because digital is new and they don't understand it.
>

You still don't get it. Tony Cooper's comment about you not
understanding the joy of the process, is spot on.


--
PeterN

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.09 05:18 , Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:24:37 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2013.05.08 18:52 , Me wrote:
>>>>
>>> No, the precise reason why valve amps are preferred over solid state for
>>> electric guitar amplification is not linearity at < X% THD level, but
>>> the characteristic of distortion when the amplifier is (deliberately)
>>> over-driven - past the point of signal clipping.
>>
>> Got it. But I look at amps from the POV of music playback, not
>> point-of-performance. In that sense the sole advantage of a tube amp is
>> the continuous transition. (Class A transistor amps too, I suppose, but
>> they are rather out of vogue).
>>
>> I don't know how well tube amps are wrt to noise these days. I'll have
>> to wander across the street to my richer neighbor and play with his
>> system one day using some good CD's. (And CD is good enough for me).
>>
>> Every time I hear a tube amp I can hear a hum.
>
> More likely an earth-loop. :-(

Not on my end - but see "Me"'s reply wrt the cable likely used.

>>
>> On Stevie Ray Vaughn's last album, on Little Wing, the hum from the amps
>> is audible. A credit to using the raw recordings, but irritating.


--

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 18:53 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>> 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.
>
> Indeed - making the point perfectly. The only issue I would anticipate is
> the X-rays gradually ruining the sensor.

It had been 2 decades since my last x-ray for an injury so, when last
year, I needed my ankle looked at I was pleasantly surprised at the
sensor used: a slab of about 30 x 20 cm, maybe 1 cm thick, was placed
under my ankle. It turned out to be a passive sensor that recorded the
image. I asked the tech and she said it was cleared for the next use
immediately after image retrieval. I didn't think to ask about cycle
life but I would assume many thousands, probably >100,000 exposures.

[Alan Browne]

A 5 metre run of 14 Ga. lamp cord can easily handle 15A.

If paranoid or a much longer run, just go to 12 or 10 Ga.

("Lamp cord" in N.A. is rated to 15A and is 14 Ga.).

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 20:45 , Doug McDonald wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 5:44 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm not debating the advantages of transistors, only pointing out the
>>> sole
>>> true weakness of a class B amplifier v. a tube amplifier,
> But that is like comparing a tube amplifier to a tube amplifier!
>
> Or a solid state amplifier to a solid state amplifier!
>
>
> "tube" versus "class B" is meaningless ... you are not specifyin the
> class of the tube amp!

The point of the matter sailed above your head and it's not worth my
time to explain where you failed to follow.

[Alan Browne]

Yes - I described all that a couple days ago.

[Alan Browne]

I thought you'd end up by saying that regardless of the switch positions
the wire in the speaker circuit was always the cheapest one.

"But we ALSO have to determine if the switch box itself made any
contribution to lower quality," sniffed Audi O'Phile.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-10 08:50:53 -0700, Alan Browne

Yup!
Last year when I had a dental implant, the dental surgeon had a
non-film digital set up. The x-ray was a digital scan and was instantly
displayed on two different displays in the surgery, and allowed him to
zoom in on specific areas where he was working.
No developing time or materials costs, just immediate imagery at the
various stages of the process, from extraction to placing the implant.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

Not quite true.

For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.

(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

[nospam]

In article <BvydnfO6-beb5QzM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
> >> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
> >> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
> >> can
> >> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).
> >
> > i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
> > wire.
> >
> > there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
> > but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.
>
> Not quite true.

it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.

> For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
> a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

oxygen free copper is not that recent, has no significant difference in
resistance and most copper wire is oxygen free *anyway*, whether it's
specifically listed that way or not.

if less resistance is the real goal (which it isn't), the easy solution
is get a larger gauge wire, or use silver instead of copper, which is a
better conductor. the drawback of course, is the word 'silver' doesn't
sound as impressive as 'oxygen free copper'. price isn't an issue
because these idiots will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on
all sorts of stuff thinking it will improve their sound.

<http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#oxygenfree>
However, as indicated above, most C11000 common copper sold today
meets or exceeds the 101% IACS conductivity and overlaps C10200
�oxygen free� that has a minimum of 100% IACS conductivity. In
practice, there is no significant difference in conductivity between
all three of the grades as far as audio use is concerned.

> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.

any difference they can measure is completely insignificant (fractions
of an ohm) and won't have any audible effect. period.

according to this calculator, 25' of 14 ga wire is 0.063 ohms, which is
less than 1% of a typical 8 ohm speaker impedance. a slightly higher or
slightly lower resistance won't make *any* difference whatsoever. drop
down a gauge to 16 ga and it's 0.1 ohm, a whopping 0.04 ohms more, into
an 8 ohm load. even that won't make a difference.

<http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>

> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

that's the entire point.

[Me]

One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

[nospam]

In article <kms79s$h0l$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>
wrote:

> One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by
> a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":
> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm
>
> Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

not only does that improve sound but it increases horsepower. amazing
what technology can do.

just be sure your vinyl records are fully demagnetized before
listening. otherwise you won't obtain the full effect of shatki.

<http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm>
Well, according to Furutech, the material added to vinyl to color it
black has magnetic properties, and demagnetizing LPs makes them
sound better.

[Me]

Even better - they claim that the paint used to print CDs and the
aluminium used in CDs itself is slightly magnetic, and that outfit
recommends using the "demag" for CDs...

Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.

That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
installing the 300kg or so sound system.
On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between
normal CD and SACD.

[Trevor]

"Me" <anywh...@here.com> wrote in message
news:kmsfo9$lct$1...@news.albasani.net...

> That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
> powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
> expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
> system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
> 6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
> installing the 300kg or so sound system.
> On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
> CD and SACD.

Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
opinion of course.

Trevor.

[Me]

This could well be true. I didn't choose the CDs, and music I don't
particularly enjoy is "device independent" - it can't be improved.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-08 21:15:54 -0700, PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> said:

>> BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
>> BASIC meaning.

> Yup! More than "some" less than "all".

Much more fun is "almost all" and mathematicians.

-Wolfgang

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:32:22 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2013.05.09 02:28 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <YMidnWf5MuCqRxfM...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
>> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
>>> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
>>> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they can
>>> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).
>>
>> i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
>> wire.
>>
>> there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
>> but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.
>
>Not quite true.
>
>For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
>a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.

It's not a recent fad: I've been using it for +25 years.

>
>"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
>RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
>
>(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).

I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference. It's not
blindingly obvious but using any one of several (vinyl) test records I
was able to demonstrate an audible difference via several double blind
tests. If you can't hear the difference it may say more about your
equipment than the cables.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

The fad which used to irritate me was the use of large rubber rims to
increase the rotational inertia of CDs with the aim of reducing wow
and flutter. The fact that the data on the CD was read into a buffer
from which it was released at a precisely controlled rate meant
nothing to the supporters of this fad. They wanted to reduce the
effect of rotational speed errors which they were certain must exist.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-13 12:26:51 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg

That could be translated as "all, except for that guy".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Peter Irwin]

Me <anywh...@here.com> wrote:
>
> Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
> claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
> mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
> which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
> on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
> when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
> difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.

While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
will hear the 1khz difference tone.)

Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net

[nospam]

In article <kmsn0v$2ig$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>
wrote:

> >> On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between normal
> >> CD and SACD.
> >
> > Surprising since most SACD's are remixed or remastered specialy to make sure
> > they sound different to the CD. Either better or worse depends on your
> > opinion of course.
> >
> This could well be true. I didn't choose the CDs, and music I don't
> particularly enjoy is "device independent" - it can't be improved.

if that's true, then the difference is with the mastering, not that one
is cd and the other sacd.

for the same source material, there is no audible difference between cd
and sacd.

[nospam]

In article <ci44p81gj1aqh1c0o...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> The fad which used to irritate me was the use of large rubber rims to
> increase the rotational inertia of CDs with the aim of reducing wow
> and flutter. The fact that the data on the CD was read into a buffer
> from which it was released at a precisely controlled rate meant
> nothing to the supporters of this fad. They wanted to reduce the
> effect of rotational speed errors which they were certain must exist.

don't forget using green marker pens on the edges.

[nospam]

In article <kmtnlo$7c9$1...@dns.ktb.net>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>

that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.

if you have crappy source material it will sound like crap, and it will
sound just as crappy with or without the snake oil. if you have good
source material, it will sound just as good with or without the snake
oil.

[nospam]

In article <0644p89q4bfdgou6b...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
> >a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.
>
> It's not a recent fad: I've been using it for +25 years.

so has everyone else. most wire is oxygen free, and silver is a better
conductor anyway but the name doesn't sound as cool.

> >"Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
> >RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
> >
> >(The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).
>
> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.

you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
ohm make no difference and are not audible.

> It's not
> blindingly obvious but using any one of several (vinyl) test records I
> was able to demonstrate an audible difference via several double blind
> tests. If you can't hear the difference it may say more about your
> equipment than the cables.

of course it's not blindingly obvious, because there is no difference
to be heard.

if you guessed correctly, it was pure luck.

[Peter Irwin]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <kmtnlo$7c9$1...@dns.ktb.net>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>
> wrote:
>
>> > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
>> > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
>> > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
>> > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
>> > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
>> > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
>> > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.
>>
>> While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
>> distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
>> probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
>> midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
>> real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
>> IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
>> at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
>> will hear the 1khz difference tone.)
>
> that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.

You were claiming that linear accuracy of waveform / THD at
high frequencies was unimportant because you can't hear harmonics
on high frequency tones. My point is that linearity at high
frequencies is important because of intermodulation.

It is legitimate (not snake-oil) for B&W to use exotic materials
to reduce distortion in tweeters. Loudspeakers generally do have
audible non-linearity distortion and B&W has a long history of
caring about it more than most loudspeaker companies. (They are
a legitimate research oriented company.)

Peter.
--

[nospam]

In article <kmu24j$7un$1...@dns.ktb.net>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>

wrote:

> >> > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
> >> > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
> >> > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
> >> > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
> >> > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
> >> > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
> >> > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.
> >>
> >> While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
> >> distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
> >> probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
> >> midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
> >> real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
> >> IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
> >> at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
> >> will hear the 1khz difference tone.)
> >
> > that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.
>
> You were claiming that linear accuracy of waveform / THD at
> high frequencies was unimportant because you can't hear harmonics
> on high frequency tones. My point is that linearity at high
> frequencies is important because of intermodulation.

i wasn't making that claim. someone else was.

if the distortion is within the audio range (20-20k), then it is
probably audible. if the distortion is outside that range, it's not
audible.

plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they
once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end.

> It is legitimate (not snake-oil) for B&W to use exotic materials
> to reduce distortion in tweeters. Loudspeakers generally do have
> audible non-linearity distortion and B&W has a long history of
> caring about it more than most loudspeaker companies. (They are
> a legitimate research oriented company.)

reducing distortion is fine.

reducing distortion when it's beyond the limits of human hearing is
snake oil.

[Me]

On 15/05/2013 6:46 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <0644p89q4bfdgou6b...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> For example the more recent fad is "oxygen free" copper cable which has
>>> a _measurably_ lower resistance over a given length.
>>
>> It's not a recent fad: I've been using it for +25 years.
>
> so has everyone else. most wire is oxygen free, and silver is a better
> conductor anyway but the name doesn't sound as cool.
>
>>> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
>>> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
>>>
>>> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their heads).
>>
>> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
>> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.
>
> you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
> ohm make no difference and are not audible.
>

The system that Eric refers to doesn't use conventional speakers - "ESL"
= ElectroStatic Loudspeaker.
The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
high at low frequencies).
If he says he could hear the difference with this setup - then I believe it.

[nospam]

In article <kmu3do$5q3$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>
wrote:

> >>> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
> >>> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
> >>>
> >>> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their
> >>> heads).
> >>
> >> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
> >> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.
> >
> > you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
> > ohm make no difference and are not audible.
>
> The system that Eric refers to doesn't use conventional speakers - "ESL"
> = ElectroStatic Loudspeaker.

i checked the equipment he mentioned but it doesn't matter.

> The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
> resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
> becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
> high at low frequencies).

speakers are a reactive load. wire is a resistive load. inductance and
capacitance of straight wire is *so* incredibly tiny that it can be
assumed to be zero (nanohenries & picofarads versus milliohms).

the most that can happen with audiophile wire is that it will be a
fraction of an ohm lower (and that's being incredibly optimistic),
which isn't going to make any difference. this is measurable. it's not
a question of can you hear it.

for example, 25 feet of 14 gauge wire is just 0.063 ohms. the impedance
of the speaker is typically 8 ohms. that's over 100x as much.

<http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html>

> If he says he could hear the difference with this setup - then I believe it.

if the electrical properties of the wire are the same, the audio will
be the same. it's basic physics.

moving the speaker closer or further away from the wall will have far
more of an effect than any cable could ever have, but you can't sell
that.

[Me]

On 15/05/2013 7:27 a.m., nospam wrote:

> In article <kmu24j$7un$1...@dns.ktb.net>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
>>>>> claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
>>>>> mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
>>>>> which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
>>>>> on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
>>>>> when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
>>>>> difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.
>>>>
>>>> While it is true that you can't hear ultrasonic harmonics, the same
>>>> distortion mechanisms produce intermodulation distortion. It is
>>>> probable that most tweeters produce audible IM products in the
>>>> midrange based on high frequency input signal in at least some
>>>> real world conditions. Practically any tweeter will have audible
>>>> IM under contrived conditions. (Feed the tweeter with 19khz and 20khz
>>>> at a fairly high level and while you may not hear those tones, you
>>>> will hear the 1khz difference tone.)
>>>
>>> that has nothing to do with the snake oil that's being peddled.
>>
>> You were claiming that linear accuracy of waveform / THD at
>> high frequencies was unimportant because you can't hear harmonics
>> on high frequency tones. My point is that linearity at high
>> frequencies is important because of intermodulation.
>
> i wasn't making that claim. someone else was.

I wasn't making the claim either, but repeating a claim that's been made
by others (I need to go to work - so haven't time to google it, but
believe that high frequency THD and frequency response linearity are or
were considered to be unimportant by Bose) In my subjective opinion,
Bose speakers suck - whether for that reason or other - so I could
probably not be considered to be a "believer".

I expect Peter Irwin's comments about intermodulation distortion are
true. Nice thing is that with sound system connected to a PC, with
frequency generator easily accessed rather than setting it up on a test
bench with special equipment, it should be easy to test when I get a chance.

[Me]

On 15/05/2013 8:21 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <kmu3do$5q3$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Audiophiles" can rejoice because they can ACTUALLY MEASURE THE LOWER
>>>>> RESISTANCE of their expensive cable v. lesser stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> (The fact that nobody can _hear_ the difference sails way over their
>>>>> heads).
>>>>
>>>> I use it to connect my 'current dumping" Quad 606 amplifier to my Quad
>>>> ESL63 speakers and I can certainly hear the difference.
>>>
>>> you may think you can, but you can't. differences in fractions of an
>>> ohm make no difference and are not audible.
>>
>> The system that Eric refers to doesn't use conventional speakers - "ESL"
>> = ElectroStatic Loudspeaker.
>
> i checked the equipment he mentioned but it doesn't matter.
>
>> The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
>> resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
>> becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
>> high at low frequencies).
>
> speakers are a reactive load. wire is a resistive load. inductance and
> capacitance of straight wire is *so* incredibly tiny that it can be
> assumed to be zero (nanohenries & picofarads versus milliohms).

ESL tend to be /much/ more reactive than conventional speakers - IIRC,
impedance can vary from <1 ohm to > 100 ohm depending on frequency. They
were very effective at frying conventional amplifiers.

[nospam]

In article <kmu6hg$d3g$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>
wrote:

> I expect Peter Irwin's comments about intermodulation distortion are
> true. Nice thing is that with sound system connected to a PC, with
> frequency generator easily accessed rather than setting it up on a test
> bench with special equipment, it should be easy to test when I get a chance.

intermod distortion within audible frequencies can make a difference.
anything within audible frequencies can make a difference.

outside the audible range, it doesn't matter what it is. you can't hear
anything at 30khz, distorted or not.

[nospam]

In article <kmu6pf$df5$1...@news.albasani.net>, Me <anywh...@here.com>
wrote:

> >> The very reactive load of these speakers may well mean that cable
> >> resistance becomes an audible factor, and cable inductance/capacitance
> >> becomes significant (impedance is very low at high frequencies, and very
> >> high at low frequencies).
> >
> > speakers are a reactive load. wire is a resistive load. inductance and
> > capacitance of straight wire is *so* incredibly tiny that it can be
> > assumed to be zero (nanohenries & picofarads versus milliohms).
>
> ESL tend to be /much/ more reactive than conventional speakers - IIRC,
> impedance can vary from <1 ohm to > 100 ohm depending on frequency. They
> were very effective at frying conventional amplifiers.

even at 1 ohm inductance, different speaker wire isn't going to matter.
the differences are a tiny fraction of an ohm.

[Alan Browne]

Your ears may not hear the driving tones but the
constructive/destructive product is easily heard.

(aka: beat).

[Alan Browne]

The difference in resistance is negligible for the same gauge and length.

If the 'other' cable was truly limiting current to the point of
affecting sound, then you would have done as well by just going to a
fatter gauge ordinary wire.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.13 20:29 , nospam wrote:
> In article <BvydnfO6-beb5QzM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> Indeed one of the more sensible Hi-Fi mags tested regular mains cable
>>>> against a group of expensive speaker cables. Virtually no difference. I
>>>> did use [cheap] chunky speaker cable for my mains, but at full pelt they
>>>> can
>>>> be carrying quite a lot of current (10A+).
>>>
>>> i got my speaker cable at a hardware store. 14 gauge wire is 14 gauge
>>> wire.
>>>
>>> there's nothing special about 'audiophile cable.' it's the same stuff,
>>> but with a nicer looking insulation and a significantly higher price.
>>
>> Not quite true.
>
> it's definitely true. it's all snake oil with a huge price tag for
> suckers who fall for the deceptive marketing.

No shit. Don't you recognize sarcastic posts for what they are?