"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:54:26 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

I do my best to ensure my equipment is sonically 'transparent'
actually, which is the exact opposite.

And how exactly do you decide it's now transparent?

I try to get it as linear as possible over the audio range. Why do I get
the impression this point is lost on you?

**** me, you're as bad as Clinton.

Your English is as good as Bush's.

If you were to take two *monitors* and calibrate them the same way
tyoud get the same image out of them though (assuming the screens
were both capable of the same dynamic ranges).

You would also be able to compare with the original which is why it's
a bad analogy.

I said nothing of comparing to the orriginal. if you take two,
previously unused brand new monitors out of their boxes, and calibrate
them using the same technique, and then display the same image, you will
see the image looks the same (nominally) on both of them.

If you get your head out the text books and come into the real world
for a short time you would know that gamma between platforms can be a
problem. I work on a PC and I deal with Mac printhouses all the time,
believe me it *is* a problem.

surprise! two systems using different gammas dont look the same. ****
me!

Gamma *is* irrelevant, because its merely a very SIMPLE way to set up a
LUT using a single number to define the characteristic. you can do much
more useful calibrations if you put better data into the LUTs.

I'm not making out it's difficult, I'm saying it's not an exact
science.

It is, though. the eye sees in three frequency bands. it cant *actually*
detect yellow, cyan, or magenta, or any of the non-peak colours as
actually being seperate colours.

Which comes back to the question of how you know it's accurate.
Especially if you say you haven't done any measuring.

If its linear, its accurate. no, I havent done any measurements *as
such* but my new amp and DAC are so obviously more linear than my old
amp on the PCs DAC that its just not funny.

And just what difference does an accurate system make when you are
playing MP3s?

oh, you're one of the 'mp3s cant possibly sound good' crowd are you?

Why would you hope that it doesn't affect the sound when you are quite
happy to pump up the bass to get the sound you actually want?

because for general listening I dont want it pumped up. I want it
neutral.

The point *you* have missed is that sound is like colour, i.e. nobody
ever sees/hears the same colour/sound in the same way, so how can you
expect accuracy?

um. Im just not sure how to explain the blindingly obvious to you.

sure, everyone may hear the same sound differently, but unless their
hearing is defective, a system which reproduces that same sound
'incorrectly' will also sound different again to both people, wheras an
accurate system will sound the same as the original to both people,
regardless of their relative difference in perception.

I havent changed my opinion in 15 years. I dont see why its going to
change in the next 15 years either. My speakers are older than I am
anyway.

That makes you a bad "scientist" then.

Why does that follow? My theory hasnt been disproven by anyone I
consider reliable (ie. not people like you) yet, and certainly hasnt
been *demonstrated* to be false to me by anyone.

I grabbed a bargain when it came along. I had been wanting a DAC for
ages but not buying due to the cost.

So a DAC isn't an upgrade now then?

Did I say it wasnt? All I said is I dont have 'upgrade-o-mania. I've
been patiently waiting for a nice DAC for years, and now I have one.

"getting" is future tense, so you are indeed willing. So willing in
fact that you were prepared to leave it longer so that you could
upgrade to a DAC.

I would be *willing* to not listen to my system at all until I have got
both the DAC *AND* the repair done, however as the problem doesnt
manifest itself 90% of the time, I listen to the system instead of
leaving it unplugged.

Incidentally when I refer to recordings I'm referring to the original
recording, not a subsequent encoding to MP3.

I personally dont care what the medium/encoding method/transport is, as
long as *I cant hear its effects*.

I'll admit that mp3 isnt *quite* perfect, but at higher bitrates its
rarely a problem. the main problem with downloaded ones is people using
crap windows encoders like Blade or not knowing what settings to use.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:54:26 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

I do my best to ensure my equipment is sonically 'transparent'
actually, which is the exact opposite.

And how exactly do you decide it's now transparent?

I try to get it as linear as possible over the audio range. Why do I get
the impression this point is lost on you?

**** me, you're as bad as Clinton.

Your English is as good as Bush's.

If you were to take two *monitors* and calibrate them the same way
tyoud get the same image out of them though (assuming the screens
were both capable of the same dynamic ranges).

You would also be able to compare with the original which is why it's
a bad analogy.

I said nothing of comparing to the orriginal. if you take two,
previously unused brand new monitors out of their boxes, and calibrate
them using the same technique, and then display the same image, you will
see the image looks the same (nominally) on both of them.

If you get your head out the text books and come into the real world
for a short time you would know that gamma between platforms can be a
problem. I work on a PC and I deal with Mac printhouses all the time,
believe me it *is* a problem.

surprise! two systems using different gammas dont look the same. ****
me!

Gamma *is* irrelevant, because its merely a very SIMPLE way to set up a
LUT using a single number to define the characteristic. you can do much
more useful calibrations if you put better data into the LUTs.

I'm not making out it's difficult, I'm saying it's not an exact
science.

It is, though. the eye sees in three frequency bands. it cant *actually*
detect yellow, cyan, or magenta, or any of the non-peak colours as
actually being seperate colours.

Which comes back to the question of how you know it's accurate.
Especially if you say you haven't done any measuring.

If its linear, its accurate. no, I havent done any measurements *as
such* but my new amp and DAC are so obviously more linear than my old
amp on the PCs DAC that its just not funny.

And just what difference does an accurate system make when you are
playing MP3s?

oh, you're one of the 'mp3s cant possibly sound good' crowd are you?

Why would you hope that it doesn't affect the sound when you are quite
happy to pump up the bass to get the sound you actually want?

because for general listening I dont want it pumped up. I want it
neutral.

The point *you* have missed is that sound is like colour, i.e. nobody
ever sees/hears the same colour/sound in the same way, so how can you
expect accuracy?

um. Im just not sure how to explain the blindingly obvious to you.

sure, everyone may hear the same sound differently, but unless their
hearing is defective, a system which reproduces that same sound
'incorrectly' will also sound different again to both people, wheras an
accurate system will sound the same as the original to both people,
regardless of their relative difference in perception.

I havent changed my opinion in 15 years. I dont see why its going to
change in the next 15 years either. My speakers are older than I am
anyway.

That makes you a bad "scientist" then.

Why does that follow? My theory hasnt been disproven by anyone I
consider reliable (ie. not people like you) yet, and certainly hasnt
been *demonstrated* to be false to me by anyone.

I grabbed a bargain when it came along. I had been wanting a DAC for
ages but not buying due to the cost.

So a DAC isn't an upgrade now then?

Did I say it wasnt? All I said is I dont have 'upgrade-o-mania. I've
been patiently waiting for a nice DAC for years, and now I have one.

"getting" is future tense, so you are indeed willing. So willing in
fact that you were prepared to leave it longer so that you could
upgrade to a DAC.

I would be *willing* to not listen to my system at all until I have got
both the DAC *AND* the repair done, however as the problem doesnt
manifest itself 90% of the time, I listen to the system instead of
leaving it unplugged.

Incidentally when I refer to recordings I'm referring to the original
recording, not a subsequent encoding to MP3.

I personally dont care what the medium/encoding method/transport is, as
long as *I cant hear its effects*.

I'll admit that mp3 isnt *quite* perfect, but at higher bitrates its
rarely a problem. the main problem with downloaded ones is people using
crap windows encoders like Blade or not knowing what settings to use.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:54:25 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

I'd have got the speaker repaired first so that I could go back to
enjoying what I had

Which part of 'the problem only manifests itself 10% of the time' have you failed to grasp.

Tit.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:54:25 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

I'd have got the speaker repaired first so that I could go back to
enjoying what I had

Which part of 'the problem only manifests itself 10% of the time' have you failed to grasp.

Tit.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:54:25 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

Well, without wanting to get into that field, I sure *hope* my dick is a
lot bigger than my audio spending indicates (a whopping 185ukp to date)

Why don't you start spending on some legitimate music releases then?

I prefer to support artists not monopolies that dont care about music or quality, and who illegally 'protect' the CDs I buy making them fail to play in normal equipment.

So how do you go about getting a better recording then?

generally using the 'search' box.

Few thousand tracks, but all ones I like, not just tracks that happened to be on the same album. P2P rocks :)

I'm not talking about MP3s.

Who cares?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:54:25 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

Well, without wanting to get into that field, I sure *hope* my dick is a
lot bigger than my audio spending indicates (a whopping 185ukp to date)

Why don't you start spending on some legitimate music releases then?

I prefer to support artists not monopolies that dont care about music or quality, and who illegally 'protect' the CDs I buy making them fail to play in normal equipment.

So how do you go about getting a better recording then?

generally using the 'search' box.

Few thousand tracks, but all ones I like, not just tracks that happened to be on the same album. P2P rocks :)

I'm not talking about MP3s.

Who cares?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:12:01 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Secondly, it makes it easier for me to mentally 'disentangle' the recording
limitations from the actual performance.

Thats another thing altogether (I tend to agree I think, btw.)

I was thinking more in terms that a bad old recording often becomes the 'preferred version' that everyone knows and loves - and it never sounds right unless played the 'bad old way'.

;-)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:12:01 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Secondly, it makes it easier for me to mentally 'disentangle' the recording
limitations from the actual performance.

Thats another thing altogether (I tend to agree I think, btw.)

I was thinking more in terms that a bad old recording often becomes the 'preferred version' that everyone knows and loves - and it never sounds right unless played the 'bad old way'.

;-)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Hi,

In message , Ian Molton
writes

perfect inks and a perfect monitor will not have any colours that each
cannot reproduce (as far as the eye is concerned).

Yes they will, because there are simply less possible values in the CMYK
colour gamut than there are in the RGB gamut, and the eye has a larger
colour space than either. Even if perfect inks existed, the colours
aren't defined. You can create an image that fits into the CMYK space
*and* the RGB space, but you can't ever guarantee that a 'legal and
valid' RGB image can be converted to CMYK without loss of information.

Since graphics cards running in true colour don't use look up tables,

No, thats Directcolour. Truecolour has the same number of colours on
the output and *DOES* have 8-bit lookup tables, one per colour
component. Gamma (in truecolour modes) on many cards is programmed by
writing an appropriate table to the LUT.

Are you thinking of palletised colour systems, like the 256 colour mode
in Windows?

I've never heard of directcolour. I'm talking about true colour in the
MS Windows sense, using 8 bits per colour channel (or, more recently, 10
bits). There are no look up tables for these modes on any graphics card
I've tested lately. There are 3 DACs, one per colour component, and they
take a digital value 8 or 10 bits long to create one of 256 or 1024
output voltages, just like an audio DAC would. The graphics ASICs I know
best are the ones made by my employer (Matrox) and they use 10 bit DACs
that run up to 400MHz, with no look up tables in 16, 24, 30 or 32 bits
per pixel. Gamma tables however, are stored in programmable 10 bit LUTs.


Then you need to take into account the non-linearity of a
CRT (or other display) and the reflectivity and colour of the individual
sheet of paper,

Of course you do. but I think this is gettnig needlessly picky
considering what I was trying to use the analogy for.

Point taken :-)

besides, once you get into nonlinearity of the monitor etc. the whole
idea of a simple curve like gamma is silly. Then you need to add the
paper into the equation as well...

And the phosphors, and the ink batch, and the age of the light bulbs
that are overhead. That's why I said it's a bag of worms. I guess I get
a bit overexcited about colour science, sad git that I am.

You're right though - Ford probably don't make any real whites.

Make precious few real cars too ;-)

I'll have a white Ford the same day they give me my white stick!

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Hi,

In message , Ian Molton
writes

perfect inks and a perfect monitor will not have any colours that each
cannot reproduce (as far as the eye is concerned).

Yes they will, because there are simply less possible values in the CMYK
colour gamut than there are in the RGB gamut, and the eye has a larger
colour space than either. Even if perfect inks existed, the colours
aren't defined. You can create an image that fits into the CMYK space
*and* the RGB space, but you can't ever guarantee that a 'legal and
valid' RGB image can be converted to CMYK without loss of information.

Since graphics cards running in true colour don't use look up tables,

No, thats Directcolour. Truecolour has the same number of colours on
the output and *DOES* have 8-bit lookup tables, one per colour
component. Gamma (in truecolour modes) on many cards is programmed by
writing an appropriate table to the LUT.

Are you thinking of palletised colour systems, like the 256 colour mode
in Windows?

I've never heard of directcolour. I'm talking about true colour in the
MS Windows sense, using 8 bits per colour channel (or, more recently, 10
bits). There are no look up tables for these modes on any graphics card
I've tested lately. There are 3 DACs, one per colour component, and they
take a digital value 8 or 10 bits long to create one of 256 or 1024
output voltages, just like an audio DAC would. The graphics ASICs I know
best are the ones made by my employer (Matrox) and they use 10 bit DACs
that run up to 400MHz, with no look up tables in 16, 24, 30 or 32 bits
per pixel. Gamma tables however, are stored in programmable 10 bit LUTs.


Then you need to take into account the non-linearity of a
CRT (or other display) and the reflectivity and colour of the individual
sheet of paper,

Of course you do. but I think this is gettnig needlessly picky
considering what I was trying to use the analogy for.

Point taken :-)

besides, once you get into nonlinearity of the monitor etc. the whole
idea of a simple curve like gamma is silly. Then you need to add the
paper into the equation as well...

And the phosphors, and the ink batch, and the age of the light bulbs
that are overhead. That's why I said it's a bag of worms. I guess I get
a bit overexcited about colour science, sad git that I am.

You're right though - Ford probably don't make any real whites.

Make precious few real cars too ;-)

I'll have a white Ford the same day they give me my white stick!

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth