On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:50:11 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Dunno but the piccys the wife now produces **** over anything with at
Ashi Pentax she once had...

Really? Because of the medium, you feel?

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Look and listen closely - digital stuff all suffers that final
sharpness, be it sound or images....

So an LP made from a digital master tape will too?

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:57:15 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Keith G wrote:
Look and listen closely - digital stuff all suffers that final
sharpness, be it sound or images....

I wasn't sure if "sharpness" was something he liked or something he
didn't.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:35:15 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Most here have mentioned their system/amp/speakers at some time
or other. Some people have sent pics, and some are posted on
the site which Nick looks after. Valve amp fettlers even send
schematics! But Dave's set up remains a dark mystery. Why?

Well, I'm listening to R4 DAB off the house balanced distribution system
via home assembled LS 3/5A and a Linsey Hood 75 watt amp while I type.
Would you like to know what the sound system is in each bathroom? Toilet?
Workshop? Kitchen? Guest bedrooms?

You probably mean Lindsey Hood?


Perhaps he meant Linsley Hood?

*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

Well, you do have a "Linsey" Hood :-)))

Cheers

Iain

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:43:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Take 2:

Look and listen closely - digital stuff all suffers from the loss of
that final sharpness, be it sound or images....

Alas, no matter how many 'takes' you make, your theory disagrees with my
experience. :-)



Word Insertion Technique noted - 'theory'...??

My *experience* disagrees with yours and my opinion is shared here.

Anybody care to claim 'digital radio' or 'digital TV' is sharper than
analogue?

That rather depends on what variety of TV your talking about and where
in the distribution chain your viewing it, but at the point of origin
professional digital 625/50 production equipment is better in all
respects than the analogue version.

Anyone care to claim that 'digital photography' is sharper than
'wet film'??

Yes. There are very good arguments to say that something like a Canon
5D or 1DS produces sharper pictures than the 35mm equivalent in the
real world, rather than the world were every picture is taken with
25ASA Kodachrome on a tripod.

As to the *sharpness* of LP over CD, even my 'deaf in one ear'
neighbour (who uses CDs all the time) commented on the clarity of the
'analogue sound' from my kit once - and that was before the Lowthers.....

(No experience of aerial or astronomical photography myself, but I suspect
it would pretty much follow suit using comparable equipment and
methods....???)

I rather understood that astronomical imaging had used digital imaging
for many years.

Bill

In article , Bill Taylor
writes
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:43:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Take 2:

Look and listen closely - digital stuff all suffers from the loss of
that final sharpness, be it sound or images....

Alas, no matter how many 'takes' you make, your theory disagrees with my
experience. :-)



Word Insertion Technique noted - 'theory'...??

My *experience* disagrees with yours and my opinion is shared here.

Anybody care to claim 'digital radio' or 'digital TV' is sharper than
analogue?

That rather depends on what variety of TV your talking about and where
in the distribution chain your viewing it, but at the point of origin
professional digital 625/50 production equipment is better in all
respects than the analogue version.

Interesting point... where exactly is it digitised?.

And remind us of the bitrates used

Anyone care to claim that 'digital photography' is sharper than
'wet film'??

Yes. There are very good arguments to say that something like a Canon
5D or 1DS produces sharper pictures than the 35mm equivalent in the
real world, rather than the world were every picture is taken with
25ASA Kodachrome on a tripod.

As to the *sharpness* of LP over CD, even my 'deaf in one ear'
neighbour (who uses CDs all the time) commented on the clarity of the
'analogue sound' from my kit once - and that was before the Lowthers.....

(No experience of aerial or astronomical photography myself, but I suspect
it would pretty much follow suit using comparable equipment and
methods....???)

I rather understood that astronomical imaging had used digital imaging
for many years.

Bill

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.? writes
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:50:11 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Dunno but the piccys the wife now produces **** over anything with at
Ashi Pentax she once had...

Really? Because of the medium, you feel?

Dunno.. but all I do know is the technical quality of the images on
screen and on print seem to be far better then what she used to produce.
And for that matter I've just bought a second hand Fuji finepix for
using in the car when out on site , piccy is worth more that a thousand
words etc, and the pictures on that are excellent

In fact on the wife's case the advent of digital has taken her interest
in photography and I must say I've been rather impressed with her
efforts:-))

I used to play about with colour photo printing some while ago and
in general digital seems better then what I remember the piccy quality
we got.. all of which is rather unscientific!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:06:48 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Bill Taylor
writes
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:43:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Take 2:

Look and listen closely - digital stuff all suffers from the loss of
that final sharpness, be it sound or images....

Alas, no matter how many 'takes' you make, your theory disagrees with my
experience. :-)



Word Insertion Technique noted - 'theory'...??

My *experience* disagrees with yours and my opinion is shared here.

Anybody care to claim 'digital radio' or 'digital TV' is sharper than
analogue?

That rather depends on what variety of TV your talking about and where
in the distribution chain your viewing it, but at the point of origin
professional digital 625/50 production equipment is better in all
respects than the analogue version.

Interesting point... where exactly is it digitised?.

Well the CCU output is available as SDI but I don't know enough about
modern cameras to say where in the camera the digitisation takes
place, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was fairly early in the
signal chain and some of the processing was done digitally.

And remind us of the bitrates used

About 270Mbps for standard def.

Although I know you don't like transmitted digital TV (and I wish the
bitrates were higher), it is an impressive feat to achieve a nearly
100:1 compression ratio and still get pretty good pictures most of the
time.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Taylor wrote:
Anybody care to claim 'digital radio' or 'digital TV' is sharper than
analogue?

That rather depends on what variety of TV your talking about and where
in the distribution chain your viewing it, but at the point of origin
professional digital 625/50 production equipment is better in all
respects than the analogue version.

Yes. Most progs are taped, and Digibeta is just head and shoulders above
the analogue systems it replaced. Particularly the sound. ;-)

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:06:48 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

That rather depends on what variety of TV your talking about and where
in the distribution chain your viewing it, but at the point of origin
professional digital 625/50 production equipment is better in all
respects than the analogue version.

Interesting point... where exactly is it digitised?.

I'd assume the mixing console was digital these days?