|
|
Current trends in audio
You know increasingly I'm noting that the young uns seem to be listening to
all their music on crap gear. IE many of the sound systems for multi room use are 1 mono speaker or one speaker with s speakers facing different ways. Look at the amazon Echo, or the output form I phones etc. Its time for a stereo or surround revival quite obviously, and sadly it is starting but only in virtual reality helmets and such like. You can hardly wander around the streets looking like Darth Vader can you. Mind you I suppose using augmented reality you can. I suppose its more preferable to the rest of society than huge double cassette machines that used D batteries up at the rate of a a set a day! Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! |
Current trends in audio
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote: You know increasingly I'm noting that the young uns seem to be listening to all their music on crap gear. IE many of the sound systems for multi room use are 1 mono speaker or one speaker with s speakers facing different ways. Look at the amazon Echo, or the output form I phones etc. Very true. Convenience seems much more important to many than sound quality. Not just the young. Many my age have thrown out very good sound systems to replace them with something modern which sounds vastly inferior. TV sound is even more obvious. TV sets have never had really good internal sound systems - but modern widescreen sets with tiny rear facing speakers are just a very bad joke. It's odd, given that many cars now have quite respectable sound systems. -- *How about "never"? Is "never" good for you? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Current trends in audio
On 21/01/17 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
You know increasingly I'm noting that the young uns seem to be listening to all their music on crap gear. IE many of the sound systems for multi room use are 1 mono speaker or one speaker with s speakers facing different ways. Look at the amazon Echo, or the output form I phones etc. Their music is experienced passively, it's wallpaper changed to the current fashion intended as disposable as a TV commercial. Other than possibly a subwoofer, no enhanced rendering is required for about 90% of it as the necessary compressor adjustments have been made up front. Electronics companies hence have an easy job to manufacture equipment that can be mass market profitable without going to technical extremes that will never be used. However enjoying real Hi-Fi music (For all generations, all genres) is experiencing the involvement with decent reproduction equipment (better dynamics for a start) and being closer in the performance or audience, undistracted. Ideally, eyes closed... Currently while typing this, I'm enjoying 'dark side of the moon', the SACD 5.1 cut. It's ain't wallpaper that ye wander around cooking food to. It rewards my better attention with properly setup speakers from the car boot sale that someone got fed up of, and bought smaller! -- Adrian C |
Current trends in audio
In article ,
Huge wrote: TV sound is even more obvious. TV sets have never had really good internal sound systems - but modern widescreen sets with tiny rear facing speakers are just a very bad joke. It's worse than that. The £500 sound bar that came with my new Samsung (spit) 65" TV is a PoS. Another one of the multitude of reasons I hate the damn thing. Some sound bars are a vast improvement on the internal speakers, so you've been very unlucky. But mine is fed to the Hi-Fi, so not a problem here. I had a Samsung 55", bought in a panic. No matter how I fiddled, I couldn't get half decent flesh tones. Faces always looked like cartoons. Luckily it broke down just out of warranty. Power supply fault. No rush to replace, so ended up with a 60" Panasonic. Just about right straight out of the box. Samsung now fixed and in the spare room. Looking just as awful as ever. Perhaps they are designed for oriental flesh tones? But I like my Samsung phone. Super camera. ;-) -- *I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Current trends in audio
On 21/01/17 13:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Samsung now fixed and in the spare room. Looking just as awful as ever. Perhaps they are designed for oriental flesh tones? Donald Trump? -- Adrian C |
Current trends in audio
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote: On 21/01/17 13:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Samsung now fixed and in the spare room. Looking just as awful as ever. Perhaps they are designed for oriental flesh tones? Donald Trump? Or, for those with memories, Des O'Connor. More Polyfilla and Dulux than makeup. -- *IF ONE SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMER DROWNS, DO THE REST DROWN TOO? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Current trends in audio
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... You know increasingly I'm noting that the young uns seem to be listening to all their music on crap gear. Interesting post. It is not just young people, but people of all ages who listen happily on i-pods etc to music in .mp3 format the quality of which satisfies them totally. Iain |
Current trends in audio
Iain Churches said:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... You know increasingly I'm noting that the young uns seem to be listening to all their music on crap gear. Interesting post. It is not just young people, but people of all ages who listen happily on i-pods etc to music in .mp3 format the quality of which satisfies them totally. I think a lot of people don't really listen to music very closely or pay much attention to what they're hearing.. -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html |
Current trends in audio
"Richard Robinson" wrote in message ... I think a lot of people don't really listen to music very closely or pay much attention to what they're hearing.. I agree. Iain |
Current trends in audio
No I suspect that its just that the software is rubbish. Most things these
days seem to rely on software to clean up otherwise naff content. Not sure what is real any more. I'm told my first flat screen, an unknown madke looks very good, but since I myself cannot see it its only used when somebody sighted is here. This is what irks me about the current situation where only tvs seem to include spoken menusues not pvrs. Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "Adrian Caspersz" wrote in message ... On 21/01/17 13:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Samsung now fixed and in the spare room. Looking just as awful as ever. Perhaps they are designed for oriental flesh tones? Donald Trump? -- Adrian C |
Current trends in audio
Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked
better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Adrian Caspersz wrote: On 21/01/17 13:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Samsung now fixed and in the spare room. Looking just as awful as ever. Perhaps they are designed for oriental flesh tones? Donald Trump? Or, for those with memories, Des O'Connor. More Polyfilla and Dulux than makeup. -- *IF ONE SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMER DROWNS, DO THE REST DROWN TOO? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Current trends in audio
Its very sad. I am often appalled at how the same track on two radio
stations can sound totally different. Muddled mp3 like swizzling noises a bit like a knackered cassette tape snaking across the heads. In my view passable spoken word is ok at 192kbits, but you need a much higher rate or a dynamic rate system to sound right on music, unless its already compressed to start with. The phase errors are just awful but given you can get really good no loss compression these days why do people cling on to mp3? I was told some years ago its all down to buffer sizes, well that may have been true once but even phones have more memory than enough these days. Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "Iain Churches" wrote in message ... "Richard Robinson" wrote in message ... I think a lot of people don't really listen to music very closely or pay much attention to what they're hearing.. I agree. Iain |
Current trends in audio
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ... "Richard Robinson" wrote in message ... I think a lot of people don't really listen to music very closely or pay much attention to what they're hearing.. I agree. mp3 works OK provided the data rate is high enough. For most people 192K - or preferably 256K or 320K - is difficult to tell from an original (classical or jazz) CD - I would exclude much of today's 'music!' I heard this track on Classic today and was quite surprised by the quality/recording acoustic* when I listened to it on line when I got home. http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDA68094 Track 8 - I Got Rhythm *Others may of course disagree! -- Woody harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com |
Current trends in audio
On 21-01-17 21:25, Brian Gaff wrote:
The phase errors are just awful but given you can get really good no loss compression these days why do people cling on to mp3? I was told some years ago its all down to buffer sizes, well that may have been true once but even phones have more memory than enough these days. "Buffer sizes"? No, it is down to bandwidth and main storage. A lot of people (especially in the UK) still pay for their phone data transfers dependent on the amount of data - making lossless about 3 times as expensive as 256k MP3. Storage space in phones and other mobile devices is also limited. I can choose between having my whole record collection in my car stereo as MP3, or something like a third of it as lossless. Julf |
Current trends in audio
On 21-01-17 23:03, Woody wrote:
mp3 works OK provided the data rate is high enough. For most people 192K - or preferably 256K or 320K - is difficult to tell from an original (classical or jazz) CD Indeed. I would like to challenge anyone dismissing mp3 to a blind listening test of well-processed mp3 at 256K. You would have to be very well trained to spot the difference with typical music material. I once did a blind listening test on an audiophile forum to see if people could hear a difference between "hi-res" and CD. As an outlier test, I threw in a 256K mp3 file (decoded to FLAC, so people couldn't tell from the file format what it was). The mp3 file came out as the second most preferred of all 9 alternatives - the "winner" was the 16/44.1 file that I had increased the volume by 1 dB on... :) Julf |
Current trends in audio
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Brian Yes. White balance. Iain |
Current trends in audio
In article , Johan Helsingius
wrote: On 21-01-17 23:03, Woody wrote: mp3 works OK provided the data rate is high enough. For most people 192K - or preferably 256K or 320K - is difficult to tell from an original (classical or jazz) CD Indeed. I would like to challenge anyone dismissing mp3 to a blind listening test of well-processed mp3 at 256K. You would have to be very well trained to spot the difference with typical music material. Some years ago the Concertgebouw and Hatink released some 'free' high-rate mp3 versions of their recordings. In general, these sounded pretty good to me. The only defect I noticed was that an exceptionally quiet section of one item was a little 'ragged'. I suspect due to some of encoder 'judgment rules' deciding to discard components as being 'inaudible' which weren't actually going to be masked at such low overall levels. I once did a blind listening test on an audiophile forum to see if people could hear a difference between "hi-res" and CD. As an outlier test, I threw in a 256K mp3 file (decoded to FLAC, so people couldn't tell from the file format what it was). The mp3 file came out as the second most preferred of all 9 alternatives - the "winner" was the 16/44.1 file that I had increased the volume by 1 dB on... :) IIRC There was a paper in the JAES some years ago that did some tests and established that both members of the public and audio engineers could detect mp3 artifacts provided the rates were low enough. But the main interesting point in the paper was that the engineers detected the artifacts as being such. They had the experience to know what things would sound like *without* artifacts, and the nature of the artifacts to be expected. The general public, however, simply tended to 'like' the 'sound', and tended to prefer the modest/low rate mp3 to a clean version. Possibly a matter of habituation. Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Current trends in audio
On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Brian Yes. White balance. More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera should be neutral. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Current trends in audio
Johan Helsingius wrote:
I once did a blind listening test on an audiophile forum to see if people could hear a difference between "hi-res" and CD. As an outlier test, I threw in a 256K mp3 file (decoded to FLAC, so people couldn't tell from the file format what it was). The mp3 file came out as the second most preferred of all 9 alternatives - the "winner" was the 16/44.1 file that I had increased the volume by 1 dB on... :) ** That is a really worthless test methodology. About 3 decades ago, I came up with a simple and really powerful one that avoided the horrible problems inherent in all A then B or ABX type tests. Ocne set up, the test takes only a few seconds before the result is clear and convincing. Unless your test operates in a similar way, it has no credibility with or impact on any listener. The principle is that of INSTANT change-over, while listening in stereo, in your home to your best loved tracks. Read about it he http://sound.whsites.net/absw.htm Got any questions - I'm right here, every day. ..... Phil |
Current trends in audio
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:27:36 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote: "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Brian Yes. White balance. More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera should be neutral. White balance - and particularly skin tone balance on TV suffered with the shift from illuminant C (the standard for the delta tube) and illuminant E which came in with the PIL tube. But even that is pretty good compared with that of the typical flat screen. d |
Current trends in audio
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:30:47 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
wrote: Johan Helsingius wrote: I once did a blind listening test on an audiophile forum to see if people could hear a difference between "hi-res" and CD. As an outlier test, I threw in a 256K mp3 file (decoded to FLAC, so people couldn't tell from the file format what it was). The mp3 file came out as the second most preferred of all 9 alternatives - the "winner" was the 16/44.1 file that I had increased the volume by 1 dB on... :) ** That is a really worthless test methodology. About 3 decades ago, I came up with a simple and really powerful one that avoided the horrible problems inherent in all A then B or ABX type tests. Ocne set up, the test takes only a few seconds before the result is clear and convincing. Unless your test operates in a similar way, it has no credibility with or impact on any listener. The principle is that of INSTANT change-over, while listening in stereo, in your home to your best loved tracks. Read about it he http://sound.whsites.net/absw.htm Got any questions - I'm right here, every day. .... Phil I find instant switchover causes problems, particularly in the bass end. If the two systems happen to have opposite phase, there will be an apparent sound change when switching over, even though the sound is actually the same. I like to have about half a second of dead air to wipe the phase memory. That way you only hear the actual differences, not the artificial transient of the phase shift. d |
Current trends in audio
On 22-01-17 11:30, Phil Allison wrote:
** That is a really worthless test methodology. True, but still better than sighted listening. The principle is that of INSTANT change-over, while listening in stereo, in your home to your best loved tracks. Yes, an A/B switchbox is great - if you have two separate audio chains to compare. For comparing two different source files, you need player software that can do the same in software. Foobar2000 has an ABX function for comparing music files that allows you similar instant switching between the two sound files. Julf |
Current trends in audio
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:06:25 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote: This though edges on the psycho acoustic issues as well as the compression and other distortions issues. In many cases, I cannot tell tthe difference between a home made cd of a vinyl and the real one. The only time it notices is if you go overboard with click suppression or rumbe and other noise reduction as on dying echoes you hear the watermark effect or the little blips in level where the click used to be. However some of the early recordings I made when DAB was still relatively new sound much better than a repeat of the same material on the same station escpecially if that is radio 2. it seems engineering on that station is now a gain riding auto level control and a compressor. Brian Yes, it absolutely is about psychoacoustics, not actual differences. That's why it is important to eliminate it. d |
Current trends in audio
|
Current trends in audio
Don Pearce wrote:
I find instant switchover causes problems, particularly in the bass end. ** Complete ********. You did not bother to read my link. If the two systems happen to have opposite phase, ** Whaaaaaatttt ???? Straw men all over the planet have their head hung in same after that POS. Don - here's a tip for you. When you have nothing worth while to contribute - shut up. ..... Phil |
Current trends in audio
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:18:54 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote: On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:52:37 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:27:36 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote: "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Brian Yes. White balance. More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera should be neutral. White balance - and particularly skin tone balance on TV suffered with the shift from illuminant C (the standard for the delta tube) and illuminant E which came in with the PIL tube. ??????? The colour reference in broadcast TV was Illuminant D and still was 15 months ago! Type of display is not really relevant. The phosphors changed over time but that affects colour gamut rather than colour temperature. I'm going back a bit. I know the mechanism is the gamut, but what happens when you have a different gamut in the camera to that on the screen is that colours don't map properly. For most colours that doesn't really matter, but for something as well-known as skin tone it really stands out. The place this is worst is in shops, where TVs are set to "shop mode". They colours look like neon signs and the contrast edges are a mass of ringing in their desperate attempt to look sharp. I don't know how anyone chooses a TV in a shop. d |
Current trends in audio
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:26:27 -0800 (PST), Phil Allison
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: I find instant switchover causes problems, particularly in the bass end. ** Complete ********. You did not bother to read my link. If the two systems happen to have opposite phase, ** Whaaaaaatttt ???? Straw men all over the planet have their head hung in same after that POS. Don - here's a tip for you. When you have nothing worth while to contribute - shut up. .... Phil No straw men. This happens - deal with it. d |
Current trends in audio
Johan Helsingius wrote:
Phil Allison wrote: ** That is a really worthless test methodology. True, ** Lets leave it at that. The principle is that of INSTANT change-over, while listening in stereo, in your home to your best loved tracks. Yes, an A/B switchbox is great - if you have two separate audio chains to compare. ** So you did not read my link either. For comparing two different source files, you need player software that can do the same in software. Foobar2000 has an ABX function for comparing music files that allows you similar instant switching between the two sound files. ** The original ABX system did not allow instant, seamless changeovers. I reckon a lot of folk would have saved themselves a lot of wasted time of it did. Note, the above is a massive understatement. I almost got Arny Krugar to agree with me on this, he's a hard guy to convince too. ..... Phil |
Current trends in audio
Don Pearce the asshole wrote:
** Complete ********. You did not bother to read my link. If the two systems happen to have opposite phase, ** Whaaaaaatttt ???? Straw men all over the planet have their heads hung in shame after that POS. Don - here's a tip for you. When you have nothing worth while to contribute - shut up. No straw men. ** Of course it is a massive straw man - you trolling ****wit. https://www.google.com.au/#q=straw+man+definition FFS, double you IQ and get half a brain. ..... Phil |
Current trends in audio
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote: Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Or the makeup he used on TV? -- *IF ONE SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMER DROWNS, DO THE REST DROWN TOO? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Current trends in audio
On 22-01-17 12:32, Phil Allison wrote:
** So you did not read my link either. Of course I did. ** The original ABX system did not allow instant, seamless changeovers. You are confusing a general test methodology and a specific implementation of it. There is nothing in the ABX methodology that prevents instant changeovers, and your device is not the only one that does instant changeovers. In any case, your switchover box is irrelevant to the case of comparing two source formats. Julf |
Current trends in audio
But often is not, as one clearly see when the director cuts from one camera to another. In this situation, makeup and lighting are unchanged.
Iain |
Current trends in audio
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote: White balance - and particularly skin tone balance on TV suffered with the shift from illuminant C (the standard for the delta tube) and illuminant E which came in with the PIL tube. But even that is pretty good compared with that of the typical flat screen. It's the reason CRT monitors (delta gun) were used in racks long after LCDs arrived. Indeed, when I retired some 8 years ago, they were still in use for location drama, by the lighting director. But I dunno what is used these days. -- *Great groups from little icons grow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Current trends in audio
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote: "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Brian Yes. White balance. More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera should be neutral. If the 'white balance' was wrong on the camera, then any other guests in the same shot would look the same as Des. And of course different cameras would look different in the same show. Lining up the cameras correctly was a daily task at the start of the day - and with the likes of a chat show would be checked once more before the recording. Modern cameras are of course more stable than once was the case. But still need setting for the lighting in use. -- *A plateau is a high form of flattery* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Current trends in audio
Johan Helsingius wrote:
** So you did not read my link either. Of course I did. ** I was being generous to you - what a mistake. ** The original ABX system did not allow instant, seamless changeovers. You are confusing a general test methodology and a specific implementation of it. ** What I posted is a simple fact, I am not confused. There is nothing in the ABX methodology that prevents instant changeovers, ** So you like posting straw men too. and your device is not the only one that does instant changeovers. ** Please do tell. I have not come across any listening tests carried out the same way as mine, anywhere. In any case, your switchover box is irrelevant to the case of comparing two source formats. ** Another straw man fallacy. You fail completely to appreciate the principle. In case you have the memory span of a demented chimpanzee - this is what I wrote a little earlier: " Unless your test operates in a similar way, it has no credibility with or impact on any listener. " The concept is how best to demonstrate when NO audible difference exists. Something it pays to think about carefully. ..... Phil |
Current trends in audio
On 22-01-17 13:15, Phil Allison wrote:
** I was being generous to you - what a mistake. Likewise. Well, now I know better. Good luck with your device! Julf |
Current trends in audio
Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... You know increasingly I'm noting that the young uns seem to be listening to all their music on crap gear. Interesting post. It is not just young people, but people of all ages who listen happily on i-pods etc to music in .mp3 format the quality of which satisfies them totally. Such as myself - iPhone output is digital these days, so you're just looking for a decent DAC on the other end of it. Lossy at 320bps is indistinguishable from non-lossy: it irritates me a little that the standard is 256bps, but nothing otherwise. The encoder does still matter though - the raw AIFF I get when exporting my music from Logic seems noticeably louder than the resulting AAC after compression and as far as I know I don't have any of the normalise toys ticked either on encoding or playback. But lossy vs lossless is literally mathmatically proved now to be moot at a certain rate. For speakers I have my car speakers which are pretty good, Jaybird Bluetooth headphones plus Comply foam which make them excellent, Audio Technica MT-50x for when mixing my own music, a Space 360 - mono with multiple speakers facing in different directions - for when walking around, a JVC £80 iPad dock from years ago acting as a digital radio, and some 20+ years-old Paradigm standing floor speakers with a Cambridge audio centre speaker driven by a home theatre amp. All fed from iTunes or streaming, no physical media in use anymore. For computer use I have some Soundstick IIs, from quite a while ago. Works well for me. Cheers, Ian |
Current trends in audio
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On 22/01/2017 09:52, Iain Churches wrote: "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Bit unfair on des. I used to see him live and most of the time he looked better than on the screen. I strongly dispute this old thing of the camera never lies. I think that very much depends on how its adjusted in the first place. Brian Yes. White balance. More to do with make-up and lighting, the white balance on the camera should be neutral. It should be, but often is not, as one clearly sees when the director cuts from one camera to another. In this situation, makeup and lighting are unchanged. Iain |
Current trends in audio
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:03:01 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Don Pearce wrote: White balance - and particularly skin tone balance on TV suffered with the shift from illuminant C (the standard for the delta tube) and illuminant E which came in with the PIL tube. But even that is pretty good compared with that of the typical flat screen. It's the reason CRT monitors (delta gun) were used in racks long after LCDs arrived. Indeed, when I retired some 8 years ago, they were still in use for location drama, by the lighting director. But I dunno what is used these days. I believe there are still delta tubes in use in critical situations. They remain the standard against which everything must be judged - but still come up short. d |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk