- Thread Starter
- #881
Now there is work of art if I ever saw one!
Now there is work of art if I ever saw one!
I often end up with something similar on a Sunday afternoon but my work is more.., abstract lacking the uniformity of this piece .Now there is work of art if I ever saw one!
A good reason to just stick to what people actually write and not try to read things into it that you might suspect they are "thinking."
I think youll find there are quite measureable and distinct differences between the screens.Ok, good point re:TVs. But it gets more interesting, perhaps, if we compare different screen technologies. I've always found that I prefer the LCD screen on the iPhone over the AMOLED screen in samsung phones (haven't tried the new iPhone though). Both of these screens are reasonably neutral. Differences are slight. Still, I have a very distinct preference in this regard. As do others - some prefer the AMOLED screens. Does it make sense to do blind testing of which screen technology people prefer? Perhaps. But whatever one finds, I'm pretty sure there will always be substantial minorities who have preferences which go in the other direction.
Of course, it might be better if it were more standardization in the recording process, but you can´t break it if you just approach only the other end of the chain.
You assert again two things as if it were facts, but in reality we don´t know. The point of exacerbation isn´t clearly a given as it depends on the the distortion already present in the recording. Remember the quite wildly varying response patterns in the mentioned study. If the consumer´s reproduction departs from the average/ideal in the same way as the production system did it surely would give better results.
Most people tend to buy records that deliver "good sound quality" if reproduced by their system, so the distortion might have been random in the beginning if likely isn´t anymore later.
Could you cite a reference for that? I can´t remember that they did a formal study with recording quality as the independent variable.
Afair Tooles conclusion from the mentioned study of Mäkivirta/Anet were quite similar to mine.
Furthermore i thought we were discussing the concept of "fidelity" seperated from preference considerations.
No, audiophiles buy records that deliver their personal interpretation of "good sound quality". Myself, I buy music I like for artistic reasons.Most people tend to buy records that deliver "good sound quality" if reproduced by their system, so the distortion might have been random in the beginning if likely isn´t anymore later.
.
The aim of screen technology is presumably to get the best black possible, the best linearity, the smoothest colour graduations, the highest possible brightness, the fastest response, widest viewing angle, lowest power consumption and so on. It has a job to do, and is designed specifically to achieve it.Ok, good point re:TVs. But it gets more interesting, perhaps, if we compare different screen technologies. I've always found that I prefer the LCD screen on the iPhone over the AMOLED screen in samsung phones (haven't tried the new iPhone though). Both of these screens are reasonably neutral. Differences are slight. Still, I have a very distinct preference in this regard. As do others - some prefer the AMOLED screens. Does it make sense to do blind testing of which screen technology people prefer? Perhaps. But whatever one finds, I'm pretty sure there will always be substantial minorities who have preferences which go in the other direction.
You also got to check the factory presets which are usually skewed towards a sensational picture quality. Sensational in all the wrong waysThe aim of screen technology is presumably to get the best black possible, the best linearity, the smoothest colour graduations, the highest possible brightness, the fastest response, widest viewing angle, lowest power consumption and so on. It has a job to do, and is designed specifically to achieve it.
If a newer technology with ostensibly better specs doesn't seem quite as nice as an older one, there may be several reasons:
Most of the time I would bet that the eventual shake-out is that newer technology develops rapidly and achieves universally better specs than the old one, and people eventually prefer it.
- It may be better in respect of most of the specs, but not in a couple of crucial areas - maybe the new blue emitter is not quite as pure as the old LCD, or whatever.
- The new technology reveals a weakness of the specs themselves
- People are simply used to the older technology and think they prefer it - for now.
- Content has been optimised for the older technology and needs 're-mapping' for the deeper blacks, etc.
But not in hi-fi! I strongly suspect that domestic audio follows a different path: instead of technology being developed to meet a clear requirement, existing 'craft-based' historical technologies are pored over, debated, tested, tweaked and modified. I would bet that most hi-fi practitioners and customers are strongly influenced by mythology ("Nothing sounds as good as an electrostatic!" "Big drivers sound so slow!" "Digital sounds so metallic!"), and that that influences their choices from then on. The market is just too small for the scorched earth approach of megabucks corporations that results in 100" OLED televisions for $2000.
Yes! If a new screen can be brighter than the old one, they will turn it up to the max because they can.You also got to check the factory presets which are usually skewed towards a sensational picture quality. Sensational in all the wrong ways
I'm not excluding the middle here. The assertion "the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording." is where the excluded middle lies. And again, I doubt very much that is actually what Toole's research shows given the enormous range of recordings out there. It would be one thing to assert that his research strongly suggests that most people prefer neutral playback systems overall even with a broad range of recordings. But the assertion I am objecting to is an absolute assertion that includes all recordings and all listeners without any exceptions. Nope not buying that assertion.
And there is thisYes! If a new screen can be brighter than the old one, they will turn it up to the max because they can.
That was his sentence?This is crazy semantics. Of course, Toole’s sentence can be read as you wish. However, most people find Toole’s short sentence meaningful.
Yes, and there is also the opposite effect: that broadcasters and programme makers use 25 fps to make 'soap opera' look more expensive like film, throwing away the immediacy and atmosphere that 50 fps gives you. Ironically, with TVs that interpolate it back up to 50fps, the effect is probably wasted - but the quality will be slightly lower of course.And there is this
https://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect/
That was his sentence?
For drama productions I think it's interlaced vs progressive that probably forced the TV companies, the tools to do effects probably need or prefer progressive, worldwide sales might be a factor as well, and I'm not aware of 50p ever being a broadcast standard.Yes, and there is also the opposite effect: that broadcasters and programme makers use 25 fps to make 'soap opera' look more expensive like film, throwing away the immediacy and atmosphere that 50 fps gives you. Ironically, with TVs that interpolate it back up to 50fps, the effect is probably wasted - but the quality will be slightly lower of course.
There was no bold sentence.The bold one.
It’s as if unless people don’t write with mathematical precision, you don’t get it. Remember, semantics isn’t science.
The way I got an old-fashioned LCD unit, many years old, to work for me was to adjust the back light intensity so that in a dark environment at night, that a pure black signal was barely discernable versus the set switched off - so, I had the best range of blacks to work with from go. Make sure the highest brightness of white was just triggered - and I now had optimum contrast. Final stage, get the colours to be Goldilocks right - and I've been happy ever since ... no upgrade lust whatsoever, when looking at the latest and greatest in the stores, etc.Yes! If a new screen can be brighter than the old one, they will turn it up to the max because they can.
I dont understand what your first paragraph means.
I disagree, we do know. If you add unquantified distortions at replay you only worsen fidelity. Your own comments confirm that you dont know the original distortion so how can you correctly compensate? Whatever you do It will also be incorrect for the next recording. It just makes no sense to do so.
I think its a poor choice of phrase on my behalf, it implies there is no situation where a non nuetral speaker could be preferred, however the testing was carried out with different recordings with the same end result, neutral wins.
WRT to fidelity v preference people seem unable to seperate the two. A neutral speaker is higher fidelity. Period. Audiophiles have sometimes bizarre concepts of what a system should sound like, usually influenced by the visual and product biases. Yet take those stimuli away........
Ok, most digital sources are flat as a pancake wrt frequency response. If a cd player showed up in stereophile with a frequency response like a typical speaker it would be panned from a technical and subjective POV. Why do you object to a speaker being faithful to the applied signal?
No, it's not neccessarily random. Simple examples. A person who is older and has some hearing loss may prefer a system that has built in compression and a rise in the high frequencies. That would compensate for their hearing loss. That would not be a "random' choice of colorations. Someone may simply really like bright compressed sound so they buy a system that is bright and compressed. That is not random. It's preference. People do have some individualistic taste and not everyone hears exactly the same way.No, audiophiles buy records that deliver their personal interpretation of "good sound quality". Myself, I buy music I like for artistic reasons.
If an applied fixed replay distortion is unquantified ref the original, then the end result is random.