 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
152.163.100.16
It seems to me that if more money can be spent on anything, some guys will rationalize that the money is well spent. First we have the expensive cable fanatics, then the people who believe that $20 Caps sound better than $3 caps. The latest are the people who think that HDTV isnt HDTV if its only 720p and 1080i.At some point this resolution stuff gets as silly as the speaker cables. I can see the point maybe if people regularly watch a 50-inch TV at 2 ft viewing distance, but for normal viewing at a reasonable distance (1.5 the diagonal measure of the screen) this all gets pretty silly.
Oh, did I mention that the guys chasing the ultimate megapixel cameras are chasing rainbows too, unless they plan to blow up their photos to Andy Warhol Marilyn Monroe size, and even there the graininess of a lower pixelation might be artistic.
Why is it that some guys always want to chase these things no matter what the technology and how stupid it is?
D
Follow Ups:
rw
The most ridiculous thing I've seen so far has to be the little stands or isolators (or whatever you want to call them) that sit under your speaker cables to keep them off the ground and away from the nasty effects of your floor. I nearly dropped dead when I first saw these. People will buy anything if it promisessound. I'm in the wrong business . . . . . . I should be selling $100 cables which cost $1 in parts and labor to build.
...We thought "Gold Plated Fuses" for audiophools.I see that they retail for $50 now. We were stoopid for not making them ten years ago...
--
Al GSilence is Golden
Duct Tape is Silver
I was going to try making these with bamboo chopsitks. At worst I'd have an interesting conversation piece! I'm curious to see if I hear any difference. I have rug covered concret floors so if it has an effect in any situration, it should have an effect in mine.Best wishes,
Dave
and buy some ceramic insulators for a buck or two each.rw
Chop sticks are cheaper and I can wax-on about the magical resonance characteristics of bamboo!Dave
Dave
Later Gator,
Crank up your talking machine, grab a jar of your favorite "kick-back", sit down, relax, and let the good times roll.
rw
...and have a good idea what these porcelain power insulators cost. I saw an audio publication ad for some at $25.00 US each; the insulator manufacturer sells them to power companies at @ $2.00 each. the audio reseller put a nice label over the insulator manufacturer's trademark. Hmmm, maybe I should unload part of my collection.
Dave
Later Gator,
Crank up your talking machine, grab a jar of your favorite "kick-back", sit down, relax, and let the good times roll.
Allow me to comment on the megapixel issue. The extra pixels are not wasted on a good camera like a Canon G6, or G7 or a Pro 1. I do agree that with a good lens and a good set of in-camera algorithms, you only need about 3 MP for an excellent 8" x 10" print. However, if you want to crop, either in the PC or in-camera with "digital zoom", you need a lot of extra pixels in order to have 3 MP left over after a crop. Cropping only 40% in height cuts down the pixels left by 2:1. So if you want a crisp looking 8 x 10 print, and you want to crop by 40%, you need to start with 6 MP. If you want to crop more, you need more to start with. But, of course, you can't do this with a cheap lens; and that's where a lot of the less expensive high Mp cameras fall down.My wife's Canon A700 has 6 MP and takes nice pictures; but I doubt the lens is capable of taking advantage of much more (the similar A710IS has 7.1 MP). Same is true of the typical 18-55 mm kit lenses on the Canon Rebel Series and the Nikon D40 and D50. Nikon wisely offers their 18-55 on the 6 MP SLR's, while Canon offers theirs on the Rebel XT (8 MP) and the XTi (10 MP) and even the 30D.
Bottom line is that higher MP counts do have their advantages and can be important; but the lens does play a role in determining the usability of all those pixels.
Jerry
8 and I want more. My largest print so far is 3' by 2.5'. My lens cost far more than the body, bu I hope to fix that soon.
I barely know diddly about digital cameras, but it seems that sensor size makes as much difference as megapixels and lens. Here's an interesting article on the subject that I read recently:http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/technology/circuits.html
Kinda reminds me of the watts per channel *arms race* of the 60s and 70s.
Best,
Mike
Thanks for the link. That article is right on, even if he does get a little tangled in his math at the beginning. The points made about sensor size are absolutely valid and that is one of the strong points of the Canon Pro 1, it had a 2/3" sensor; while the G series uses a smaller 1/1.8" sensor.He does make a valid comparison of sizes, and the benefit of more pixels, if printed full frame. Nobody seems to want to deal with cropping (either in-camera, or in PC) which is where the pixel count is really important to me. Fact is, most shots need a little cropping to get the best composition, so you need some extra pixels to allow you to throw away some of the picture.
Thing is, I've run the experiments and made the calculations and printed the results, so I understand all the trade offs pretty well. The average consumer doesn't and is swayed by the advertising. Very much akin to the wattage race in receivers in the late 70's, or the head size race that was going on in golf clubs.
Jerry
especially regaring cables. I think it's crazy to think you can actually "hear" the difference between a good quality connection with cheap cable and the expensive stuff. I actually read a post a while back where someone was claiming the DIRECTION of the cable made a difference! Also someone claiming the type of solder used in connections made a difference. I was a 2-M tech in the Navy (specialized in PCB repair and soldering), our school is derived from a NASA study on soldering. I can tell you that anyone who believes you can hear an audible difference between types of solder is an absolute lunatic.
I think it's crazy to think you can actually "hear" the difference between a good quality connection with cheap cable and the expensive stuff.With some systems and cables, you can.
rw
It's all about the L, R & C of the cable and how it interacts with the components it's connecting. No one cable is best for all applications and you really have to treat each combination individually.Jerry
RFI rejection. The removal of which results in a truly natural and "non-bright" sound.rw
...in fact I barely made it to the garden variety lunatic level!
I have some interconnects with little directional arrows on them. It makes no sonic difference whatever which way they point. There is also no measureable difference in either direction in terms of shield connections. I figure the arrows are pacifiers for the terminally insecure.Then there are the cable companies that assert that clamped connections sound better than soldered and tout that as an advantage.
Jerry
and it is for hum and noise rejection , so as not to create a ground loop. The arrow says to connect the cable in the correct direction to minimize the noise.
Ed
Possibly, and since the outer shield would carry no current it would act as a guard shield. I wouldn't be able to find that without cutting it open. But for line level signals, I can see no difference in my system. The other problem is that they are higher capacitance than my other interconnects and that can make more difference with some setups than having the extra shield.Jerry
Hi Jerry,That is the reason why Monster Cables are dircetional. The lower part of the RCA ends screw off of Monster Cables, I assume so they can be easily re-soldered, so if you have a chance, you can see for yourself. I used to sell them in the 80's and still use some Reference Links that I got then. I really did not pay much attention to the sound. They were not expensive at dealer cost and one pair I got for free because the manager had broken the ground connection and was going to throw it out. I re-soldered them and they still work fine. I suspet the sheilding does help because I'm only a few miles from a very powerful AM station.
Best wishes,
Dave
Dave
They are usually equipped with a lens that has 1/20 of camera's resolution. Its cheap and easy to pile up megapixels, but extremely expensive to make a lens that would match this fantastic resolution.
AMEN LOL My favorite camera was a Hasselblad 500C with kick ass Carl Zeiss optics.I like digital for convenience but I still like film. Hell I even take pictures in stereo : ) with my 3D 1954 Stereo Realist Camera. IMHO it knocks the socks of boring flat pics.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
