Here are the actual colors of the filters:
These are the ones that work best and they are pink, rose, with some orange,
then there are blues. We use because they look better live, broadcast
or post and have a good active look.
There are others oranges and greens you can use but then you have to
start adjusting in camera or in post. Hope this helps clarify it and shows
the actual filter color.
These are the ones that work best and they are pink, rose, with some orange,
then there are blues. We use because they look better live, broadcast
or post and have a good active look.
There are others oranges and greens you can use but then you have to
start adjusting in camera or in post. Hope this helps clarify it and shows
the actual filter color.
Last edited:
@ John what are you showing in the plots?
Noise on the electrical outlets from the
power that you are using?
@ Richard how do we measure this again?
It will be helpful to me and others.
I plug the or use the coil of QA190 voltage divider
to measure 120 V power and feed it to the QA400
FFT into the computer? Then plot the result?
That will or should show me what's on the line
at the time or entering the line.
Nice Vehicle by the way. Now that I've finally
seen it. Getting ready to work on mine again.
Yours is a bit more refined than mine, more
of brute force guy I am w/a lowly Malibu
2 door Chevelle SS396.
Is the Bently yours too? Have you been holding
out on us?
Noise on the electrical outlets from the
power that you are using?
@ Richard how do we measure this again?
It will be helpful to me and others.
I plug the or use the coil of QA190 voltage divider
to measure 120 V power and feed it to the QA400
FFT into the computer? Then plot the result?
That will or should show me what's on the line
at the time or entering the line.
Nice Vehicle by the way. Now that I've finally
seen it. Getting ready to work on mine again.
Yours is a bit more refined than mine, more
of brute force guy I am w/a lowly Malibu
2 door Chevelle SS396.
Is the Bently yours too? Have you been holding
out on us?
Last edited:
Is it the same component, or 2 different ones? If the same, what was the difference in measurement setup?
Hi marce,
No problems then. I usually get that kind of question from folks who don't understand how the technology works just before they launch into a "how it sounds is all that matters" type of comment. Not having observed your posts before now, there was no background to place your comments into context. Now I know you have a similar practical background where observing signals is concerned.
Normally any comment that equates a digital signal to analogue waveforms provokes another outburst from some folks out there. That is why being sorry about undermining an entire belief system comes from.
Yup!
I normally would call anything AM band or up as RF, yet I also firmly believe that you need to pay attention to at least 1 MHz for audio work. Most components we use will happily misbehave up there and beyond
We are probably close in age ... please allow me to apologize for misreading your question. The timing and content were mistaken for something else.
-Chris
As I said I misunderstood the use of RF here... I think instantly of either real RF (it should be there) or airborne EMI which is often referred to as RF (which shouldn't be there)., which I thought this was hence the overuse of explanation marks (T.Prachett RIP will be cursing my abuse of punctuation)
Yes if people knew there super doper 51/4" floppies were set up using an offset screw and the eye diagrams on a scope, you developed a two handed method of holding the screwdriver, one to turn it and the other hand to oppose the turning force as the movement required was minute... A very frustrating job. I would say the good old days...but I prefer the technology we have now, no more racks of 2N3055 emitter coupled paralleled up for high current supplies, trying to guess the dodgy one without unsoldering any....
Off hand, my favorite culprit is the grounding. It's so easy to make mistakes when doing it, and they always come back to bite us.
That was me. In front of lamps. Orange to mix with incandescent, green with fluorescent. If you are interested I will look up the gel numbers I use.
Here are the actual colors of the filters:
These are the ones that work best and they are pink, rose, with some orange,
then there are blues. We use because they look better live, broadcast
or post and have a good active look.
There are others oranges and greens you can use but then you have to
start adjusting in camera or in post. Hope this helps clarify it and shows
the actual filter color.
We are talking about different things. I am talking about the filters you put in front of photo or video lights in order to mix them with existing artificial light, so that you can apply the same colour correction to get all light sources the same temperature.
Steve, why do you feed it? All that does is reliably cause a spew of nonsense, and you can't mop the floor as fast more nonsensical spew can be created.
Keep in mind the famous Anatole France quote that I used to use as my sig line.
When Mrs Jung and Marsh published their article about caps (I believe a long work of measurements), it was at this time, for those who where not aware of this, a big step to kill the audio fashion, explain the differences we can hear between various technologies of CAPs and bring the things to a more scientific level.
Now, a brunch of bad educated cronies, in the purpose to make noise, obviously here in the order to increase their little business, comes and begins to criticize in a stupid and insulting way this helpful work with NO DATA. Just pack of barking.
They are pointless. Just jealous and bad educated. They are in my ignore list.
Let them throw up, they just harm themselves ... and their business as well.
Now, a brunch of bad educated cronies, in the purpose to make noise, obviously here in the order to increase their little business, comes and begins to criticize in a stupid and insulting way this helpful work with NO DATA. Just pack of barking.
They are pointless. Just jealous and bad educated. They are in my ignore list.
Let them throw up, they just harm themselves ... and their business as well.
Last edited:
What business would that be? And in what way, specifically, is pointing out error helpful to someone else's business?
I think the consensus among the rational engineering and science types is that the measurements in that article were fine, but the interpretations and conclusions were somewhat misleading- for example, no recognition of the difference between different cap applications and how that might affect capacitor choice, and the conflation of DA with distortion. The latter error was demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally by the guy who developed the measurement method they used.
I think the consensus among the rational engineering and science types is that the measurements in that article were fine, but the interpretations and conclusions were somewhat misleading- for example, no recognition of the difference between different cap applications and how that might affect capacitor choice, and the conflation of DA with distortion. The latter error was demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally by the guy who developed the measurement method they used.
OOT, as he was one of the good friends of my grand parents, you may like to see the painting my grand mother made of him in 1909 ?
[edit] Science and Technics evolve. To judge the quality of a work, we have to replace-it at the time it was done.
Anyway, nothing excuse some personal attacks i have read here. "Charlatan", "The guy just can't think straight" as examples of thugs behavior.
Attachments
Last edited:
We already know it's not the cables, John. Bruno's AP measurements ruled that out years ago. I don't know why you're still clinging to the possibility that it's the cables. Those old measurements of yours need to be tossed and never presented in public again.
se
Indeed they do evolve. The difference between science and fashion is that in science, ideas are tested and, if found lacking or faulty, discarded, even if there's no replacement. I can't imagine an ethical scientist trotting out long-discredited or flawed results- it would destroy one's career and credibility permanently. In fashion audio (or huckstering), it's a way of life.
How is charlatan a personal attack? Again, if someone steals something that is not theirs, is calling them a thief a personal attack? You have dodged that question once already.
se
Yes you and other's have made this very clear many times. Nothing of past experience will be revisited and re-examined ever, nothing new will be learned. There apparently is as much to lose in this as in two sides sitting down together in a listening test where both sides have an equal chance "to get it wrong".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.