Calibration of display units are necessary, when you are in concern with photography, and want to minimize your own errors in post production.
I wonder why manufacturers don't try to calibrate better their monitors. I know accurate calibration changes with time, but at least, when you buy them ?
I wonder why manufacturers don't try to calibrate better their monitors. I know accurate calibration changes with time, but at least, when you buy them ?
Many are setup from factory for bright lite display show rooms and are color balanced for the show room lighting color temp. But just looks worse when set up for bright show room and put into dim light room.
I have changed all lights in my house to a more neutral color temp balance or 'day-light' temp.
THx-RNMarsh
I have changed all lights in my house to a more neutral color temp balance or 'day-light' temp.
THx-RNMarsh
Strange, I have a perception of the color temperature of screens quite indépendant from the ambiance light of the rooms.
I like warm temp for lightings of my rooms, LEDs everywhere, hotter for my screens (a little under day-light).
But I was refering to the grey balance all over the luminosity curve and progressivity of this curve. You know, darks looking brown, hights looking blue, some medieum green here or there, blanking of the darks in the lower digits, and same on the highter ones...
Most of the screens are a nighmare to tune, keeping enough contrasts, some are impossible.
Too, I was often suprized to see that, using various color calibration probes can lead to oviouly wrong results, looking with my eyes to the grey scale. Don't understand why. ???
As for audio, I tend to lie on my "feelings". When they give unsatisfactory resuls, you can see their results differ from each others depending of the probe used.
I like warm temp for lightings of my rooms, LEDs everywhere, hotter for my screens (a little under day-light).
But I was refering to the grey balance all over the luminosity curve and progressivity of this curve. You know, darks looking brown, hights looking blue, some medieum green here or there, blanking of the darks in the lower digits, and same on the highter ones...
Most of the screens are a nighmare to tune, keeping enough contrasts, some are impossible.
Too, I was often suprized to see that, using various color calibration probes can lead to oviouly wrong results, looking with my eyes to the grey scale. Don't understand why. ???
As for audio, I tend to lie on my "feelings". When they give unsatisfactory resuls, you can see their results differ from each others depending of the probe used.
I'm enjoying the incredibly small footprint and impressive color fidelity of my non-television.
Virtual TV?
When we are at this, I use a 27" Iiyama monitor, both for one of the screen monitors of my computer and to watch tv in my office from a little Sat demodulator.
Computer is connected with a HDMi, while demo with DVI.
If i power on the demo, connected to the monitor, the image is very bad. Loss of contrasts, blacks are dark grey etc... if I power-off ->on the monitor, the image is correct now.
Looks too the blanking levels of the black is not the same for computers and TV sets, and they use DVI to have conversations in your back and decide ot their preferences of the day ?
I wonder why the so calling technological "progress" can carry so much stupidities.
Computer is connected with a HDMi, while demo with DVI.
If i power on the demo, connected to the monitor, the image is very bad. Loss of contrasts, blacks are dark grey etc... if I power-off ->on the monitor, the image is correct now.
Looks too the blanking levels of the black is not the same for computers and TV sets, and they use DVI to have conversations in your back and decide ot their preferences of the day ?
I wonder why the so calling technological "progress" can carry so much stupidities.
Last edited:
Virtual TV?
Something like that.
Leaves more room on our walls for artwork, too. Trying to convince my girlfriend that, in compensation for food, love & tenderness, and any/all materials/tools she *needs* to paint a Ellsworth Kelly look-alike. It'd go great in my place.
We're also sensitive to background color and light levels. A darkened room isn't necessarily the ideal, but if used pushes (ideal) display light levels way, way down from anything a modern display comes with ex-factory.
Like RNM has said, calibrate first.
All good fortune,
Chris
Like RNM has said, calibrate first.
All good fortune,
Chris
Last edited:
OLED and high-end LCD (wide gamut backlight) displays tend to have oversaturated colors depending on the source material, sometimes beyond the help of calibration. The problem is that the gamut of the display is wider than the Rec. 709 and sRGB color space. This promises to be helped somewhat with 4k content that uses the Rec. 2020 color space.
Manufacturers don't calibrate because oversaturated colors and cranked-up brightness sell TVs on the showroom floor.
Manufacturers don't calibrate because oversaturated colors and cranked-up brightness sell TVs on the showroom floor.
Bad Tv sets on purpose for people of bad taste and under-informed as a rule for our cloying time ?
Last edited:
Yes ! ....... Listen to this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv8mfO2qC-o
The camera/mic obviously goes from left to right !
Not exactly.
If you mic a source really close it picks up a hot, dry sort of coloration that is neither especially realistic nor pleasant for most people to listen to.
Sources are often miced really close for other reasons, and the hot dry coloration can be vastly reduced by adding in some carefully tuned reverb.
In general the mic placement that gives the best impression of sitting some place in a concert hall is generally far closer to the musicians and instruments than that sitting position. IME true for omni, cardioid and hypercardioid mics..
The reasons why we use close miking and multitracks recordings are:
1 -Isolate each instruments from the others, so you can redo all or part of them, or can decide to don't use some (or part) of them...
2 -Take all the possible details to have more room to "enlight" a detail, or change the sound as much as possible, without affecting the ones from an other instrument in the same time.
3- to can add any effect (flange, phasing, vocoder etc.) on an instrument without affecting the others.
3 -Have as much of liberty you can to manipulate the balance between them. (and to can change the balance during the length of the tune).
3 -Reduce the noises (You don't need the hum of the bass amplifier or the hiss of the guitar one on your drum tracks).
Now, it depends of the engineer's talent to create a realistic scene in the space, both in lateral position and distance, using frequency correctors , echos and artificial reverberations.
And, if this is the rule in studios, (with rare exceptions when the musicians have a perfect sound by themselves, a perfect balance, are all virtuosos, and have both the habit to play together and long experiences of the tunes) it is an absolute requisite for live show recordings. The sound, on stage is a nightmare. Each musician want a different balance, and the PA returns+ the stage monitors make a real mixture all over with the direct sound of the instruments.
There is NO other solution.
Last edited:
Apparently these are pretty decent right out of the box and the and the built in calibration parameters are good.
https://youtu.be/hzubSKAGQu0
https://www.avforums.com/review/lg-65ef950v-ef950-ef9500-ultra-hd-4k-oled-tv-review.12014
True, yet a lot of "audiophiles" seem to demand that hot, dry sound. One touchstone I hear mentioned a lot is the sound of fingers sliding on guitar strings. It is my experience that sitting in an average sized room and listening to someone play guitar, you can hear the fingers on the strings but it is a subtle part of the sound, not at all obtrusive. Many audiophile reviewers seem to want that sound to be unnaturally front-and-center. To me that is part of the "hot dry" sound you referred to.
I am not a recordist but it seems to me that if we imagine a perfect transfer function, that is the sound hitting microphone diaphragms is perfectly reproduced by speaker diaphragms, then assuming normal speaker placement in a normal domestic room, and assuming the recording is of acoustic instruments in a normal performance space (which is much larger than a typical living room), then where should the mics have been placed? Surely if the mics are close(a few inches) to the instrument(s), but the speakers are about 2 or 3 meters from the listener, and spaed a couple of meters apart, then the sound reaching the listener will be very different from that reaching a listener in the original space.
Conversely, if the mics were at a typical listener position in the performance space, then once again reproducing that sound field from speakers a couple of meters apart and a couple of meters in front of the listener cannot sound like the original performance. (The use of conventional forward-firing speakers makes both scenarios worse.)
I lack the knowledge and experience to say where one could place mics forr a more natural presentation, but one can hear that unnatural "hot, dry" sound from close-miked recordings all the time, and as I said it seems to be a sine qua non for many audiophiles.
What are-you talking of ? There is no "natural" in modern music. (Jazz, Rock'n roll etc...)
They all use PA systems for live shows, amplifiers, effect boxes etc...).
More than this it is amusing that when you do the PA mixing of a live show for a group, you try to be as close as possible to the record, previously made in studio, witch is a pure creation regarding the sound.
Last edited:
Oh, I just want to add that, most of the time, and if the record is not a pure shame, it sound a lot better (and more natural) that what could had been done with an (impossible*) recording with a couple of mics.
And all instruments sound usually better in the track than in the real life.
* Impossible, because how could-you hear a singer with a guitar over saturated in the back ground ;-)
And all instruments sound usually better in the track than in the real life.
* Impossible, because how could-you hear a singer with a guitar over saturated in the back ground ;-)
Last edited:
Of course you are correct, but I (and I am sure many others here) have been lucky enough to hear good musicians playing acoustic instruments in a small space (but much bigger than a living room, like a coffee house, and sometimes in a living room or kitchen for a proper ceilidh). The post I was responding to spoke of very close mics making an unnatural hot, dry sound, and I agree because I have heard it for decades, especially on records favoured by audiophiles.
Perhaps you have only heard instruments that have been amplified and passed through effects boxes, and so have no frame of reference for the sound of acoustic instruments played in a domestic environment. Perhaps an exaggerated sound of fingers sliding on steel guitar strings is all you are familiar with. What I am talking of is the sound of someone playing an unamplified instrument in a small space. I am asking the question, "What should recorded acoustic instruments sound like when played back in a domestic environment?". For me, at any rate, the answer is not " As though the instrument is next to my ear".
PS: I know you have heard plenty of live acoustic instruments, my implications otherwise we're intended more as a reductio ad absurdam. I simply mean "Why must amplified sound passed through effects boxes be our gold standard?". If all I cared about was synthesised and autotuned garbage I would listen to Kanye West.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.