And it turns out good enough can be quite poor
Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?Can you name brand and model of some of those "good enough" components?
Aren't you forgetting the infamous car analogy which goes something like, "If you are comparing car performance, you wouldn't put $50 Sears tire on $150K performance car, would you? It's the same when you are comparing amp performance, you wouldn't use $50 speaker cables on $15K amp."?
BTW, you are wrong about the camera lens difference. They do make a difference in both high-end camera body and entry level camera body.
Was it a level matched and bias controlled test?
Actually, it is you that is wrong.
Obviously, if a sensor is out-resolved by a lens, substituting a higher resolution lens will not improve image resolution - the sensor is the binding constraint.
If a sensor out-resolves a lens, then substituting a higher resolution lens will improve the image resolution, up to the point where the resolving capability of the lens and sensor are the same.
A 16mp sensor will hit its limit before a 24mp sensor will.
See?
No. I also think it is a poor analogy. Resolution is only a part of what makes a great lens. The lack of various distortions, improved contrast etc are visible even on an entry level sensor.
You obviously never compared images of high-end lens and entry level lens side by side when taken same object with same focal length and aperture.
Can you cite an example of objective DACs listening comparison which the cheaper / lower fidelity system didn't reveal the audible difference that more expensive / higher fidelity system did?
But that doesn't mean those differences would still be very small on a much better system.
Last edited:
Wow, for someone apparently bereft of logic and incapable of inductive reasoning, that is a remarkably detailed imagining of things you seem to think I have never done.
There was a good reason this thread died, and remarkably, there is even less here in its unfortunate rebirth.
Pet Semetary, anyone?
I will put this back in its metaphorical grave and hope nothing else emerges.
As some parting advice, you might want to look at what Schneider and Rodenstock have had to do with their lens lines to make them work with modern, high resolution digital sensors.
You've never compared images of high-end lens and entry level lens side by side when taken same object with same focal length and aperture. Try those lenses on entry level camera body as well as high-end camera body. See it for yourself and get back.
Dodging my DACs listening comparison question.
I heard that a lot, but i found that -on the contrary- the longer it is, the less your brain can potentially spot a difference.
Best music excerpt time would probably be somewhere between 5sec and 25sec.
Audio memory is very very short.
The thing to remember is NOT all blind test falls in the ''everybody fails'' pit. There is always a threshold. And these threshold proves that ABX test is a valid method. At the very least, it proves that some things show bigger differences than other, who falls in the more...subtle. If any.
I remember the first serious blind test i organized back in 2010... MP3 v.s. AAC v.s. CD v.s. HD 24/96.
I had to lower the quality til 64kpbs (!) MP3 files, to find the threshold where MOST people (not all!) could spot it. That was a shock. I was able to do it, so was my audiophiles buddies... But few participants were not. To my big surprise.
As ''low'' as 192kbps.... no one could spot any of the files. So the threshold was somewhere between 96 and 128kbps. MP3 only, AAC was impossible to spot either.
And i'm not even talking about the 24/96 v.s. HD or the AAC 256kbps... No one was even close. MP3's were challenging enough.
So, YES, thresholds are the key here. ABX shouldnt be discarded because a threshold is not yet found.
I'm pretty sure if you ABX a Pepsi and a glass of Vodka, you'll find it.
I agree, 128 to 192 is hearable, after that generally not.
Have you tried looking? Or was it the usual cliched, rhetorical and/or dishonest question for some kind of sake of argument, that is staple for argumentative folks on the internet?
Thats a genuine question, as I am unsure without talking in person, although I've made it difficult to admit to the latter, I recognise..
.
.
Experiencial learning is so well documented, you'd have to be more specific in the area you're interested in. And then work out how to find studies, where you think they'd appear.
I leave it to you as it is your desire to find this documentation and I'm guessing you're retired and have much much more time on your hands to do the research. It would be a bit of an imposition to ask someone to do that work for you..
Please do post up what you find so we don't have to do it all again.
Thats a genuine question, as I am unsure without talking in person, although I've made it difficult to admit to the latter, I recognise..
.
.
Experiencial learning is so well documented, you'd have to be more specific in the area you're interested in. And then work out how to find studies, where you think they'd appear.
I leave it to you as it is your desire to find this documentation and I'm guessing you're retired and have much much more time on your hands to do the research. It would be a bit of an imposition to ask someone to do that work for you..
Please do post up what you find so we don't have to do it all again.
Sometimes it's almost impossible to find accurate info on the internet particularly if you don't know where to start or which studies are reputable, easier and quicker to ask for pointers from someone who might know. That said, "Experience in spotting the difference helps. Many people don't spot very obvious things in all sorts of situations.." sounds like common sense and most people's experience I would imagine if they think about it.
Exactly, on both accounts.
I don't have time to start looking for documented evidence of something that is also common experience... I'd prefer if Evenharmonics did it
I'm guessing however, he had a narrow focus in his question and was playing the usual card of "show the evidence of hearing subjective differences in audio quality".
A commonly played card in these discussions and if you don't have the return play ready to go (some documented study), it is seen by the player as a defeat by their opinon/play. If you do have the documeted study ready to play, then the player then throws doubt on that study - which isn't easy to prove either way unless it was your study.. And so the game player feels they've won another round .
Some folks like to discuss things, some folks like to just play the argument game!
The argument game is quickly very boring for anyone without an ego that needs regular massage.
So, hopefully, Evenharmonics is entering into discussion rather than playing games. It's very hard to tell with just text communication... although one can look at past form perhaps...
I don't have time to start looking for documented evidence of something that is also common experience... I'd prefer if Evenharmonics did it
I'm guessing however, he had a narrow focus in his question and was playing the usual card of "show the evidence of hearing subjective differences in audio quality".
A commonly played card in these discussions and if you don't have the return play ready to go (some documented study), it is seen by the player as a defeat by their opinon/play. If you do have the documeted study ready to play, then the player then throws doubt on that study - which isn't easy to prove either way unless it was your study.. And so the game player feels they've won another round .
Some folks like to discuss things, some folks like to just play the argument game!
The argument game is quickly very boring for anyone without an ego that needs regular massage.
So, hopefully, Evenharmonics is entering into discussion rather than playing games. It's very hard to tell with just text communication... although one can look at past form perhaps...
As a genuine quesion, as a relatively newcomer to digital photography, how does a lens show an effective resolution? Are you talking about micro-level focus differences due to imperfect shaped lenses or location within the lens err.. "structure"? Or that glass itself has a resolution of transparency?
In a more general way, regarding what you're discussing, remember that the eye will be the limiting factor, or the method of viewing that photo will be the limiting factor.. Much like a choice of video resolution, if you're a certain amount of distance away from the tv screen and the tv screen is of a certain size, 1080p is no better than 720p because you're eye won't see the detail - you'll have to sit closer or get a bigger screen to notice.
With audio, that probably relates to turning up the volume. We all live in the real world and many of us with neighbours and background noise.. so even on replay, our final resolution is low. Lets say playing at 85dbA and having a background noise of the outside world of like 55dbA... that's not a lot of room for fine detail. Different with headphones.. Then we have all the noise of the recording chain, self noise of mics etc... to get in the way of simply turning it up to get a better resolution even if we had the freedom to do so.
Probably other factors are involved to a greater magnitude in listening pleasure than the resolution of digital audio. I say that as having had the experience of comparing tracks from a few labels, comparing their high resolution versions and those at 44.1khz and being able to pick out the 16/44.1 versions on a random play scenario (where you can see the play list afterwards). 96kHz and above sounded better .. but that doesn't mean it was about resolution or sample rate, it could have been something in the conversion down, or how the dac handled 44.1kHz, how it's filters work etc etc
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.