Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,153
    I believe image depth (on 2D visuals) is probably the equivalent?

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244

    I agree

    Video is easier than audio. I like plasma. I find it more real than LCD, although LCD is catching up. With video speed is very important. In audio its more complex. Its much more than that.
    System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter, HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to modified 300watt class d amp, JPS labs power cords, Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable.

  3. #13
    Audio interacts with its surrounding both at recording and reproduction stages, but video only does it at the recording stage not much at the reproduction stage.
    Transporter > NAD C272 > Magnepan 1.7

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by MediaCenter View Post
    Audio interacts with its surrounding both at recording and reproduction stages, but video only does it at the recording stage not much at the reproduction stage.
    ??? Ever noticed how video looks different in different lighting conditions?

  5. #15
    Senior Member Curt962's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    189
    There ya go MCR....a ground floor opportunity.

    "Videophile lighting products". Taking a page from the audiophile handbook, a person could make a killing with "directional" lightbulbs, Cryo filaments, and the list could go on....

    Don't forget Magic Pebbles to place on top of the video monitor....huge improvements. Need a new name though...."Video Crystals" or the like.

    Life is precious. Celebrate every day!

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by MediaCenter View Post
    Audio interacts with its surrounding both at recording and reproduction stages, but video only does it at the recording stage not much at the reproduction stage.
    The magic words in video-land are "white balance" and "color management". Tons of interesting stuff around these issues, use google and be enlightened :-D.

    During reproduction, as has been said by magiccarpetride, interaction with the environment is just as important if not more than for audio.

    Unlike audio reproduction though, environment optimization for video is much easier to implement than it is for audio. Reflections can easily be seen and removed, colors can easily be measured and (provided the representation media's color gamut is large enough) adjusted for and the impact of external noise can be reduced or even completely removed by closing the curtains and switching on color calibrated lights. For audio, this often is a lot harder because a lot of trial and error is involved.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Soulkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,220

    Suspension of disbelief versus the perfect illusion

    We have a tradition of looking at artificial images that strive to reproduce some aspect of reality, and suspending our disbelief. This tradition is many millennia old. In many cases, we can more easily interpret stylized images than photorealistic ones, at least partly due to this tradition. In contrast, our tradition of listening to artificially reproduced sound that strives to reproduce some aspect of reality, is hardly more than a century old (excepting the imitation of animal sounds and such, no doubt important to survival, but perhaps less important to culture).

    We admitted to ourselves the futility of pursuing lifelike visuals long before the concept of lifelike audio was conceived. We understood that we had to wilfully buy in to the illusion that lines and stains on a paper could create, and we did.

    Our understanding of how to listen seems less mature: We want to be fooled despite our best efforts to hear the trick. We want the illusion of sound to be perfect, like the Matrix. And that's pretty different from how we read pictures, still or moving.

    Maybe because hearing isn't the primary/dominant sense of Homo sapiens. Maybe because audio technology developed so suddenly, and so impressively, that our own hubris caught us by surprise. Maybe because we feel/know that unlike the perfect video illusion, it is within the realm of possibility. I don't know which.

    In the future, technology may be able to create a virtual reality that is lifelike enough to fool us. If it can do it with video, it can do it with audio, and vice versa. But that's in the future. For now, we'll just have to learn how to listen, and not least how not to listen.
    Last edited by Soulkeeper; 2011-04-11 at 14:42.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulkeeper View Post
    We have a tradition of looking at artificial images that strive to reproduce some aspect of reality, and suspending our disbelief. This tradition is many millennia old. In many cases, we can more easily interpret stylized images than photorealistic ones, at least partly due to this tradition. In contrast, our tradition of listening to artificially reproduced sound that strives to reproduce some aspect of reality, is hardly more than a century old (excepting the imitation of animal sounds and such, no doubt important to survival, but perhaps less important to culture).

    We admitted to ourselves the futility of pursuing lifelike visuals long before the concept of lifelike audio was conceived. We understood that we had to wilfully buy in to the illusion that lines and stains on a paper could create, and we did.

    Our understanding of how to listen seems less mature: We want to be fooled despite our best efforts to hear the trick. We want the illusion of sound to be perfect, like the Matrix. And that's pretty different from how we read pictures, still or moving.

    Maybe because hearing isn't the primary/dominant sense of Homo sapiens. Maybe because audio technology developed so suddenly, and so impressively, that our own hubris caught us by surprise. Maybe because we feel/know that unlike the perfect video illusion, it is within the realm of possibility. I don't know which.

    In the future, technology may be able to create a virtual reality that is lifelike enough to fool us. If it can do it with video, it can do it with audio, and vice versa. But that's in the future. For now, we'll just have to learn how to listen, and not least how not to listen.
    Historically, we've been enjoying trompe-l'ťil (lit. 'fool the eye') trickery for quite a few generations now. However, the difference is that, with trompe-l'ťil we walk unawares into the trick, being 'fooled', not even being aware that there is some trickery being played on us. Thus, for example, we may think that there is an extension to the room, while in reality there is only hard wall there with some smudges of paint on it.

    With audio, on the other hand, we know upfront that it's a simulacrum, and yet we expect the illusion to be so strong, so powerful, that it will convince us and engross us and overpower us to the point where we forget that we're sitting in front of a machine that's producing the sounds. That's an incredibly tall order, that naive expectation of being taken for a ride and experiencing temporary amnesia. I doubt we'll ever get there.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Soulkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,220
    Trompe-l'ťil is an interesting analogy. We can let ourselves be fooled by it for quite a while, even after we've intellectually realized it's an illusion. It's static/rigid, but it's strong. But more an installation type thing. In a similar way you can simulate rain falling on the roof by using a rainstick. That can also be quite convincing, especially if you're not familiar with the sound of rain hitting the roof of the particular building you're in.

    The quest for audio/video fidelity seems to be more defined by the medium, which it seems has to be portable in some way, and versatility. If it can make a convincing simulation/reproduction of both the sound of silk hitting silk, and saluting cannons, we tend to think it's good. OTOH, if it can only show different shades of blue, we don't want to watch the latest movie on it, even if they are the richest and most varied shades of blue ever witnessed by man. Etc.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Rodney_Gold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    188
    Photography does not capture the image as we see it , there is no peripheral vision , there is a fixed depth of field and colours are dependant on monitor and printer , dynamic range is compromised as well.
    You will never get the captured image as you saw it at the time.
    That same image can be captured many ways , for eg with shallow DOF or with deep DOF which will change the perception/perspective , as will the focal length of the lens and so on.
    There are as many ifs buts and maybes in photography/videography as there are in audio , and both encompass an objective/measurement component and a subjective side.
    SBT/Z-sys RDP1 digital Pre/Meridian DSP5500's Or TP/DSP5500's
    SBT/MDAC/Various amps/Osborn Epitomes
    SB3/Meridian DSP5000's
    SBT/ MDAC/Various HP amps/Senheisser Hd800's/650/600/Denon

    "The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is...the feeling you get when you stop"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •