Quote Tui:

---

ever noticed the incredible depth of field and realism in old photographs, in spite of inferior lenses when compared with modern ones?

---

Wrong cause, wrong effect. The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses. Lens technologies that were common during the 1930's and 1940's only appeared on modern SLR's during the 1990's, and even then only on high end models. Many of those lens technologies that were promoted as being new and improved were really just new to the 35mm market. They applied proven lens designs to the new, mass market, format.

The qualities that you describe in those old photographs are largely due to using a tripod, a small aperture, a long exposure, and a very good lens. All perfectly achievable with modern equipment if you make the right choices.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

The key thing being the small aperture, slow film and tripod!

Actually the small aperture makes even a relatively poor lens much better behaved at the cost of long exposure times. The fact that almost all the cameras back then used fixed primes helped as well, they are almost always sharper then a zoom for a given technology level and lens speed.

I would also note that the surviving photos from the 30s are probably mostly those which people cared about enough to preserve, and this effect in music as much as photography should not be underestimated, what we think of as the 'golden age' of recorded music (whatever that means for you) has really the top 1% or so of everything recorded at that time.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Quote zenguitar:

---

The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses.

---

I find this difficult to believe, considering the technological advances that have been made since then. I would have thought modern lenses are more pure and polished and tested, using computerised equipment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T7BDeMU_Ks

Quote zenguitar:

---

All perfectly achievable with modern equipment if you make the right choices.

---

That's the point, "right choices" are typically not made. From what I understand, photographic film before the digital age was vastly superior to anything that's available today.

The situation is similar to availability of high-quality analogue tape for audio recording. Yes, IF today we made a big effort and cobbled together a studio with old tape machines and tube gear and IF we would press the recordings onto vinyl and listen to it through a proper Hi-Fi, rather than an iPod, we could recreate that intimate and captivating sound. However, we are not doing that, are we. 9 out of 10 times, whether played on telly, radio or in the club, we listen to products of el cheapo hybrid analogue/digital signal chains. When you follow the forums, you'll quickly realise most people use the cheapest gear they can get away with. Someone like Sting may be an audiophile and use a rack of Prism converters, but I don't hear his music being played too often anymore.

Quote Tui:

---

From what I understand, photographic film before the digital age was vastly superior to anything that's available today.

---

Again it all comes down to what you mean by 'vastly superior'. In terms of absolute picture resolition and the ability to blow a print up to silly sizes, large format film probably still just has an edge -- but from what I've heard and seen there really isn't much in it these days when using high-res large format digital camera backs, and the expectation is it will be surpassed imminently. So not 'vastly superior'...

But in all other respects wet film is a disaster in comparison. From the nasty chemicals required, and the high physical cost of raw stock and processing, to the time it takes to move from shoot to print, the difficulty of getting images from studio to publisher, and so on. The pro's moved to digital shooting years ago for very sound reasons, making digital vastly superior in the ways that matter to most people, most of the time.

Quote:

---

IF today we made a big effort and cobbled together a studio with old tape machines and tube gear and IF we would press the recordings onto vinyl and listen to it through a proper Hi-Fi, rather than an iPod, we could recreate that intimate and captivating sound.

---

You would create a sound full of musically pleasant distortions that might well be captivating for some musical genres, yes. And equally, it might sound rather unnatural and bent for others...

Quote:

---

When you follow the forums, you'll quickly realise most people use the cheapest gear they can get away with.

---

Wasn't that always the way? Amateurs almost always are limited in their budgets and have to compromise on some aspects of their recordings -- most commonly on the acoustics of the recording space!

Not many home studios were ever equipped with Studer A80s and A820s, EMI Redd consoles or Neumann lathes. The high end recording chain of the 1970s and 80s was flawed, albeit in an entertaining way. Pro studios today still use pro equipment, but the cost has come down dramatically so that many home studios can also afford much of it.

To my mind the difference in sound quality is really not down to the equipment, it's down to the production styles and the talent involved. Put simply, we hear more dross today than we ever used to because the entire process has (a) been democratised where it was once specialised, and (b) people use the technology to fix things in preference to recording the right things!

There are countless fantastic digital recordings out there, of music across most genres, which proves without doubt that the technology is perfectly capable.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote:

---

find this difficult to believe, considering the technological advances that have been made since then. I would have thought modern lenses are more pure and polished and tested, using computerised equipment:

---

They *could* be. But equally that computerised equipment can be used to produce an acceptable (but lower quality) result very quickly and cheaply. And the majority of lenses these days are plastic - not in serious cameras, sure, but most people taking photos aren't using serious cameras.

Quote Tui:

---

Quote zenguitar:

---

The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses.

---

I find this difficult to believe, considering the technological advances that have been made since then. I would have thought modern lenses are more pure and polished and tested, using computerised equipment:

---

Most of those technological advances are in manufacturing for the mass market. Also, large format cameras are a very different beast to 35mm SLRs and DSLRs. Focusing is handled very differently so that SLR lenses can be made compact and easy to handle at the expense of added complexity. And generally putting wide angle and telephoto lenses into the compact package with wide apertures for using hand held in low light places different demands on lens design and manufacture. And that's before we even consider zoom lenses which are quite rare on large format cameras but the norm on SLR/DSLR these days.

So while a Nikon D7000 is on my shopping list, when I can finally afford to get one I'll also be getting an adaptor plate so I can use the Nikon body on my 5"x4" monorail plate camera and take advantages of all the things the monorail can do that no SLR can manage. And I won't have any concerns about the lenses on the plate camera.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Quote zenguitar:

---

Wrong cause, wrong effect. The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses. Lens technologies that were common during the 1930's and 1940's only appeared on modern SLR's during the 1990's, and even then only on high end models. Many of those lens technologies that were promoted as being new and improved were really just new to the 35mm market. They applied proven lens designs to the new, mass market, format.

---

Careful you don't fall into the "Golden age" trap!

Quote MonkeySpank:

---

Kids seem less willing or able to devote the time to practicing an instrument than they did when I was their age.

---

Probably just as many take it seriously than ever did, (though the cut-backs in school instrumental teaching have a lot to answer for). There's just a whole load more as well, playing with the toys that let you "make music" without knowing how to make music. That's OK.

I've been in and out of rehearsal rooms for the last 25 years and the standard of both (young) bands and musicianship at the rooms I'm now in is far higher than it was 25 or 20 years ago in the rooms I was in then. This despite the fact that the rooms I am in are as strictly amateur now as they were in the late 80s.

Also, the standard of music teaching when I was at secondary school was so bad I don't see how it could get any worse.

It surely all depends which school you went to/go to and which musicians you came into contact with, which for me were mostly indie whan I was a young 'un, and mostly rock and metal now. Everyone has different experiences.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Quote Richard Graham:

---

Also, the standard of music teaching when I was at secondary school was so bad I don't see how it could get any worse.

---

Classroom teaching was generally a waste of time, (with some shining exceptions!) There's just so much you can do with "everybody".

But there was an era when, sometime in the first year of secondary school, the teacher would say "anyone fancy learning an instrument" and any kid who put his hand up got loaned one plus a (free) weekly session with a specialist visiting teacher. A few areas (notably Leicestershire and the London Borough of Redbridge) extended a comprehensive scheme into junior schools as well. It got results. Graduates of these localities were well over-represented in a generation of intake to the London music colleges, and, later in the professional orchestras.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote Richard Graham:

---

Also, the standard of music teaching when I was at secondary school was so bad I don't see how it could get any worse.

---

Classroom teaching was generally a waste of time, (with some shining exceptions!) There's just so much you can do with "everybody".

---

Perhaps that's why our music teacher didn't even bother trying. He would turn up fifteen minutes late, tell us he would be back in ten minutes, and return half an hour later, just in time for the end of the lesson. If we were lucky we'd get to sing a couple of verses of The Blaydon Races. I kid you not.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

My secondary school music 'teacher' spent all her time making sure that she had a school orchestra and just sent all the others to workstations to play on the terrible Casio keyboards we had (usually trying to play Axel F). The C-Lab computer was hidden away for the one pupil she cherished. I learnt very little in those classes and turned my back on music until I took up making it myself under my own steam.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Thanks zenguitar and Hugh for the insights on camera tech! Great mythbusting stuff, as always.

--------------------
madtheory creations
Synths and pianos for Kontakt

Can't work out why Dr Doherty would say those things; or maybe we are misreading what he is saying. In any event it seems like poor PR - after reading that I feel less inclined to consider DACS products.

--------------------
www.youtube.com/leonardngmusic

Quote Len:

---

Can't work out why Dr Doherty would say those things; or maybe we are misreading what he is saying. In any event it seems like poor PR - after reading that I feel less inclined to consider DACS products.

---

I must admit that I had similar feelings. If he has strange ideas about digital audio basics then what other areas of audio engineering does he also have strange ideas about and do they have any impact on the sound and reliability of his designs?

James

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Quote James Perrett:

---

Quote Len:

---

Can't work out why Dr Doherty would say those things; or maybe we are misreading what he is saying. In any event it seems like poor PR - after reading that I feel less inclined to consider DACS products.

---

I must admit that I had similar feelings. If he has strange ideas about digital audio basics then what other areas of audio engineering does he also have strange ideas about and do they have any impact on the sound and reliability of his designs?

---

Maybe he just set out to write a "thought-provoking" piece, rushed the job and didn't fully think it through.

Quote James Perrett:

---

Quote Len:

---

Can't work out why Dr Doherty would say those things; or maybe we are misreading what he is saying. In any event it seems like poor PR - after reading that I feel less inclined to consider DACS products.

---

I must admit that I had similar feelings. If he has strange ideas about digital audio basics then what other areas of audio engineering does he also have strange ideas about and do they have any impact on the sound and reliability of his designs?

James

---

Indeed and this;
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/discuss/feedback/newsletter/2011/12/2/0-ohm- headphone-amplifier-sonic-advantages-low-impedance-headphone-amp
was found to be flawed reasoning I believe?

Dave.

Quote zenguitar:

---

Quote Tui:

---

Quote zenguitar:

---

The lenses used in many old cameras were generally superior to modern lenses.

---

I find this difficult to believe, considering the technological advances that have been made since then. I would have thought modern lenses are more pure and polished and tested, using computerised equipment:

---

Most of those technological advances are in manufacturing for the mass market. Also, large format cameras are a very different beast to 35mm SLRs and DSLRs.

---

If you look at things like the old zeiss folding cameras or olympus trips there really isn't any comparision to a modern P&S camera in terms of image quality. Old large format lenses might be superior to modern P&S lenses in the very limited range circumstances where they can be directly compared but even the best of them will come off worse in any comparison with a direct modern equivalent. There have been advances in materials, advances in design due to widespread computing power, and advances in manufacture i.e. precision grinding of aspherical elements & CNC manufacture of lens bodies, that apply across the board and mean the modern lenses are measurably better.

Quote ef37a:

---

Indeed and this;
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/discuss/feedback/newsletter/2011/12/2/0-ohm- headphone-amplifier-sonic-advantages-low-impedance-headphone-amp
was found to be flawed reasoning I believe?

---

I'd be interested to know about the flaw. While that particular article is very marketing led and a damping factor of 6000 is maybe somewhat excessive, low output impedance headphone amps are sold by people like Grace Design as well as Benchmark. While the moving mass of a headphone diaphragm is much less than that of a bass speaker, I would have thought that keeping the output impedance low would only help the sound.

I can understand that a low output impedance has the disadvantage of having more of a volume change between headphones of different impedances though.

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Edited by James Perrett (08/07/12 07:51 PM)

Quote James Perrett:

---

I'd be interested to know about the flaw.

---

I think Dave is referring to THIS THREAD which you contributed to at the end.

Quote:

---

I would have thought that keeping the output impedance low would only help the sound.

---

It does, and is normal practice for high-end products, as you say. The issue was that the tests employed in that report could be argued to be misleading in some of their claims.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Thanks for reminding me Hugh - I don't think that I had followed the link to the Benchmark article in the previous thread so didn't immediately associate it.

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote James Perrett:

---

I'd be interested to know about the flaw.

---

I think Dave is referring to <a href="/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=DESIGN&Number=959384&Searchpage=1&Mai n=959234&Words=benchmark&topic=&Search=true#Post959384" target="_blank">THIS THREAD</a> which you contributed to at the end.

Quote:

---

I would have thought that keeping the output impedance low would only help the sound.

---

It does, and is normal practice for high-end products, as you say. The issue was that the tests employed in that report could be argued to be misleading in some of their claims.

hugh

---

Thank you Hugh, that is the very one!

The thing that still bothers me tho is. How can a "zero" impedance source have much of a damping effect when the DC resistance of headphones, in series with it, is usually only a percent or so less than the nominal impedance? If it is argued that it IS different because the resistance is distributed throughout the wire then that flies in the face of all our "black box" models of electronic systems.
Dave.

Yea once Re(Zs) becomes smaller then about 10% of the winding resistance it becomes largely a non issue. The useful form of damping factor of the system is given by the ratio of the motional impedance to the fixed series impedance (including the winding resistance and the amp), not simply by the ratio of the winding resistance to the output impedance of the amp.
Now of course Zs can (and does) vary with frequency (Not by much over the audio band in a good SS amp, but still), which is a good enough reason to measure at 20K as well as 1K for that number.

Interestingly the sort of crude headphone output that has a large resistor in series with the phones across a speaker voltage line never sounded that bad to me, and is in effect a poor sort of current source drive, in that the voltage dropped across the resistor is very much greater then that dropped across the cans (Good current sources appear as high impedances).

Lots of horsepucky talked about headphone drive amps by those with expensive boxes to sell, the things are really not a difficult load by and large.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!