Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Elegiac]

None of that is evil. Pol Pot was evil. This is just business. Every high end audio salesman I've ever met has been personable, friendly and helpful. But I still wouldn't trust them to hold my wallet.

A different circle of hell.

 

[Ryokan]

This is just business. Every high end audio salesman I've ever met has been personable, friendly and helpful. But I still wouldn't trust them to hold my wallet.

They want you to believe they're your friend and will sometimes pick a discussion unrelated to what you're looking at buying that they pick up on in a conversation. Top sales people are very confident and good speakers and have the ability to quickly ad-lib. Prerequisites for politicians.

A different circle of hell.

"there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume".
Noam Chomsky.

 

[Steve999]

Off topic. Amazon deciding to close DPReview made me almost as sad as when learning that someone I admire was dying.

I saw that too and felt super disappointed. The posters there could get to the gist of what are the good or better cameras and photo softwares and how to use them in a way that was very engaging and informative. I don’t know what resource could ever replace it. Do you?

To sort of steer this on topic, I think one thing that makes photography tech easier to gauge than audio tech is that your eyes can a/b differences in performance very easily and accurately, and if you really want to freak out over that last ounce of performance, you blow stuff up to the pixel level or higher, even though such differences might not be visible at normal viewing distances or magnifications. So you don’t really need a carefully planned ABX to figure out what camera or software is working better. DPReview and its reviewers and community handed this type of info to folks on a silver platter. So there isn‘t this cottage industry of photography pseudo-science and false or misleading marketing of the type you see in audio.

 

[Davesrose]

I saw that too and felt super disappointed. The posters there could get to the gist of what are the good or better cameras and photo softwares and how to use them in a way that was very engaging and informative. I don’t know what resource could ever replace it. Do you?

To sort of steer this on topic, I think one thing that makes photography tech easier to gauge than audio tech is that your eyes can a/b differences in performance very easily and accurately, and if you really want to freak out over that last ounce of performance, you blow stuff up to the pixel level or higher, even though such differences might not be visible at the at normal viewing distances or magnifications. So you don’t really need a carefully planned ABX to figure out what camera or software is working better. DPReview and its reviewers and community handed this type of info to folks on a silver platter. So there isn‘t this cottage industry of photography pseudo-science and false or misleading marketing of the type you see in audio.

I don't know of any internet resource that has the camera comparison tools as DPReview (IE they have ISO comparisons of same test subject for every camera). It's one thing that they're laying off all the staff, but to delete the whole website? Amazon is one of the biggest network/cloud services company: I don't think it would really eat into their profits to have a locked backup of the site up and running.

There can be some overlap with video as there is audio with marketing. For example: do you need a $1,000 UHD player vs a $200 one for 4K Dolby Vision over HDMI (and your TV is doing its own processing)? I did see one ABX test from a videographer of a Samsung QLED 8K TV vs LG OLED 4K TV (to see if 8K really is a major component of image quality vs TV screen characteristics with current TV sizes). He also had native 8K video just to eliminate potential of upscaling being less of a difference. The screens were the same size, and calibrated to the same color balance. Everyone wound up preferring the LG OLED. In his conclusion, the videographer theorized that the LG was the winner because of OLED technology having a clearly defined pixel. That looking up close, it had its own brightness and clear black border vs QLED which doesn't since its backlight isn't per pixel.

 

[bigshot]

I always followed Ken Rockwell. He's got a fun personality and provides solid information. His conclusions sometimes skew to his own use case, but that is true of every reviewer. The thing I like best about his reviews is that he talks about actually using cameras for what they're intended for, not just shooting test grids and bracketing experiments. He also points out when minor differences just don't matter in practice.

In both cameras and home audio, the thing that gets overemphasized are tiny imperceptible differences in image or sound quality, and huge issues involving the user interface and practical application get totally ignored. I see a lot of people jumping through hoops putting up with incredible inconveniences, just for the sake of a tiny quality improvement that would never make any difference in everyday use.

 

[bigshot]

I think one thing that makes photography tech easier to gauge than audio tech is that your eyes can a/b differences in performance very easily and accurately, and if you really want to freak out over that last ounce of performance, you blow stuff up to the pixel level or higher, even though such differences might not be visible at normal viewing distances or magnifications.

That makes it difficult for some people who obsess over such things to accurately gauge relative importance. Just like people here go on about "night and day" differences that turn out to be nothing, pixel peepers will decide that something at a microscopic level is a massive deal breaker, even though it would make absolutely no difference at all in their vacation pics.

And resolution really isn't the primary issue any more. Some of the best pictures I ever took were with an old 12 MP Olympus I had. After that, I had cameras that cost more and higher MP ratings, but they didn't capture images as well as that old Oly.

 

[Davesrose]

I always followed Ken Rockwell. He's got a fun personality and provides solid information. His conclusions sometimes skew to his own use case, but that is true of every reviewer. The thing I like best about his reviews is that he talks about actually using cameras for what they're intended for, not just shooting test grids and bracketing experiments. He also points out when minor differences just don't matter in practice.

In both cameras and home audio, the thing that gets overemphasized are tiny imperceptible differences in image or sound quality, and huge issues involving the user interface and practical application get totally ignored. I see a lot of people jumping through hoops putting up with incredible inconveniences, just for the sake of a tiny quality improvement that would never make any difference in everyday use.

Camera sensors are getting more alike with every brand as far as performance (closer options for high resolutions and equal dynamic range abilities)...so a lot of arguments over brand does seem to be interface (or now advancements with AI track focusing). There are inherent differences as far as picture quality given sensor size and resolution (or preference for less resolution to get higher burst speeds). Ken Rockwell's site is a good reference for used camera gear, though sometimes you do have to weed through his particular tribalism towards a brand. He'll also generalize to a point that annoys photographers (IE he got the ire of many when he said RAW wasn't needed: maybe not for his own shooting style, which is high key, oversaturated). I had one interaction with him. In his review of the Canon 5D, he went ad nauseam about how if he set the camera to ISO 50, he couldn't see a difference compared to 100. Being a 5D owner myself, I showed him documentation about how ISO 100 is the camera's base ISO...and (like other cameras) if you expand ISO in menu settings, that ISO 50 is a software interpolation. He thanked me, don't remember if he updated his review.

 

[bigshot]

The funny thing about his 'tribalism' (the word of the day) is that it's gone back and forth. When Canon builds a camera with poor ergonomics, he becomes a Nikon fan, and when Nikon comes out with a convoluted menu, he becomes a Canon fan. And he's a Fuji fan for family pics.

I've done a lot of work with jpegs and he is right that raw isn't really needed. A jpeg with decent data rate is plenty flexible for just about any image editing task you'll run across. To a professional photographer, speed and capacity are paramount. Most people don't shoot with digital cameras like Ansel Adams. They want responsiveness when they push the shutter. People who need raw are the exception, not the rule nowadays. Those that insist on raw do it for the same reason people want HD tracks... for the *potential& that more data *might* mean more info to assuage their OCD, even if it really doesn't matter in practice.

Rockwell's best articles are those about people who spend all their time shooting test grids and their feet and never go out and actually shoot any real pictures. I see that same thing in audio forums. People worry about specs that don't matter and end up building ungainly portable rigs that require a fist full of cables to connect all the components and battery packs together. Chasing phantom sound causes them to create a rig that's not at all practical for actual use. Rockwell is absolutely correct when he says an iPhone in your pocket is better than a whole bag full of gear in the closet at home.

 

[Ryokan]

Rockwell is absolutely correct when he says an iPhone in your pocket is better than a whole bag full of gear in the closet at home.

Reminds me of the quote: "It's better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.”

 

[gregorio]

Not Paul, he helps design the products as well -

That’s not uncommon. Rob Watts also “helps design the products” and there are/have been many others but their role is also marketing. It must be assumed in these cases that they’re deliberately lying because if they were really as ignorant as their marketing claims/assertions indicate, it’s hard to imagine how they could ever get any of their products to actually work.

he's actually a nice guy whatever you think about his support of products that you may think are dubious …

Isn’t the ability to project the image of being “a nice guy” pretty much a requirement for a career con-man/charlatan?

Obviously, the science/facts are not dependant on how much of “a nice guy” the person presenting them is, that’s just fallacy based reasoning and pretty much why science was invented in the first place. However, it appears obvious that in the absence of enough knowledge to know if assertions are true or BS, humans will use other cues to judge the veracity, such as how much of “a nice guy” the presenter appears to be and/or how “believable”. Isn’t this a form of the “Halo Effect”?

From my perspective (and many/most others here), we do have enough knowledge to judge the veracity of his assertions. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that he is a charlatan/conman and is therefore quite the opposite of “a nice guy”, regardless of his ability to project the image of being “nice” and “believable”. Same with Hans B.

Is there some default position on this forum that anyone associated with an audio manufacturer is an evil charlatan?

No, the default position on this forum is that someone associated with an audio manufacturer who disseminates false information in order to promote their products is an evil charlatan.

G

 

[Davesrose]

The funny thing about his 'tribalism' (the word of the day) is that it's gone back and forth. When Canon builds a camera with poor ergonomics, he becomes a Nikon fan, and when Nikon comes out with a convoluted menu, he becomes a Canon fan. And he's a Fuji fan for family pics.

I've done a lot of work with jpegs and he is right that raw isn't really needed. A jpeg with decent data rate is plenty flexible for just about any image editing task you'll run across. To a professional photographer, speed and capacity are paramount. Most people don't shoot with digital cameras like Ansel Adams. They want responsiveness when they push the shutter. People who need raw are the exception, not the rule nowadays. Those that insist on raw do it for the same reason people want HD tracks... for the *potential& that more data *might* mean more info to assuage their OCD, even if it really doesn't matter in practice.

Rockwell's best articles are those about people who spend all their time shooting test grids and their feet and never go out and actually shoot any real pictures. I see that same thing in audio forums. People worry about specs that don't matter and end up building ungainly portable rigs that require a fist full of cables to connect all the components and battery packs together. Chasing phantom sound causes them to create a rig that's not at all practical for actual use. Rockwell is absolutely correct when he says an iPhone in your pocket is better than a whole bag full of gear in the closet at home.

I have an iPhone 12. While it's better than nothing, it's not at all as good as my 5D4 for shooting images. It's terrible for anything low light and you want to print (I find it likes to posterize the image, terrible grain, and it's hard to control camera shake vs a large physical camera). It is nicer that it's a small recording 4K Dolby Vision video. But my 5D4 has much larger sensor, more MP, better dynamic range. It might cost a lot more as far as having to collect lenses along with an expensive dedicated body. But I do then have more flexibility in framing, editing, and crop-ability of image.

The only main professional photographers that have shot JPEG only are sports photographers (who are limited to needing quick turn around to send many images over internet to publishers). But if you don't have that kind of fast turn around, even sports photographers shoot RAW because size of storage increases and programs like LightRoom let you easily adjust a "roll" of RAWs. Landscape, nature, portrait photographers all shoot RAW because you have the full access to the image's exposure range.

It does seem that Ken's reviews of old Nikon gear is the most comprehensive: it seems throughout his career he's tended to side Nikon.

 

[gregorio]

I stand corrected!

Indeed you do, and hardly for the first time!

It would be far better for everyone if you actually found out the facts before you start publicly calling others “liars” or “total liars”. It would even be better for you, because you wouldn’t need to actually admit that you “stand corrected” (or just run away when it’s demonstrated) and you could avoid appearing ignorant. Not sure how many times this needs repeating?

That's very surprising and disappointing.

It’s disappointing but not surprising. Other audiophile communities/websites/publications have effectively done the same thing and long before Head-Fi’s TOS point 5.

I wonder if I'll be banned for my ABX chats.

They won’t ban you. If your mention of ABX isn’t challenged/argued, nothing at all will happen, if they are challenged, they’ll just delete those posts.

This has been explained previously but you just called it all “a total lie”!

Also, If there’s several such posts/arguments, they’ll delete your posts and lock you out of the thread but they won’t delete the arguments against ABX (unless they’re also insulting).

Furthermore, you don’t even have to mention ABX, blind testing, placebo, bias, etc. If a theme in your post even just implies or leads towards any of these things that’s ground for deletion. Also, note the “etc.” in the TOS point. That effectively allows anything anyone deems to be related to science to be grounds for deletion.

And lastly, stating your surprise and disappointment, and wondering if you’ll be banned is itself against the TOS because “We don't allow discussion of moderation on the forums.” - Head-Fi Moderation FAQ.

G

 

[bigshot]

I've got an iPhone 13 and I use it a lot more than my Nikons or my Fuji. I get fantastic photos with it, and they're of sufficient quality for everything except perhaps printing out at sizes larger than 11x14. It helps to adjust settings in the phone, rather than depending on auto everything. It's also best to compose your photos in camera rather than cropping a lot in post. You can get it a lot closer that way. If you're not shooting fast, like with sports, there should be time to do that. I know that's how Rockwell shoots. He does some post processing, but he works the settings in camera carefully before hitting the shutter button.

My highest resolution camera is a Mamiya RB67. I can't remember the last time I needed to use that.

I was going to be a professional photographer at one point in my life, but that changed. Most people who buy fancy digital cameras aren't pros and jpeg suits them fine. Pros use raw primarily because publishers require that, not because they often bump into not being able to adjust the image settings far enough. For typical family and vacation photos high rate jpeg does a fine job. But some people are anal about numbers, even if it doesn't make a difference... the same as with people who prefer 24/96 WAV rather than a high rate MP3 or AAC file.

You probably haven't read Rockwell lately, he favors Canon now and has for several years.

 

[Davesrose]

I've got an iPhone 13 and I use it a lot more than my Nikons or my Fuji. I get fantastic photos with it, and they're of sufficient quality for everything except perhaps printing out at sizes larger than 11x14. It helps to adjust settings in the phone, rather than depending on auto everything. It's also best to compose your photos in camera rather than cropping a lot in post. You can get it a lot closer that way. If you're not shooting fast, like with sports, there should be time to do that.

My highest resolution camera is a Mamiya RB67. I can't remember the last time I needed to use that.

I was going to be a professional photographer at one point in my life, but that changed. Most people who buy fancy digital cameras aren't pros and jpeg suits them fine. Pros use raw primarily because publishers require that, not because they often bump into not being able to adjust the image settings far enough.

You probably haven't read Rockwell lately, he favors Canon now and has for several years.

The Mamiya RB67 is a film camera, so it's not the same as digital cameras having more resolution at same sensor size. It's also not the same of "needing to use it", as it requires getting film developed (or if you're wanting to edit, have access to a dark room). Digital cameras have been able to get better performance while increasing resolution as the photosites, microlenses, and ADCs improve. Now you have 35mm sized sensors exceeding all the aspecs of medium format film (and you have small cinema cameras able to fit the cockpit of a F-18 that has resolving power rivaling 70mm film).

There are many situations where you get more flexibility with RAW (and why most professionals shoot in it). With landscapes, you need that extra dynamic range so that you can change contrast range in areas with dark shade (that a JPEG would read as black) or get ranges in highlights that would just be blown out in JPEG. You might not need that kind of latitude with studio photography, but RAW gives you more flexibility for color balancing. Lastly crop: of course every photographer knows that you get more resolution of subject if you can frame it in the whole view...but there are times that doesn't happen (like bird photography) or cases where you want to recompose after the fact. I have made some money with photography in portraits, but I've mainly been an advanced amateur (making artful images for personal use, or creating HDR images for my profession in medical animation). In college I did take film development classes and did learn Adams's Zone System. I still find that since I know how to edit photos, I do get better photos for such things as taking images of artwork at museums. I recently took photos of a Rodin exhibit. Some areas were fairly dark, so my iPhone would have quite low resolving power compared to my 5D4, and the image would be posterized (my 5D4 RAW giving me good latitude in getting color balance and contrast more optimal and at a size that the iPhone isn't capable of). There were also some sculptures outside with the setting sun: getting back to my example of how editing in RAW is very advantageous.

No, I haven't read Rockwell lately as there are better sites for getting objective reviews of cameras (DPReview being a really good one for being very comprehensive: Dustin Abbott, Gordon Lang, Christopher Frost being some more objective reviewers). I just went back to Rockwell's 5D (1) review. Like when he first had it complaining about ISO 50, I wonder if he did ever read the manual. In his current page, he goes on about the screen being awful for color fidelity. The way he goes on about it, I'm thinking he doesn't know that there are menu settings for setting the color profile (IE whether you want to preview your image to have faithful colors, or prioritize tonal range). They've always been there for Canon cameras. For whatever reason, I assume the default settings for the 5D3 are "better", so in that he goes on about how much better it's screen is then his Nikons.

 

[bigshot]

Ok. It’s the age old gear head vs a person who takes pictures thing. We have the same thing in home audio. Some people listen to music and some people listen to equipment.

When I was in college I had a full color darkroom and a pile of camera equipment. I get better results with my iPhone. My Nikons, both film and digital and a huge pile of associated lenses sit in the closet unused. They’re just too slow and klunky for me. I despise menus when I’m shooting outdoors. Just give me a light meter and an aperture ring and I can do what I need to do. The only camera I still like and use occasionally is my Fuji X100T. I can do anything I want with that and my iPhone, and picture making can be my central focus, not hauling around bags full of stuff and fiddling with menus. I’ll never buy another DSLR. And I really only shoot with one lens at a time. A slight wide angle is all I need.

Edit: ooo! Another thing I hate is having a big complicated camera hanging around my neck. It screams PHOTOGRAPHER!!! Subjects start posing and duffers come up and say Whatcha got there? and start babbling technical stuff they read online. I carry my camera in a messenger bag and only take it out to quickly shoot and back in the bag.