|
|
Post by marcl on Mar 29, 2022 16:30:16 GMT -5
Does DxO have PROFILES for all your proposed combinations? I found that my Mirrorless Nikon in RAW with the profile corrects barrel/pincushion and a few other good things. The camera fixes JPG for me, so that in the comparison of jpg /raw, it is obvious.... Just my Personal Opinion, but I've had my FILL of SONY. I had an NEX-7 to try to cut weight without quality. I figured teh 24mp ASP-C sensor SHOULD be better than the 8mp 'H' in my canon. NOPE. The GLASS ruined it. The 800$ 17-200 was UnUsable past 100mm. The 35mm 1.8? Soft in the corners and dark.....And you'd think they could get THAT one right....esp for 450$...... I nearly gave up photography. I mean, really.....No more joy in it with such awful stuff to work with. Even tripod work at 10 feet / mid apertures? NOPE... I even gave up on the SONY menu system. Really UN intuitive. My Nikon has a short menu with 1 button push. I can assign frequently used items TO this menu and do so reliably. If I want to 'dig'? Can Do....and it's well organized and 3 or 4 layers deep in spots..... Even RAW and largest JPG files were 'small'.....My same MP Nikon makes 35mp RAW files and I think 12 bit or 14 bit is available. XQD memory is WAY quicker than SD or even CF..... I know the NEW full frame SONY stuff gets bang-up reviews. DPReview likes. So do most users. But you know? I really was revitalized by this Nikon. Fast and easy. Once configured....and there IS a learning curve, I don't have to mess with it. New functionality added by firmware revs (now at 3.4) tells ME they really want to get it right. Focus snaps to eyes of people OR pets...or Zoo..... One thing, though? SONY was Realy given a boost by the merger / acquistion of Konica-Minolta. The 'A' series was pure K-M. Sony learned FAST and has really driven Canon and Nikon to 'do better'...... I would PERSONALLY test well BEFORE any holiday. Up for a ONE CAMERA solution? New Nikon Z9 will Melt Your Credit Card, but has 2x memory slots. EVERY function and capability imaginable and Nikon PRO level build thruout.....But I don't have a gym membership. It weighs double or more my current choice. Yes, DxO supports all the lens and TC combinations on the A1. It even supports all the Canon lenses I used to have on Sony. I started my switch from Canon to Sony in 2015 with the a7rII and Metabones adapter for Canon lenses. Completed the switch in 2019. My wife used the Canon gear until fall 2020, we sold it all and she's 100% OM-Digital (Olympus). I go back to 2006 with DxO and have been beta testing for several years. Yes the Z9 looks nice ... I hear if you order one in Japan now you may have it by December. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Mar 29, 2022 19:32:37 GMT -5
For ME the problem wiht the Z9 is WEIGHT. And I might add NEED. I simply have no need for such a machine. My Z6 if FINE and does the one thing
I need, which is Low Light to the nth degree. VERY low noise.
And I'd forgotten the name for the Metabones adapters. I remember 2 or 3 models?
which brings me to the problem wiht the new Nikon Mirrorless. Poor takeup by AFTERMARKET lens makers. I would almost without hesitation look into the Tampon 90mm Macro.....
The 105mm Nikkor Macro is about a grand. Same in FX mount.....
The Mirrorless mount has a couple 'advantages' over prior art. Huge Diameter. Short distance to 'film' plane.
I have DxO but ONE problem. I still can't figure out to make what would be about a 4 or 5 meg JPG from whatever I start with. Also? That sidecar stuff drives me NUTS.
I'd like to do a simple RENAME and be done......
Any knowledge of this. OTHERWISE? I'm slowly getting better and have even experimented with the miniature effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 28, 2022 12:25:32 GMT -5
Just an aside -
The local Cox Cable company came into my house the other day to troubleshoot my internet being intermittent. They determined that their pole wiring on the branch that I suck hind-tit on was old and in poor shape, causing my house to have low signal strength. Looking at their service schedule, they said they didn't know when they'd actually get around to replacing my branch wiring, but in the meantime, they'd install an amplifier on the pole that feeds my house. Then they checked their inventory and told me that they had no pole amplifiers and (due to global shipping issues) didn't know when they'd get one. So instead, they installed a new amplifier inside my house near my TV and Cable Modem.
After this, I began to notice hum in my audio system. Having had the issue before, I inspected the new cable amplifier. The Cox Cable technician had taken the incoming coaxial cable, connected it directly to the amplifier, and then taken two amplifier outputs, hooking them directly to my cable TV box and to my cable modem. This caused a ground imbalance between my house ground and the cable system ground - thus hum.
I eliminated the hum by rewiring the coaxial cable. Now the incoming coaxial cable connects (only) to my surge suppressor (that has an in / out for coaxial cable). The coaxial suppressor output feeds a splitter, and the two splitter outputs go to the TV cable box and to my cable modem. Result? No hum. The surge suppressor grounds the cable system to the house ground, and the coaxial output from the surge suppressor is at the same ground potential as all my audio equipment, that is also grounded through the house ground.
Lesson learned? ANY connection to the cable system is highly likely to cause hum in your audio system. These troublesome connections may be "secondary" such as Ethernet connections or HDMI connections too. Most everyone on the Lounge already knows these things, but for those fighting hum issues, a surge suppressor between your system and the cable input will often cure the hum.
Cordially - Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 28, 2022 15:48:20 GMT -5
Hi Boomzilla, Has anyone else here had similar issues with iTunes? It seems like your the only one that mentions these issues so I'm wondering what could be the cause. I use iTunes and have never had a problem. In fact it saved me from loosing my music collection when my hard-drive failed. I could download them again including my ripped music from the iCloud. Cheers, Dave. Why do people AVOID the ALAC codec? I copy whatever as ALAC than use the program converter to MP3-160 for portable use.....ALAC is used in the house and if I plug headphones into the computer.... |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 28, 2022 17:01:59 GMT -5
ALAC is another perfectly adequate lossless CODEC.
I can tell you that the only reason I avoid it is because FLAC is more standard. (To be fair I don't use any programs at the moment that wouldn't play it... but I have in the past.)
I also do prefer to know I'm using an open source format that an Apple format (just on general principles).
(I agree that Microsoft is probably "the evil empire"... but, as a company, I dislike Apple even more... mostly because they're smarmy and pretend that they aren't just as evil...)
Hi Boomzilla, Has anyone else here had similar issues with iTunes? It seems like your the only one that mentions these issues so I'm wondering what could be the cause. I use iTunes and have never had a problem. In fact it saved me from loosing my music collection when my hard-drive failed. I could download them again including my ripped music from the iCloud. Cheers, Dave. Why do people AVOID the ALAC codec? I copy whatever as ALAC than use the program converter to MP3-160 for portable use.....ALAC is used in the house and if I plug headphones into the computer.... |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 29, 2022 0:14:24 GMT -5
Keith, I just gotta laugh. You're RIGHT. Apple has done some stuff lately which just makes me want to go back to my Abacus.
No more 32 bit software....so ALL of that on my computer is now obsolete and will NOT run. Even my older copy of Photoshop!
Adobe has won MY vote with the 10$ a month subscription business model. NOT.
I have a program which SOMETIMES starts when I start the computer...and sometimes NOT. I can hit 'deny' if I have the reflexes of an 19 year old on speed......or NOT.
Apple telephone support is worthless and I see few online references......I capture the name next time I do a startup. I can't find it anywhere on the computer.....
Both ALAC and FLAC will produce bit-accurate copies of the original material. I like ITunes since I can convert ALAC to most other formats.......I still use MP-3 in the
car since in that case? Ultimate fidelity is a joke.
Memory is cheap, so I really don't know why I bother, any more.....
FOLLOW THE MOMEY......RULE #1
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Apr 29, 2022 4:04:59 GMT -5
Hi Boomzilla, Has anyone else here had similar issues with iTunes? It seems like your the only one that mentions these issues so I'm wondering what could be the cause. I use iTunes and have never had a problem. In fact it saved me from loosing my music collection when my hard-drive failed. I could download them again including my ripped music from the iCloud. Cheers, Dave. Why do people AVOID the ALAC codec? I copy whatever as ALAC than use the program converter to MP3-160 for portable use.....ALAC is used in the house and if I plug headphones into the computer.... That’s an old post. I now use Apple Music via my Apple TV. DAVE. |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Apr 29, 2022 8:10:16 GMT -5
Hey Keith, Apple II forever?
Another apple denier, Trey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 29, 2022 12:10:09 GMT -5
I've always disliked Apple... but not always for the same reason.
Interestingly, one of my first computers was an Apple II+ ... Maxxed out at 64k of RAM... with an RF modulator... and an "antenna" output.
Back in the very early days I hated Apple for two reasons. First the price. PCs back then were expensive, but Apple computers were worse, and their "closed garden" hardware prices were astronomical.
(It cost like 5x as much to upgrade the hard drive in an Apple as in a PC... even though both were horrifically expensive by today's standards.)
Then, a bit later, I didn't like their "closed garden software thing". Apples came with a decent set of pre-installed software but the overall list of programs and utilities for DOS and Windows was MUCH longer.
Along the way it became obvious that Apple was NEVER going to be for people who liked to tinker, or who liked utilities, and a wide variety of software. And, still, Apple's prices were a LOT higher.
I still have fond memories of Apple commercials, making fun of how Macs came in a wide variety of colors, while "PCs were all boring and grey". (And now who only comes in one or two colors and who has variety?  )
More recently it seemed odd to me that even though "Apple cares about music quality"... They started requesting all iTunes SUBMISSIONS in 24/96 - while STILL saying that "AAC was good enough for their iTunes customers"... (Obviously they saw what was coming... but didn't want to admit it to their paying customers.)
Then there's the really funny bit about processor chips... And how the PowerPC chip the old Macs used was "so much better than Intel"... Until it was discontinued by Motorola and Apple had to start using Intel... Now they're having another go at a custom chip (which seems good - so far)...
It's just too much of a hassle... Especially if you're not willing to use ALL Apple equipment...
(From what I hear their stuff is pretty well integrated... ad long as you're willing to move to "Planet Apple"...) But I'm not...
Apple held their market with video editing and some other creative types...
But THAT boat sort of sailed when Adobe started updating their apps for PC before updating the Apple version. (I think they're back to about even again on that one.)
But now, while Apple has a big share of the tablet and phone market... With desktop machines Apple now has about 7% of the current market (compared to Lenovo and HP - who EACH have about 25%).
And, from everything I've seen... Windows is starting to look and act (unpleasantly) like Apple... And Apple computers are getting more complex and more annoying and fidgety (like Windows)...
Which seem to me like they're losing their one virtue... turnkey simplicity...
I guess we'll see...
Hey Keith, Apple II forever? Another apple denier, Trey |
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Apr 29, 2022 15:05:06 GMT -5
My last Apple product (forever) was Power G4 tower 125Mhz, 512 ram, their accessories & software are too pricy and a "closed eco-system" is not what I want. Wife still uses her iPhone 6S+.
Hated Windoze too, but have to admit Win10 was a huge improvement.
I dual boot with Linux Mint and there's not much I can't do with it. They have a large offering of audio & video apps. but some can be terminal centric and a pita for casual users.
fyi- When I switched from HDD to SSD plus a HDD for files, Windows doesn't crash nearly as much as it use to. It's fast and don't need to de-frag.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 29, 2022 15:28:17 GMT -5
'Windows crash'........In 2022? Crash? Counting every varient of 'windows' from DOS 6 to Now? Must be 15 major versions. Still get crashes?
many more versions if you count 'server' and the NT line.....
My Windows 95 machine crashed much more when using Norton CrashGuard than without......
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 30, 2022 7:03:10 GMT -5
Apple / Microsoft is like Republican / Democrat. You pays your money, you takes your choice. No matter which you choose, "someone" knows better than you and will be happy to tell you why you're wrong. And occasionally, they're even right.
Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Apr 30, 2022 9:49:45 GMT -5
Apple / Microsoft is like Republican / Democrat. You pays your money, you takes your choice. No matter which you choose, "someone" knows better than you and will be happy to tell you why you're wrong. And occasionally, they're even right. Boom You mean like tubes/solid state? Digital/vinyl? ProEmo/AntiEmo?  |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 30, 2022 10:06:16 GMT -5
Apple / Microsoft is like Republican / Democrat. You pays your money, you takes your choice. No matter which you choose, "someone" knows better than you and will be happy to tell you why you're wrong. And occasionally, they're even right. Boom You mean like tubes/solid state? Digital/vinyl? ProEmo/AntiEmo? You forgot 1 subwoofer/multiple subwoofers 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 30, 2022 14:16:11 GMT -5
Apple / Microsoft is like Republican / Democrat. You pays your money, you takes your choice. No matter which you choose, "someone" knows better than you and will be happy to tell you why you're wrong. And occasionally, they're even right. Boom Of course, for the overachiever, you can ALWAYS go with a 3rd party candidate, like LINUX and several others.......Which I suspect has its Own set of ups-and-downs......Along with the inevitable search for DRIVERS which was a hobby of mine when I was a Windows guy..... Keeping drivers updated was a 2nd career.... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 3, 2022 9:15:05 GMT -5
Alas - I'm faced with the question yet again - To use a crossover or just let the satellites run full-range and then blend in the sub below.
In favor of the crossover:
Reduces total harmonic and intermodulation distortions on the satellites by reducing woofer cone excursion (making them sound cleaner and more open)
No need to "blend in" the sub below the natural roll-off of the satellites by ear (relying on the inaccurate markings of the subwoofer crossover dial)
Best blend of satellites and subwoofer(s) at the crossover frequency (no dips or peaks)
In favor of no crossover:
No possibility of hearing the crossover transition between the "faster" satellites and the "slower" subwoofer(s)
Generally lower crossover frequency is easier for the subwoofer to manage without ringing and distortion
Lower power demands on the subwoofer(s)' usually lower quality plate amplifier
Much lower intermodulation distortion for the heavy subwoofer cone
Yes, the above ARE generalizations, but are usually true. I've recently crossed over a pair of Sequerra Metronome 7 speakers and then a pair of Klipsch RP-600m speakers to two subwoofers (individually - not run at the same time). The subs were the Klipsch R12-SW and the Starke Sound SW15. The crossover was the 90-Hz, second order one in my Emotiva BasX PT1. Results:
Sequerra Met-7 speakers with the Klipsch 12" sub - Crossover was audible. The fast Met-7's 5" woofers made the Klipsch sub sound slow
Klipsch speakers with the Klipsch 12" sub - Crossover was not audible. The 8" woofers blended fine with the Klipsch sub
Sequerra Met-7 speakers with the Starke 15" sub - Crossover was audible. The speed mismatch was significant.
Klipsch speakers with the Starke 15" sub - Crossover was audible. The speed mismatch was less, but still audible.
The Met-7 speakers are going back to their owner tomorrow. I plan to run the Klipsch speakers full range and blend in the Starke 15" subs at a much lower frequency. So if the Starke sub is slow, why am I selling the Klipsch sub & keeping the Starke? For two reasons:
1. The Klipsch sub is a "home theater" sub with a huge resonant peak in the middle of its range. It provides maximum thump for movie explosions (as it was designed to) but is a bit opaque for music (the majority of my listening). The Starke sub is flatter through its range and generally is better for music.
2. The Klipsh sub doesn't extend very deeply in the bass. If you want true subsonic output, the Klipsch just won't go there. The ported Klipsch sub box is designed for maximum output - not for flat response or for deep bass. The Starke sub is a sealed box, and it's plate amp has some DSP built in to extend response flat to 14 Hz. That extension (and flatness) definitely show up in music with true low frequencies.
For these reasons, I think the Starke SW15 to be the better sub for my use. YMMV.
Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on May 3, 2022 9:19:58 GMT -5
Alas - I'm faced with the question yet again - To use a crossover or just let the satellites run full-range and then blend in the sub below. In favor of the crossover: Reduces total harmonic and intermodulation distortions on the satellites by reducing woofer cone excursion (making them sound cleaner and more open) No need to "blend in" the sub below the natural roll-off of the satellites by ear (relying on the inaccurate markings of the subwoofer crossover dial) Best blend of satellites and subwoofer(s) at the crossover frequency (no dips or peaks) In favor of no crossover: No possibility of hearing the crossover transition between the "faster" satellites and the "slower" subwoofer(s) Generally lower crossover frequency is easier for the subwoofer to manage without ringing and distortion Lower power demands on the subwoofer(s)' usually lower quality plate amplifier Much lower intermodulation distortion for the heavy subwoofer cone Yes, the above ARE generalizations, but are usually true. I've recently crossed over a pair of Sequerra Metronome 7 speakers and then a pair of Klipsch RP-600m speakers to two subwoofers (individually - not run at the same time). The subs were the Klipsch R12-SW and the Starke Sound SW15. The crossover was the 90-Hz, second order one in my Emotiva BasX PT1. Results: Sequerra Met-7 speakers with the Klipsch 12" sub - Crossover was audible. The fast Met-7's 5" woofers made the Klipsch sub sound slow Klipsch speakers with the Klipsch 12" sub - Crossover was not audible. The 8" woofers blended fine with the Klipsch sub Sequerra Met-7 speakers with the Starke 15" sub - Crossover was audible. The speed mismatch was significant. Klipsch speakers with the Starke 15" sub - Crossover was audible. The speed mismatch was less, but still audible. The Met-7 speakers are going back to their owner tomorrow. I plan to run the Klipsch speakers full range and blend in the Starke 15" subs at a much lower frequency. So if the Starke sub is slow, why am I selling the Klipsch sub & keeping the Starke? For two reasons: 1. The Klipsch sub is a "home theater" sub with a huge resonant peak in the middle of its range. It provides maximum thump for movie explosions (as it was designed to) but is a bit opaque for music (the majority of my listening). The Starke sub is flatter through its range and generally is better for music. 2. The Klipsh sub doesn't extend very deeply in the bass. If you want true subsonic output, the Klipsch just won't go there. The ported Klipsch sub box is designed for maximum output - not for flat response or for deep bass. The Starke sub is a sealed box, and it's plate amp has some DSP built in to extend response flat to 14 Hz. That extension (and flatness) definitely show up in music with true low frequencies. For these reasons, I think the Starke SW15 to be the better sub for my use. YMMV. Boomzilla I can't visualize your whole system, but do you have the option to send bass management to fronts? I've been doing that for a couple years and I like it much better. All the bass in the room goes to the fronts down to 40Hz, and the subs only play (non-LFE) below 50Hz. Only the subs play LFE. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 3, 2022 9:30:14 GMT -5
To preamp or not to preamp - that is the question...
In my system, I need but two inputs, the DAC output from my music system and the analog output of my blu-ray player. I'm currently using the Emotiva BasX PT1 preamp as a switching device. I do, however, have a passive switching box that can put up to four inputs to a single analog out. My Emotiva Big Ego+ DAC has its own (digital) volume control built in. The disc player has fixed output. But I also have a remote-controlled passive volume pot that I could use either before the switching box (controlling volume on the disc player alone) or after the switching box (controlling volume on all sources). I'm curious to know if elimination of the active preamplifier will result in better sound.
My best guess is that the active preamp will provide 95% the sound quality of the passive option. The PT1 is an exceptional preamplifier. In the past, however, my experience in removing an XPA-1, Gen. 2 from the system resulted in a HUGE improvement in soundstage. I'll post my results here...
Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 3, 2022 9:31:30 GMT -5
I can't visualize your whole system, but do you have the option to send bass management to fronts? I've been doing that for a couple years and I like it much better. All the bass in the room goes to the fronts down to 40Hz, and the subs only play (non-LFE) below 50Hz. Only the subs play LFE. My system is NOT an AV system and there is no LFE channel. My system is straight stereo only. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 3, 2022 9:55:30 GMT -5
You seem to be asking about whether to use a crossover on the satellites... so I'm assuming that you DO plan to use one on the sub.
One thing to keep in mind is that room resonances can be quite sharp and also quite significant... And the same is true with speaker resonances... especially with "tuned" speakers... And crossovers are only as sharp as the numbers say they are... and a second order crossover is NOT very sharp... But, with bass reflex or horn speakers, where the cabinet is tuned, the rolloff below the tuned frequency may itself be quite sharp... And there may also be a significant peak around that point...
The short answer is that the right answer is going to depend on the actual response of the satellites...
In general sealed satellites have a more or less smooth roll off below a certain cutoff frequency... And, with sealed speakers, the woofer motion and output below the cutoff frequency also tend to be self-limited... (Without a crossover the woofer still has to accept the power but it probably won't make much output - or distortion.)
In contrast, with tuned cabinets, below the tuned frequency, the woofer will be more likely to "wave around".... (The port tuning controls the movement at or above that frequency... but doesn't do much at all significantly below it.)
This can result in a sharp peak around resonance as well as excessive motion and distortion below that frequency... (So, because of this, a relatively sharp high-pass crossover may be much important with that sort of speaker.)
Also keep in mind how the numbers actually play out... For example, if you had a speaker that had a +12 dB peak at 40 Hz... And you put an 80 Hz 12dB/octave high pass crossover filter on it...
That speaker will be FLAT to 40 Hz (because the peak will entirely cancel out the effect of the crossover at that frequency). And, even worse, because there's a lot of energy storage at 40 Hz, it will sound muddy at 40 Hz too... (So, in that case, you would want a much sharper high-pass filter.... or a speaker with better damping.)
Alas - I'm faced with the question yet again - To use a crossover or just let the satellites run full-range and then blend in the sub below. In favor of the crossover: Reduces total harmonic and intermodulation distortions on the satellites by reducing woofer cone excursion (making them sound cleaner and more open) No need to "blend in" the sub below the natural roll-off of the satellites by ear (relying on the inaccurate markings of the subwoofer crossover dial) Best blend of satellites and subwoofer(s) at the crossover frequency (no dips or peaks) In favor of no crossover: No possibility of hearing the crossover transition between the "faster" satellites and the "slower" subwoofer(s) Generally lower crossover frequency is easier for the subwoofer to manage without ringing and distortion Lower power demands on the subwoofer(s)' usually lower quality plate amplifier Much lower intermodulation distortion for the heavy subwoofer cone Yes, the above ARE generalizations, but are usually true. I've recently crossed over a pair of Sequerra Metronome 7 speakers and then a pair of Klipsch RP-600m speakers to two subwoofers (individually - not run at the same time). The subs were the Klipsch R12-SW and the Starke Sound SW15. The crossover was the 90-Hz, second order one in my Emotiva BasX PT1. Results: Sequerra Met-7 speakers with the Klipsch 12" sub - Crossover was audible. The fast Met-7's 5" woofers made the Klipsch sub sound slow Klipsch speakers with the Klipsch 12" sub - Crossover was not audible. The 8" woofers blended fine with the Klipsch sub Sequerra Met-7 speakers with the Starke 15" sub - Crossover was audible. The speed mismatch was significant. Klipsch speakers with the Starke 15" sub - Crossover was audible. The speed mismatch was less, but still audible. The Met-7 speakers are going back to their owner tomorrow. I plan to run the Klipsch speakers full range and blend in the Starke 15" subs at a much lower frequency. So if the Starke sub is slow, why am I selling the Klipsch sub & keeping the Starke? For two reasons: 1. The Klipsch sub is a "home theater" sub with a huge resonant peak in the middle of its range. It provides maximum thump for movie explosions (as it was designed to) but is a bit opaque for music (the majority of my listening). The Starke sub is flatter through its range and generally is better for music. 2. The Klipsh sub doesn't extend very deeply in the bass. If you want true subsonic output, the Klipsch just won't go there. The ported Klipsch sub box is designed for maximum output - not for flat response or for deep bass. The Starke sub is a sealed box, and it's plate amp has some DSP built in to extend response flat to 14 Hz. That extension (and flatness) definitely show up in music with true low frequencies. For these reasons, I think the Starke SW15 to be the better sub for my use. YMMV. Boomzilla |
|
)
