|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 11, 2023 19:27:30 GMT -5
I use one, too, for emergencies. But when I want big files and the ability to work with 'em in Photolab or Photoshop? Can't beat the 35meg generated by the 'RAW' files my (only) 25mp camera generates.
The Glass is vastly superior to phones, too......with more flexibility in-camera.....
Too many feetures to list with more opttions than many photographers will ever use.....
But that being said? Many county fairs with public photo submission will feature a 'cell phone' division which has some excellent work....
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jul 11, 2023 20:08:38 GMT -5
I use one, too, for emergencies. But when I want big files and the ability to work with 'em in Photolab or Photoshop? Can't beat the 35meg generated by the 'RAW' files my (only) 25mp camera generates. The Glass is vastly superior to phones, too......with more flexibility in-camera..... Too many feetures to list with more opttions than many photographers will ever use..... But that being said? Many county fairs with public photo submission will feature a 'cell phone' division which has some excellent work.... And try putting a 300mm equivalent f/4.0 lens with a 1.4x adapter on a cell phone.    |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 12, 2023 9:07:48 GMT -5
The new iPhones and higher end Android phones can produce excellent pictures - under optimum conditions. They also do a good job of producing reasonably good pictures under difficult conditions - like dim room light. (And this is what they are optimized to do.) However they don't compare with real cameras, under a lot of different conditions, for a number of reasons... One reason is their basic inherent mechanical limitations: small sensors, small lenses, and having to fit the entire camera in a space the size of a big pencil eraser... The other problem is that part of how they do as well as they do is by leveraging some pretty sophisticated "pixel math"... For example, with most phone cameras, at most settings you are applying "digital zoom", which significantly reduces the quality of the picture. Each of the cameras in your phone has one physical focal length; in order to avoid "digital zoom" you have to be careful to use each at the one proper zoom setting. And, if you take pictures in a dimly lit room, odds are your camera is averaging multiple pixels to produce a clean image at lower resolution. Many do even more impressive tricks... like combining multiple frames, or apply different processing to a color and monochrome version of the image, then combining them. But, while this math magic can often produce images that are superficially really good... The quality often "falls apart" if you try to apply any sort of sharpening or other adjustments to them. The "64 mP" camera in my Samsung Galaxy S20 can produce decent legible pictures of my cat in relatively dim room light... But they are nowhere as clear or sharp as similar pictures, at a mere 12 mP, taken with proper light, on my older knock around Nikon. Now, to be fair, there is an old saying: "The best camera is the one you have with you when you need to take a picture"... And, these days, the camera that most of us are likely to have handy all day is our phone... But, for serious photography, even the best phones don't come anywhere near an even reasonably good real camera... Buy a camera instead.......One of the new generation of Mirrorless in Full Frame by Sony, Canon or Nikon.....Though I'm prejudiced in favor of one of 'em....... My mirrorless camera is an iPhone. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 12, 2023 9:08:28 GMT -5
VERY nice hummingbird... I use one, too, for emergencies. But when I want big files and the ability to work with 'em in Photolab or Photoshop? Can't beat the 35meg generated by the 'RAW' files my (only) 25mp camera generates. The Glass is vastly superior to phones, too......with more flexibility in-camera..... Too many feetures to list with more opttions than many photographers will ever use..... But that being said? Many county fairs with public photo submission will feature a 'cell phone' division which has some excellent work.... And try putting a 300mm equivalent f/4.0 lens with a 1.4x adapter on a cell phone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 12, 2023 10:13:56 GMT -5
My “serious photography” days are past. The photos I take these days are “purpose-specific,” and I’ve found my phone camera more than sufficient to the task - particularly with a tripod & remote Bluetooth shutter release.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 12, 2023 11:24:45 GMT -5
My “serious photography” days are past. The photos I take these days are “purpose-specific,” and I’ve found my phone camera more than sufficient to the task - particularly with a tripod & remote Bluetooth shutter release. It's great to hear that you've found a setup that works well for your current photography needs! Phone cameras have come a long way in recent years, and they can indeed be quite capable, especially when paired with accessories like a tripod and remote shutter release. Many people appreciate the convenience and portability of using their phone as a primary camera. While dedicated cameras offer certain advantages in terms of image quality, manual controls, and versatility, it ultimately depends on your specific requirements and preferences. If your purpose-specific photography doesn't demand the utmost in image quality or advanced features, then using your phone camera with the mentioned accessories can be a practical choice. Additionally, the beauty of photography lies in the eye of the photographer, not solely in the gear used. Regardless of the equipment, capturing compelling moments and expressing your creativity is what truly matters. So if your phone camera meets your current needs and allows you to enjoy photography, there's no reason to feel limited by not using more traditional "serious" photography equipment. Remember, it's all about finding the tools that align with your vision and enable you to capture the images you desire. Enjoy your photography journey with your phone camera and continue to explore the world through your lens! |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jul 12, 2023 11:27:33 GMT -5
I use one, too, for emergencies. But when I want big files and the ability to work with 'em in Photolab or Photoshop? Can't beat the 35meg generated by the 'RAW' files my (only) 25mp camera generates. The Glass is vastly superior to phones, too......with more flexibility in-camera..... Too many feetures to list with more opttions than many photographers will ever use..... But that being said? Many county fairs with public photo submission will feature a 'cell phone' division which has some excellent work.... It's true that dedicated cameras, especially those with larger sensors and the ability to shoot in RAW format, can offer advantages when it comes to capturing high-resolution files and having more flexibility in post-processing with software like Photolab or Photoshop. The RAW files from a 25-megapixel camera can provide ample detail and dynamic range, which can be beneficial for certain types of photography or when extensive editing is required. The quality of lenses used in dedicated cameras is often superior to those found on phones, offering better optical performance, versatility, and control over factors like depth of field and low-light capabilities. This can make a noticeable difference in image quality, especially in challenging lighting conditions or when shooting subjects that require specific focal lengths or specialized optics. It's worth noting that dedicated cameras often come with a range of features and customization options that can be valuable to professional photographers or enthusiasts who explore various genres or styles of photography. The extensive controls, manual settings, and interchangeable lenses can provide more creative freedom and precision. However, it's also important to acknowledge the impressive work being produced with cell phone cameras. The "cell phone" divisions at county fairs and other photography competitions showcase the talent and creativity of photographers who excel at capturing compelling images using their phones. Mobile photography has become a significant genre in its own right, and advancements in phone camera technology, coupled with image processing capabilities, have allowed photographers to achieve stunning results. Ultimately, the choice between a dedicated camera and a phone camera depends on individual needs, preferences, and the specific photographic goals one wants to achieve. Both options have their merits, and it's wonderful to see how photography has evolved to embrace different tools and platforms, opening up opportunities for creativity and expression in various forms. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 12, 2023 11:44:56 GMT -5
I've still got my "big rig," but am trying to sell it: (1) Canon Rebel XS EOS 1000D camera (3) batteries for the camera (1) battery charger for the camera batteries (1) EF-S 18-55mm lens 1.3.5-5.6 zoom (5) data cards for camera (one 64gb, two 16gb, and two 8gb) (1) Sunpak DF3600U flash for Canon (1) LED video light (1) pack of screw-in color filters for the lens (1) pack of screw-in macro magnifier filters for the lens (1) pack of screw-in b&w filters for the lens (2) body plugs with back-of-the-lens caps (1) shoulder strap (1) video transfer cable (1) lens shade all original manuals & discs (1) Urban Generation camera bag |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 12, 2023 19:00:23 GMT -5
If you had spent more $$ on a better lens from the GIT, you might be in a different space now.
I bought a SONY NEX-7, a compact Mirrorless of about 24meg. It took SD cards. But the GLASS was just no good.
I spent 450$ on a 35mm f1.8 'normal' lens.....It was OK and dark in the corners up to f8.
I spent 850$ on a 18->200 f?->5.6 and it was Unusable beyond about 100mm.
These were 'E' Mount lenses and Sony has since some up with some real good glass. But the camera? Poor autofocus performance.
Unusable above about ISO 1600 or so. Odd and unfriendly menu system. Even the largest RAW or JPG images were smaller than the same MP sensor in my new camera.
I almost gave up photography. I grew to HATE that camera. My previous Canon EOS1 d.....of about 8meg was a better picture taker......I used it at several weddings.
ME? Not a big fan of 'truncated' sensors. APS C (1.5 or 1.6 crop factor) or APS H (1.3) The glass for most APS C (only)is compromised......
Just like stereo and such? LESS can be MORE. I don't know current line, BUT you do NOT need to go to the 'redline' expense. Some gold band glass in the middle is quite good
and will produce satisfying images.
Even the ENTRY full-frame DSLR.....and now I'd recommend mirrorless, will be of lasting value..... And unless you actually have NEED? Skip the flash, too. I don't own one for my new camera
and have no need. I KNOW what to do to get good images in dim conditions. And do so. Flash Battery management is always a PIA. I'd RENT a should carried power supply when I did weddings. I could shoot ALL day with very rapid recycle and never
worry about batteries or running out of juice. I always carried a set in my kit bag, of AA, but never dipped in.
Your SUNPAK is a good choice rather than the Canon offering.....
I teach a '3-lens' system for those SERIOUS users. A good normal zoom. (covers the normal lens) A reasonable and FAST prime. I use an 85mm f1.8, but several other choices. At one point I'd use a 135 f2.8 as my walk around, but THAT was decades ago!
And either a Wide Angle zoom.....like a 10-24 OR a telecom.....I have a 70->200 AND the 1.4x Teleconverter......So I'm good to 280.
Extra battery? Terrific idea. And plenty of memory....Ditto.....Good strap? Nice plan. But all those filters and gels? Doubtful utility. I have a LIGHT TABLE for photography of small set-piece objects (think advertising). I'd also recommend a good Tripod or
monopod. And the ONLY filter needed besides the UV/Haze or other 'cover' filter would be a Circular Polarizer.....
Depending on WHAT you intend, you don't need ALL that stuff all the time. I go to the zoo with a 24-70 or even JUST the 85. Unless I have something else in mind than maybe JUST the 70-200......I can usually work around NOT having a tripod.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 12, 2023 19:09:01 GMT -5
The new iPhones and higher end Android phones can produce excellent pictures - under optimum conditions. They also do a good job of producing reasonably good pictures under difficult conditions - like dim room light. (And this is what they are optimized to do.) However they don't compare with real cameras, under a lot of different conditions, for a number of reasons... One reason is their basic inherent mechanical limitations: small sensors, small lenses, and having to fit the entire camera in a space the size of a big pencil eraser... The other problem is that part of how they do as well as they do is by leveraging some pretty sophisticated "pixel math"... For example, with most phone cameras, at most settings you are applying "digital zoom", which significantly reduces the quality of the picture. Each of the cameras in your phone has one physical focal length; in order to avoid "digital zoom" you have to be careful to use each at the one proper zoom setting. And, if you take pictures in a dimly lit room, odds are your camera is averaging multiple pixels to produce a clean image at lower resolution. Many do even more impressive tricks... like combining multiple frames, or apply different processing to a color and monochrome version of the image, then combining them. But, while this math magic can often produce images that are superficially really good... The quality often "falls apart" if you try to apply any sort of sharpening or other adjustments to them. The "64 mP" camera in my Samsung Galaxy S20 can produce decent legible pictures of my cat in relatively dim room light... But they are nowhere as clear or sharp as similar pictures, at a mere 12 mP, taken with proper light, on my older knock around Nikon. Now, to be fair, there is an old saying: "The best camera is the one you have with you when you need to take a picture"... And, these days, the camera that most of us are likely to have handy all day is our phone... But, for serious photography, even the best phones don't come anywhere near an even reasonably good real camera... My mirrorless camera is an iPhone. I HESITATE to use 'real camera' when comparing a cell phone with a standard DSLR or Mirrorless. That's inviting a lightning strike......But I GET IT.... the chief advantage is one of file size with a second advantage being interchangeable glass of various qualities.......Add on lenses are ALWAYS a crap-shoot....so called 'Front Component Convertible....' |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 13, 2023 13:27:19 GMT -5
I have to admit I haven't done any serious picture taking in quite some time... but I still have my old Nikon D90 somewhere safely in a closet. There used to be some really nice Nikon prime lenses available at very reasonable prices... and I see there still are... Like this one: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html35mm F1.8 NEW for less than $200 Nothing fancy... but quite nice glass at a good price... and it doesn't make your camera too heavy either ... A few side notes for those new to photography: 1. A "prime" lens is a lens that has a fixed focal length - so no zoom. (They tend to be a lot smaller, and lighter, and cost a LOT less, than equivalent zoom lenses.) 2. On the subject of batteries... Cameras vary widely in terms of battery life... and some SLRs can take a LOT of pictures on a single charge. (And especially if you're not using the internal flash.) If you had spent more $$ on a better lens from the GIT, you might be in a different space now. I bought a SONY NEX-7, a compact Mirrorless of about 24meg. It took SD cards. But the GLASS was just no good. I spent 450$ on a 35mm f1.8 'normal' lens.....It was OK and dark in the corners up to f8. I spent 850$ on a 18->200 f?->5.6 and it was Unusable beyond about 100mm. These were 'E' Mount lenses and Sony has since some up with some real good glass. But the camera? Poor autofocus performance. Unusable above about ISO 1600 or so. Odd and unfriendly menu system. Even the largest RAW or JPG images were smaller than the same MP sensor in my new camera. I almost gave up photography. I grew to HATE that camera. My previous Canon EOS1 d.....of about 8meg was a better picture taker......I used it at several weddings. ME? Not a big fan of 'truncated' sensors. APS C (1.5 or 1.6 crop factor) or APS H (1.3) The glass for most APS C (only)is compromised...... Just like stereo and such? LESS can be MORE. I don't know current line, BUT you do NOT need to go to the 'redline' expense. Some gold band glass in the middle is quite good and will produce satisfying images. Even the ENTRY full-frame DSLR.....and now I'd recommend mirrorless, will be of lasting value..... And unless you actually have NEED? Skip the flash, too. I don't own one for my new camera and have no need. I KNOW what to do to get good images in dim conditions. And do so. Flash Battery management is always a PIA. I'd RENT a should carried power supply when I did weddings. I could shoot ALL day with very rapid recycle and never worry about batteries or running out of juice. I always carried a set in my kit bag, of AA, but never dipped in. Your SUNPAK is a good choice rather than the Canon offering..... I teach a '3-lens' system for those SERIOUS users. A good normal zoom. (covers the normal lens) A reasonable and FAST prime. I use an 85mm f1.8, but several other choices. At one point I'd use a 135 f2.8 as my walk around, but THAT was decades ago! And either a Wide Angle zoom.....like a 10-24 OR a telecom.....I have a 70->200 AND the 1.4x Teleconverter......So I'm good to 280. Extra battery? Terrific idea. And plenty of memory....Ditto.....Good strap? Nice plan. But all those filters and gels? Doubtful utility. I have a LIGHT TABLE for photography of small set-piece objects (think advertising). I'd also recommend a good Tripod or monopod. And the ONLY filter needed besides the UV/Haze or other 'cover' filter would be a Circular Polarizer..... Depending on WHAT you intend, you don't need ALL that stuff all the time. I go to the zoo with a 24-70 or even JUST the 85. Unless I have something else in mind than maybe JUST the 70-200......I can usually work around NOT having a tripod. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 13, 2023 16:51:40 GMT -5
I must help keith out here.....
While it is true that a PRIME lens is only a single focal length, it is tough to make 'equal' to a zoom.... I carry a PRIME as part of my kit BECAUSE it is generally superior to an inexpensive zoom at THAT particular focal length AND it will be OVER 2 tops faster.......Sometimes nearly 3....
That turns into Low Light AND handholdability.
when I did weddings? I ALWAYS had the Canon 50mm f1.8 which was the CHEAPEST (least expensive) in the Canon line. Nicknamed the 'Plastic Fantastic' because of its construction. And at f4 or f5.6 gave excellent results.......
The NEW Nikkor 85mm f1.8 in the 'Z' mount for the new mirrorless? Big and heavy. Over a pound......But the results are stunning.
Keith references a 'G' lens in the Nikkor line. That is short for 'Gelded'......And lacks certain do-dads which you may want (not me, usually)......My f1.8G lens in 85mm is still a very good performer......
Just sticking with Nikkor? Some old glass.....even some that had the aperture coupling tab (Ancient History) are desired lenses today, but NO automation.......Some do or do NOT work with newer bodies.....and in my case? With the FTZ adapter.
Batteries just PISS ME OFF. The CIPA rating is for ME, always optimistic. I'm going to the camera store sooner than later for a 2nd battery. And I'll keep an invertor / charger IN THE CAR when I go on a long trip and always keep the 'low' battery being charged.
My camera will ALSO support internal charging thru the USB-C port.......But it is slow.....which is fine......
You CAN buy cheap glass. But I do NOT recommend going to the bottom of the barrel. Unless you KNOW what you want.....exactly. When Nikon came out with the new Mirrorless line? all the primes were f1.8 which made the 'f-stop hunters' wince since they
would only settle for f1.4 or even f1.2......And those lenses DO get larger and heavier. And in some cases require a 72mm or 77mm filter which is $$$ these days.....
I almost bought the 70-200 f4 to use with my converter, but waited for the native mount version for more $$$.
The new 100mm f2.8 Macro (aspirational) is nearly a grand. And at that point? I'd sell Keith my 85 'G' lens.
the TRICK? What are going to DO? If you are going to make show prints of 16x20 or whatever is needed? Better glass is better. But for snapshots or shipping around on the internet? OR if you do not crop? 'better' is more than good enough.....
I made a 24x36 print from an 8meg file once. I used all the upsampling and other photoshop tricks and did so in 5 or 6 steps. Great image, and I discovered a piece of lettuce in the subject's teeth.....that I hadn't notices when doing the original workup......
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 17, 2023 10:34:35 GMT -5
WHY I HAVE RESIGNED AS AN AUDIO REVIEWER: Over the past two years, I have noticed a decline in my high-frequency hearing acuity. I've been HIGHLY fortunate up to this point in my life that my audiograms have shown little significant hearing loss with advancing age. But presbyacusis (age-related hearing loss with genetic influencers) comes to all of us sooner or later. Apparently, my time has come. I really can't complain - I've had excellent hearing up to this point in my life, and I've really enjoyed being an audio reviewer - an option that very few ever get to experience. But it isn't fair to manufacturers for a person with declining hearing to be reviewing their products. For that reason, I've tendered my resignation to the Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity website. As an aside, I recently read in "The Absolute Sound" magazine that the majority of their reviewers are almost as old as I am (70), and I can't help but wonder how many of their writers are also affected with declining high-frequency hearing? I notice that none of THEM has resigned their reviewer status, which brings into question how accurate their reviews are. I also note that their reviewers seem to be assigned the privilege of reviewing the most expensive items on the basis of seniority. Really? In any case, my latest audiogram is attached. I see that my suspicions of declining high-frequency hearing are confirmed by the measurements. Some of this can be compensated for with DSP, but it still won't be exact. Although I'm not yet in "need a hearing aid" country, I'm not too far away. So for those of you who have enjoyed my audio reviews over the years, thank you so much for your support and feedback. For those of you who have cringed at my reviews, be happy - you won't have to hear from me any more! I'm also so happy that I knew that it was time to hang up the "audio reviewer hat" without someone having to point it out to me. ...never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.  |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 17, 2023 16:41:44 GMT -5
It is SAID that a 60 year old male, living in the Kalahari Desert (South Africa....and nearby) has better hearing than a 40 year old male living
in ANY City.
The reason? You, me and everyone we know...nearly, anyway.....is Constantly bombarded by a background of noise and distractions........
I know my hearing feels more.....'FREE' when I am out in the desert or up a big hill somewhere away from the noise I live in.
Years ago? We had a major power fail thruout SoCal from the Mexican Border to Santa Barbara or further. At MY house? It lasted
12 hours. And was quiet beyond belief during that time. No background noise of autos or blaring stereos or whatever.
I brought a solar yard light IN and fabricated a reflector to provide SOME light so you didn't trip.......Kept the fridge CLOSED since we
had NO idea how long the problem would last ......It's the END OF THE WORLD!........
Your point has some validity. Maybe reviewers (the aged, like ME!) should be shadowed by someone in their early 30s and notes compared?
But there IS a counterpoint to what you write, which I won't go into that now.......
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 18, 2023 17:47:10 GMT -5
B'zilla brings up a good point. But honestly I will take his ears and his audio opinions over any teenager or really anyone else. I know if he says something sounds good and that it does a certain thing well, then I know I will agree. He is able to also zero in on why a spreaker sounds good in a relatable way that anyone can understand I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 19, 2023 18:52:50 GMT -5
I'm still generally opposed to 'believing' a reviewer that you do not know....and know well....In the sense that you do or do not agree with that persons listneing values.
'Sounds good with plenty of slam' is just shy of worthless as review. Likewise? Use of the word 'palpable' should be banned. I have no idea what that means...and neither do you.....
Comments about imaging are somewhat room dependent. As is bass extension and even setup......
Some speakers do or do not like certain amps. Those extreme high sensitivity Klipsch? Probably ok with any good tube amp.......And my panels will worth with either SS or Tube....But you must adjust
some expectations if you use to Little Power.....Some SS amps do not like certain highly reactive speakers. And it goes on......
Reviews must all be evaluated by not only who is doing the review, but that persons goals, insights and even background. This is a Point Against 'young' reviewers, but all reviewers were young once.....
Unless I miss my guess.
I'd rather LISTEN to any speaker for 10 minutes than spend 20 minutes listening to someone to a 'review' online......I don't see how some of those guys get a following....or a good reputation....
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 20, 2023 9:37:17 GMT -5
Speaker reviews, particularly, are room-dependent. If the reviewer doesn't give either a photo or diagram of their listening room, then the "review" is as much a commentary on the listening environment as it is on the speakers being reviewed. And I don't care if you use room correction software or not, having one speaker in a corner and the other on a wall next to a door isn't something that can be "corrected."
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jul 20, 2023 10:10:23 GMT -5
Speaker reviews, particularly, are room-dependent. If the reviewer doesn't give either a photo or diagram of their listening room, then the "review" is as much a commentary on the listening environment as it is on the speakers being reviewed. And I don't care if you use room correction software or not, having one speaker in a corner and the other on a wall next to a door isn't something that can be "corrected." Someone wisely said ... "it's not the elephant IN the room ... the elephant IS the room" |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 20, 2023 14:44:47 GMT -5
Right you are, Boom......I think since 'room correction' doesn't come stock with a speaker, it should not be used in a review....
And right again.....Poor setup or with obvious flaws, as you cite, should disqualify a review from consideration.....
My room, for example, would make a POOR review venue. Odd walls and lenght to width ratio.......But I've done my best....
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 20, 2023 19:13:38 GMT -5
I absolutely agree... especially about room correction.
Room correction, which really also includes speaker correction as well, introduces a LOT of variables... a few of which may not be obvious.
For example, if I'm designing a passive loudspeaker, both when I select the drivers, and when I design the crossover, I'm going to be required to make many tradeoffs between distortion, efficiency, and flat frequency response. For example, I may be required to design a complex crossover in order to get a flat response from the drivers I've chosen. But this complex crossover will not only be more difficult to design, and more expensive to manufacture, but will also result in lower efficiency. In contrast, if I know that my speaker will be used with room correction, I can design for higher efficiency, using a simpler crossover... Because I know that the room correction will take care of any minor frequency response variations for me. This is one of the benefits of designing powered speakers... where you get to match the electronics to the drivers... And, at the same time, build in any sort of correction you like, without any impact on efficiency...
However, with a passive speaker, life gets a lot more interesting... For example, many people don't use room correction, especially with stereo music systems... And, even if they do use room correction, you don't know which room correction system is going to be used with that speaker...
And different room correction systems will do a better or worse job of correcting different types of speaker deficiencies. (For example Dirac Live can correct things that a regular PEQ cannot... )
And, at the same time, that sort of thinking also encourages sloppy design... If you design a speaker assuming that it will be used with room correction...
You could end up with a speaker that ONLY sounds good with room correction...
Or, even worse, one that only sounds good with one type of room correction... Now, to be fair, this can work really well if you're designing a system that includes both the speakers and the electronics.
It can also be made to work if, as with the old Bose 901's, the "correction" actually comes with the speakers.
I would want a review to talk about how a speaker sounds WITHOUT room correction... And either in one room that is reasonably typical of "an average room"... Or, even better, a room that is specifically similar to my listening room...
(And that demonstrates one obvious advantage of having a listening room that is more or less similar to everyone else's  .) Then, AFTER THAT, perhaps add comments about whether the sound was improved by room correction. (If a speaker has a poor frequency response then room correction could make a huge positive difference...)
(However, if the problem is excessive distortion, or energy storage, then room correction may make no difference, or may even make the problem worse.) (You can also end up with more complex changes... applying bass boost may improve low frequency extension... but at the cost of maximum output level.)
The only exception I might consider reasonable would be if a speaker was specifically sold as "for home theater systems". (Because most home theater processors do have room correction.)
Right you are, Boom......I think since 'room correction' doesn't come stock with a speaker, it should not be used in a review.... And right again.....Poor setup or with obvious flaws, as you cite, should disqualify a review from consideration..... My room, for example, would make a POOR review venue. Odd walls and lenght to width ratio.......But I've done my best.... |
|
.)