Anyone do Laserdiscs?

[knave]

Am I the only one who would buy a DVD of a movie I want over the blu-ray?

After all I did just spend about $70 to support what was to become my new Laserdisc habit...

...also, DVD quality rips of my daughters fav movies look just fine projected at 70 inches for our summer movie nights in the backyard.

Thats why my PS3 just sits and waches the laserdisc player get loved. 

I am not interested in 4K TVs.

[yotsuya]

Thats why my PS3 just sits and waches the laserdisc player get loved. 

How's the OUYA taking it?

[dkersten]

Howard, I didn't realize you were talking about BROADCASTING 4k.. you are dead on there, no way they would sacrifice 8 channels to broadcast one in UHD, if they don't have 350 channels people will stop paying $225 per month for cable, lol.  Hell, I would gladly sacrifice half my channels for the good ones in 1080p.  Streaming on demand though is something entirely different.  They are already pumping 30+ megs into your home through that little coax cable, buffer up a few minutes of video and that connection should have little problem streaming a 2160p feed.  But a cable company isn't going to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their cable boxes to support it any time soon.  It's gonna be Netflix or Google or Amazon or someone and with a box that has to be plugged in or on 5gz AC wifi.  Point is that there is billions of dollars in fiber in the ground that has been there nearly a decade not even turned on because there is no demand for the bandwidth yet.  And you have a dozen companies launching GIGABIT internet in some cities now.. 1000mbps to your house.  The infrastructure is there. 

Sorry if my posts are too long, I enjoy a good discussion.  I write a lot of procedural manuals and the such and I hate leaving out details.  Although that was about as many words as are on a single page of a small paperback, not 8.. but I will try to keep it down to a couple sentences per post from now on for those of you who don't like to read..  

[knave]

Thats why my PS3 just sits and waches the laserdisc player get loved. 

How's the OUYA taking it?

OUYA is sad not to be the focus...but excited for the new update. Plus it only has to wait until I want to watch anything other than a laserdisc...sorry DVD player...the most hurt is the VHS which is still hooked up but hasn't played a video in 5+ years. I keep teasing it because I recently found my Star Wars THX and Aliens trilogies on VHS but still look for the laserdiscs...

[dkersten]

Am I the only one who would buy a DVD of a movie I want over the blu-ray?

No, I Only do bluray for the 100", no need on any screen smaller than that IMHO.

I stopped buying movies though, with all the streaming services and cable channels I can watch just about anything for free or practically free any time I want.  I DO still have my star wars collection on VHS (the THX set) but I unplugged my last VHS player about a year ago.. hadn't turned it on for at least 5 years either, lol.  Plus after seeing them so many times, I fall asleep watching star wars or aliens now lol..

[PL1]

Sorry if my posts are too long, I enjoy a good discussion.  I write a lot of procedural manuals and the such and I hate leaving out details.

Feel free to dive in on the Wiki -- lots of details to add, update, or clarify there.   


Scott

[Xiaou2]

A little birdie told me that they have film scanners at Kodak than can do 6k.

 Which is crazy, considering that the public always seems to get the shaft.   VHS - DVD - Blueray - 4k ... 6k?  ...  and then 3d.. blueray, 3d 4k,  3d 6k  ?

 Keep on the watch, Laser Projectors on the way...   

[Xiaou2]

I will also say...  that there is a huge difference in quality from DVD to an HD DVD / Blueray...  but..   you may not be seeing that difference, due to the Studios lackluster efforts.

 For example..  playing the  Polar Express  on the HDDVD that I got with the used sony tv I picked up.. was Jaw Dropping in difference.

 But playing other DVDs, and now some Bluerays...  its not as impressive.  Why?    Polar Express was 100% digital, and it easily can be rendered at the desired resolutions.  Even the conversions would probably be much easier and cleaner, if thats how they chose to do it.

 Many movies however, are still filmed, or were filmed with analog equipment.   If the original print was degraded.. and or they use a poor quality conversion machine / process...  you are then essentially getting little more than a DVD upscale...  with very little noticeable difference.

 Even the digitally filmed movies could possible suffer the same fate.   Especially if they for example..  choose to dedicate more bandwidth to the audio, and less to the video. (Not sure if thats accurate to the way these machines work)

 Finally, it may also be the quality of the electronics as well.   Passing from a poor quality optical encoder, to a poor converter, to a poor quality amp... into a not so high quality display device...   

 Add things like the problems that LCDs suffer from... such as a very slow phase transition (for example.. the time it takes a pixel to go from black to black ..  is different than the idea of refresh rates)  ...  and you get things that "should" be clearer.. as being more fuzzy.

 Certainly, it also depends on the size of the display -vs- the viewers distance.

 If your sitting 3 to 6 feet away from a 37" display..  you will see things that you wont see when you are sitting 6 to 12 ft away.


 

[dkersten]

I don't recall what it is called, but there is a reason animated movies always look sharper and clearer than regular movies, and hence it is the preferred format for a retail display.  Real life isn't that sharp and crisp to your brain.

In almost every case, the original format of the movie was shot with far higher resolution than anything you can get at home.  The problem when you get to a home format is partly how well the movie was digitized and downscaled from the original format, and mostly in your home equipment.  There is a reason you can get $5,000 dvd players, $50,000 projectors, and $300,000 speakers..

[pbj]

There is a reason you can get $5,000 dvd players, $50,000 projectors, and $300,000 speakers..

Yep, it's called nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.

[yotsuya]

This has been "How Things Work With Steve and Dave".  Tune in next week when we discuss wooden stereo knobs and sound fidelity.

[Howard_Casto]

There is a reason you can get $5,000 dvd players, $50,000 projectors, and $300,000 speakers..

Yep, it's called nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.

Exactly.  Raw resolution and fidelity in terms of what you need is directly dependent upon things like scale and common sense.  Is your tv under 50 inches?  Then why do you need 4k?  Unless you plan on sitting a half foot from the screen like some kid 1080p is going to look perfect.  Just like you don't need 1080p on the screen in your mini-van....it's only 5 inches across, your eyes can't pick up on the extra fidelity.  Did you just spend 10k on a new surround sound system?  Well I hate to burst your bubble but unless your home theatre room was constructed, from the building materials up, to take advantage of the particular setup you are installing, you just spent $9,500 (or more) too much.  Also in a year, your bleeding edge setup will be obsolete and you'll feel like a fool for paying triple for it. 

The reason there are 5,000 dvd players and 50,000 projectors is so someone stupid enough to fork over that much money can tell everyone else that they spent 50,000 on a projector.  It serves no practical purpose. 

[yotsuya]

The reason there are 5,000 dvd players and 50,000 projectors is so someone stupid enough to fork over that much money can tell everyone else that they spent 50,000 on a projector.  It serves no practical purpose.

Yep... that concept applies to a lot of things, even in this hobby. 

[dkersten]

I won't argue the validity of top end equipment in any segment, simply because it is a moot point.  Either you care or you don't, lol.  I know why a $5,000 dvd player exists, and anyone who chooses to believe it is purely because of ego is welcome to that opinion.  Honestly, in most cases, that is dead on as far as the end user is concerned.  MOST customers I dealt with who were self claimed "audiophiles" or "videophiles" thought that buying a $100,000 stereo system or theater and reading a couple magazines made them an expert, but much like most wine snobs usually couldn't spot the difference between a $20 bottle of wine and a $1,000 bottle of wine, these guys wouldn't notice if I replaced their $10,000 speaker cables with lamp cord. 

But my point about the high end equipment was in reference to X2's idea that the problem with the ultra fine details in a bluray movie is with the studio producing a crappy version, when most people aren't even coming close to accurately displaying the media.  Until you have equipment that is the same quality or higher than the studio used to recreate it, you simply can't say that the media is the reason the picture isn't up to your standards.  Anyone who wants to argue about media needs to be able to include accurate reproduction or they are arguing how 110 octane race fuel is worthless in all cars when their only experience is in putting it in their Honda and not seeing any difference in power..

Howard,  I tend to agree with you on most of your points.  Reading on higher resolution small screens shows an advantage over lower resolution, so there is some justification for 1080 on phones and tablets, but for watching movies, it is a complete waste.  And I would definitely argue that I could make a believer out of just about anyone when comparing a $500 home theater system to a $10,000 system in the same room (not that I could sell you one, but I could give you an experience that would leave no doubt as to why it is better).  But once you go beyond about $10k, I agree completely that you have to start making major changes to every aspect of the room to even notice the differences.  That isn't to say that you can't get a good sounding $500 theater, just that if you are trying to argue that the $500 system can even touch a $10k system, you are back to arguing that your Honda is just as good as a Ferrari on the Nürburgring or just as fast as a top fuel dragster in the quarter mile.  Night and day, even in the worst of circumstances. 

[Xiaou2]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/02/09/top-25-worst-blu-rays

[Howard_Casto]

I won't argue the validity of top end equipment in any segment, simply because it is a moot point.  Either you care or you don't, lol.  I know why a $5,000 dvd player exists, and anyone who chooses to believe it is purely because of ego is welcome to that opinion.  Honestly, in most cases, that is dead on as far as the end user is concerned.  MOST customers I dealt with who were self claimed "audiophiles" or "videophiles" thought that buying a $100,000 stereo system or theater and reading a couple magazines made them an expert, but much like most wine snobs usually couldn't spot the difference between a $20 bottle of wine and a $1,000 bottle of wine, these guys wouldn't notice if I replaced their $10,000 speaker cables with lamp cord. 

But my point about the high end equipment was in reference to X2's idea that the problem with the ultra fine details in a bluray movie is with the studio producing a crappy version, when most people aren't even coming close to accurately displaying the media.  Until you have equipment that is the same quality or higher than the studio used to recreate it, you simply can't say that the media is the reason the picture isn't up to your standards.  Anyone who wants to argue about media needs to be able to include accurate reproduction or they are arguing how 110 octane race fuel is worthless in all cars when their only experience is in putting it in their Honda and not seeing any difference in power..

Howard,  I tend to agree with you on most of your points.  Reading on higher resolution small screens shows an advantage over lower resolution, so there is some justification for 1080 on phones and tablets, but for watching movies, it is a complete waste.  And I would definitely argue that I could make a believer out of just about anyone when comparing a $500 home theater system to a $10,000 system in the same room (not that I could sell you one, but I could give you an experience that would leave no doubt as to why it is better).  But once you go beyond about $10k, I agree completely that you have to start making major changes to every aspect of the room to even notice the differences.  That isn't to say that you can't get a good sounding $500 theater, just that if you are trying to argue that the $500 system can even touch a $10k system, you are back to arguing that your Honda is just as good as a Ferrari on the Nürburgring or just as fast as a top fuel dragster in the quarter mile.  Night and day, even in the worst of circumstances.

Well it comes down to this basically.  Yes there is a difference in many cases, but does the difference in quality justify the extra difference in cost.  99% of the time, the answer is no.  Let's say you have a 20x20 room... decent sized.  You have the option of putting in a $2000 home theatre (tv surround, bluray, ect) or a $20,000 one.  Can you honestly tell me that the experience is 10 times better?  $18,000 worth of better quality?  The answer of course is no.  Now if you are extremely rich and are looking for excuses to spend money, I guess it's an option, but honestly I still don't see it.  I mean are you watching movies every day?  For hours upon hours every day?  With that extra 18k spent a person could buy just about every bluray on the market... or every game console, or the last two gens of consoles and every game on them. 

My point is that there are people with mortgages on a regular wage putting in $20-50,000 home theatre rooms... these people need to get their collective heads examined. 

High end stuff is really meant for public theatres or people in the industry. 

To use your car example, a Honda is BETTER than a Ferrari or a Top Fuel Dragster.... because I'm just a regular guy and the only thing I need a car for is to get back and forth to where I need to go.  Since I can't drive above the speed limit the Ferrari is a waste of money.. it's overkill and the Dragster is flat out illegal.  It isn't to say that those two cars don't have added value in their price tag, but that the added value isn't useful.  A lot of high priced items are the equivalent of a gold-plated toilet.... fancy, but functionally identical to a 100 dollar toilet. 

All that being said, X2 right, there are conversion issues in a lot of formats, but unfortunately like in a lot of his arguments, he's only technically right. 

Much like the home theatre argument, you have to keep everything in perspective.  Like you mention equipment also comes into the equation but all that aside at the end of the day you've got to ask yourself is the quality difference that great to go through the extra hassle and expense of deal with a fragile and obsolete format.  The answer of course is almost always no. 

These old formats usually have one thing going for them, while the modern format has several.  I got crucified a while back for going against the vinyl-philes, which imho are almost all hipsters.  If you like collecting records as a hobby, great, enjoy that!  I support you fully.  Just don't try to argue that vinyl is better.  I can play a cd in my car, I can rip it to a pure digital copy and transfer it to any modern device.  Cd's are better in every way.  There are some records that are older and got a bad transfer when they were upgraded to cd... yup I guess there might be a nominal difference.... good luck with that, I'll be enjoying my cd like a normal human being.

It's all a moot point anyway considering most people listen to their stuff converted to mp3 anyway.  It doesn't matter how you start, it'll come out garbage after that compression. 

I think the original Star Wars Trilogy is the best example of these "old formats are better" argument.  I've seen pretty much every version of Star Wars over the years..... bluray is the best.  I've seen the original ld version on a high quality projector on a high quality player back in the day.... I've also seen what people consider to be the "perfect" transfer of the ld versions into video files.  Yup it's the untouched versions... that's great.  But no, the sound isn't really any better and despite the flaws of the modern versions, they are in 1080p with 5.1 digital audio... and the ld versions are crappy 480p on the best of systems.  The bluray is better. 

[DaveMMR]

These old formats usually have one thing going for them, while the modern format has several.  I got crucified a while back for going against the vinyl-philes, which imho are almost all hipsters.

The reason you got crucified was because you were making broad assumptions about something you know nothing about. If you actually spent five minutes in a record store (a real one - not Best Buy) you'd see the people buying vinyl are the exact opposite of hipsters.  They're *gasp* music fans who happen to enjoy the format for myriad reasons - not just because they're trying to be ironic.

The reason you find the CD superior in almost every way is because you really couldn't care less how your music is delivered to you.  Which is fine. But it doesn't make you any more "normal" of a human being.

[pbj]

Once someone starts arguing that records are better, we've gone full loony tunes.

/thread

 

[DaveMMR]

I didn't mean to imply vinyl is better (I may have unintentionally), just that there are reasons people still embrace vinyl that has nothing to do with being "trendy".

[ark_ader]

I didn't mean to imply vinyl is better (I may have unintentionally), just that there are reasons people still embrace vinyl that has nothing to do with being "trendy".

Vinyl records are definitely better than digital medium as you are getting the  full audio range (on proper equipment) where digital range can be compromised, except maybe Gold CD+.

[Slippyblade]

<holy war>
   The whole analog vs digital thing is silly. Human senses simply cannot tell the difference between the two as long as the sample rate is high enough.  The audiophiles and hipsters who claim they can are fooling themselves to the benefit of the manufacturers of $50 cables.
</holy war>

[Xiaou2]

<holy war>
   The whole analog vs digital thing is silly. Human senses simply cannot tell the difference between the two as long as the sample rate is high enough.  The audiophiles and hipsters who claim they can are fooling themselves to the benefit of the manufacturers of $50 cables.
</holy war>

 1)  Cds dont have nearly the spectrum that a new record is capable of having... and yes, its very easy to hear the difference.
 2)  Being that the master tapes have degraded..  each re-release of the material, is bound to be even more corruption.
 3)  Being that Studios are opting to save the planet with power reduction, by compressing music to crap..  ANYTHING that was released on cd or record, before a certain year..  has a Superior quality product.   Ohh, and they are putting more tracks on a CD now... do you know how?   Because the compression they do on all the rest of the music, allows for more data.   So now you get more songs... and they all sound worse than the old CDs, and sometimes.. even worse than a Cassette!

 4)  The only thing that may trump a record, might be a DVD / Blueray.   A Cd wont.   And since they havent buried the CD format, in favor of DVD standard... then all you get is pretty much garbage...  and the later and ever worsening compressed garbage.

 5)  And since the Speaker and Amp industry has largely followed suit...  its likely you wont know what good sound sounds like... because you will never get to hear it out of your limited spectrum & low quality component amp, that doesnt pick it up (and distorts it) .. and your speakers which are ported and distorted...

 Especially those speakers in those Audio / Video shops.   + $ 3000  for these tiny speakers that barely squeak out any volume..  most lacking any natural bass, and try to make up for it with a giant Subwoofer.. and artificial bass (tuned ports)  that sounds worse and worse, the more volume it gets. (boomy, distorted, fake.. 'fart-ish')

 Nah...  Humans CAN tell the difference between good audio and bad audio...    And No, a cable is almost never going to change the sound to a discernible degree.  The exceptions are things like headphones  /  earbuds.. where small changes are amplified due to the lower current and different scale.


 The Sennheiser HD590s is I picked up on craigslist,  can pick up thing in music that little else can.  Once non-comprehendable lyrics... completely and accurately heard & understood, for the first time.   Sounds so real... that you close your eyes, and swear you were in the same room as the musicians... pinpointing them out in 3d space.   Ive not heard any speakers that even come close to their performance in sound reproduction... and its likely I never will.
And whats amazing... is that these are still the mid-level cost point headphones.  It can get even more accurate.. and thats mind blowing... considering Ive actually turned my head to look outside when an mp3 track had a thunder sound play on it...

 On the other hand..  I do have some 2 way, slightly larger than bookshelf,  EPI's,  that put those brand new (last month) $3000  speakers to shame.

 Musically accurate, with a near full-room  sweet-spot.   100% Sealed, so the bass is tight, fast, clean, deep, and Accurate.   The difference between these and the ported speakers... is like the difference in capabilities between the Atari 2600... and the PS4.

 There are expensive things being sold with advertisement and under review by the ignorant and or poor hearing spectrum.   The advertisers tend to have the worst quality equipment, to make up for the cost of the advertisement, and still make huge profits ripping people off.    Some of these companies USED to put out a high quality product..  but most of that changed about mid 80s.

 
 As for high dollar audio in a theater...   a lot of the wealthy are supporting a massive room for this.. and as such, those consumer grade speakers will not suffice to fill it with high volume sound.   If you know anything about speakers, you might know that the Speakers they use for Concerts and Clubs.. are a LOT more powerful than what your typical home speakers.   Stronger magnets, larger and more powerful voice coils, cooling fins, and very rigid frame baskets, to keep the sound fairly accurate.  A much more robust cabinet to handle the sound pressures.   The +500 watt woofer a DJ style speaker may put out, will hit you and feel like you were kicked in the chest.  But, these are not always the most sonically accurate speakers... as they are built for wide powerful dispersion.

 By combining the pro-audio speakers with a more high end quality... you then start to realize the amount of money it could end up taking.. to get the level of sound reproduction + high volume..  that some of these installations desire.   And since you know... that the larger and more hungry the speaker... the more power the amps will be needed...  the cost jumps even more.   And if these amps are not just built for raw power...  but for extreme levels of accuracy at high levels of power..   that bumps it up even more.


 This is merely an example of why some systems cost so much.  Its all very valid.    However, if you have a smaller room... and know your stuff,  you can get used vintage speakers that blow away most all of the new stuff, at a fraction of the costs.

I think the original Star Wars Trilogy is the best example of these "old formats are better" argument.  I've seen pretty much every version of Star Wars over the years..... bluray is the best.

 Its NOT the best.. due to the altered CGI  that was Crapped into them.
 And not just any old CGI...  some of the WORST CGI ever seen on a large scale film !
 As well as destroying some absolutely awesome scenes and music.

 What do you think?   Should we let George CGI-IFY  Labyrinth  as well?!

 He even Ruined IJ.   How in the world can you ruin an IJ Movie ?!   Its fricken Harrison Ford.   He can almost save anything, just by walking in front of a camera.   Even He couldnt save that steaming pile of dung.

[PL1]

All together now,

HAN SHOT FIRST

   




Scott

[yotsuya]

Which one of your mutherfuckers said "Xiaou2" in front of the mirror three times with the lights off? Confess!

[dkersten]

Howard, I actually agree with you to a pretty high degree.  The scale of cost vs. return in the case of performance, craftsmanship, and/or quality is exponential.  But like any exponential comparison, where the line is drawn is completely opinion.  In your case you are basing your opinion heavily on the affordability side (which appears to be very important to you), so you will always lean the furthest you can comfortably get toward the bottom end of the curve.  I am willing to pay for luxury when it is important to me, and to me there is a lot of room on that curve before the price gets too high to have any added quality or performance.

And I can argue that it is practical for me to spend more money on a theater.  See, I spent so long watching and listening to higher quality theater systems that I simply don't get the enjoyment out of a $500 theater that you might.  Since we are talking about entertainment, YOU are entertained by a $500 theater.  I am not.  So it is more practical for me to spend the money on something I can actually get enjoyment out of.  It isn't worth my time to have something less.  And I spend a lot of time watching movies at home, where you might spend your time hiking in the hills, playing an arcade game, or writing a piece of software for your entertainment.  Your money would be better spent on other forms.  Mine is better spent on what I like.

What I am saying is that it is perfectly OK to have an opinion that YOU don't see any value in something.  But saying that it has no value at all is only going to offend some and make you look like an ass to others. 

On the other hand, if you take out how it applies to YOUR LIFE, you are left with mostly the measurable aspects.  And the bottom line is, you can improve on an audio system greatly within a certain price range, even when every possible measurable criteria is considered (not just the ones that are important to you).  I said before that I could show you why a $10,000 home theater is better than a $500 theater, but I could never convince you that it is worth YOUR money for YOU to own. 

anyway, I think that the main part of your argument is that in all things technology, there is a diminishing return on investment, and I think you are completely right.  But where you draw the line is different from where I draw mine, and in that we are BOTH right because we are drawing it for ourselves, not for others.  I think the biggest difference we have is that you consider anyone buying above YOUR line a fool, where I just see them as having different tastes and deeper pockets.

[DaveMMR]

Which one of your mutherfuckers said "Xiaou2" in front of the mirror three times with the lights off? Confess!

Ah dammit it may have been me.    

I just kinda hate that whole "vinyl collectors are just hipsters" rhetoric, especially since I, and people I know, have been purchasing vinyl long before "hipster" was even a thing.

Although Ark, I do secretly agree with you, you know what? It's not even about sound quality for me. For the record - pun unintended - I'm using an inexpensive needle hooked up to an old receiver via cheap RCA cables. Records are just more fun to listen to.  Instead of some files on a computer or a disk that's tucked away in a machine, you have natural sound accompanied by large sleeves with artwork and sometimes even fun little vanity labels that match the outer sleeve/liner notes. (Here's an example of an album package you could spend a half-hour staring at: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=520499. Some of this was lost, or harder to see, in the CD release.)

And on top of that - if you're into older stuff - you can find great stuff for super cheap if you hit up garage sales, etc.  Finally, there's still quite a lot of great stuff that's inferior on CD (for whatever reason) or not available on CD at all (surprise, surprise - that actually includes The Beatles' only live album: "The Beatles at Hollywood Bowl".)

Anyway, sorry for opening that box of Pandora's - back to Laser Discs!

[knave]

I watched "The Fifth Element" on laserdisc with my daughter last night, and she loved it. Afterword we discussed the movie and read the Production notes and origin of the screenplay on the LD cover. It was fun.

BTW for all of its corny-ness, TFE is one of my Favorite movies. 

[Slippyblade]

BTW for all of its corny-ness, TFE is one of my Favorite movies.

Funny you say that.  Fifth Element is my 12 yr old daughter's favorite movie ever.  She really wants to see Lucy as well (made by the same guy).

[dkersten]

Lucy was pretty weak.  TFE is one of my all time favorites though.. If I am flipping channels and hit Star Wars, I will change it.  If I hit TFE, I will watch every time..

[Vigo]

I just kinda hate that whole "vinyl collectors are just hipsters" rhetoric, especially since I, and people I know, have been purchasing vinyl long before "hipster" was even a thing.

Although Ark, I do secretly agree with you, you know what? It's not even about sound quality for me. For the record - pun unintended - I'm using an inexpensive needle hooked up to an old receiver via cheap RCA cables. Records are just more fun to listen to.  Instead of some files on a computer or a disk that's tucked away in a machine, you have natural sound accompanied by large sleeves with artwork and sometimes even fun little vanity labels that match the outer sleeve/liner notes.

Agree completely. I love vinyl records, and I play them from a cheap phono player I got from goodwill using old RCA cables that are split into the same line as my CD carousel so I don't have to buy any hi-end audio equipment.

If I am to name why I love Vinyl records, none of it has to do bitrate or analog or recording source. It is a bit of Nostalgia. The sound is warm and fuzzy, on my cheap player and I get do listen to an album and engross myself into it. Digital music is so easy and the sound is so neutral that it seems to take the fun out of it. As a dad, I want to pass some of this love for classic music on, but I don't think I can achieve that so well with an MP3 player with 15,000 songs on it.

[dkersten]

Funny you use the term "warm".  The first time I heard a good analog source on a tube amp with moderately high end speakers, my first thought was "warm".  I have never heard that kind of sound in any kind of digital anything, even with the best D/A converters you can get.

In anything, there are qualities that are not "measurable" by our senses, yet we can still tell there is a difference when they are missing or not quite right.  For some, that difference is not relevant, for others it is the most important quality.    And I am not just talking sound or video. 

[Vigo]

Funny you use the term "warm".  The first time I heard a good analog source on a tube amp with moderately high end speakers, my first thought was "warm".  I have never heard that kind of sound in any kind of digital anything, even with the best D/A converters you can get.

In anything, there are qualities that are not "measurable" by our senses, yet we can still tell there is a difference when they are missing or not quite right.  For some, that difference is not relevant, for others it is the most important quality.    And I am not just talking sound or video. 

For years I have been trying to come up with a better word than warm, it's the best word I could ever describe it with. I have fiddled with audio equalizers and filters on digital audio for hours. And you are right, on a well made tube amp the warmth is even more pronounced. My old phono does OK, but I have been keeping my eyes peeled for a good quality vintage hi-fi for a while now, because there is no comparison.

And your statement about unmeasurable qualities makes perfect sense to me. I doubt everyone will understand it, but I completely agree.

[Slippyblade]

Just my opinion here, but you're all nuts.  There's no such thing as an "Unmeasurable quality".  I'd put more money on a personal memory filter biasing towards nostalgia.

That being said, if it makes you happy then go for it.   

[dkersten]

There's no such thing as an "Unmeasurable quality". 

I didn't say unmeasurable, I said unmeasurable by our senses.  At least in the way that you quantifiably define it. 

Pheromones are a perfect example.  They exist, are measurable with specialized equipment, and yet you couldn't tell me that you smell someone's fear or love, yet when they feel those things for you they emit pheromones and you smell them and react.  You can't say what they smell like, you can't even grade the intensity of the scent, yet there is no question your body will react to that scent.  The same goes for any of your senses.  Maybe you can 'feel' a storm coming on, but you couldn't exactly say why.. a slight change in the air pressure, the humidity slightly changing, things sound slightly different, and there is an energy in the air that you can't quantify.. Yet with the right equipment you can measure it.

You can also measure the distinct differences between a 128 bit digital compression algorithm and a pure analog sound, and while you can say that a human can't hear it, that isn't completely true.  Most people can notice the difference, they just can't quantify it unless they are trained to know exactly what is different.  The differences are subtle, and sometimes too subtle for some people to pick up.  Some people don't notice a difference, some just 'feel' that it is somehow different, and some can point out the slightly different tonal qualities that account for the difference.  It is all relative.

[Xiaou2]

I watched "The Fifth Element" on laserdisc with my daughter last night, and she loved it. Afterword we discussed the movie and read the Production notes and origin of the screenplay on the LD cover. It was fun.

BTW for all of its corny-ness, TFE is one of my Favorite movies.

 Agree

 
   

[Xiaou2]

Just my opinion here, but you're all nuts.  There's no such thing as an "Unmeasurable quality".  I'd put more money on a personal memory filter biasing towards nostalgia.

That being said, if it makes you happy then go for it.   

 Ill add to that... in that if you understand the power of the Sub-Conscious mind...  then you may realize that it can and does in fact record and store EVERYTHING.   Much of this doesnt get past the filter of our conscious mind..  however, its still in there somewhere..  and the SubC. can often signal
the Conscious mind of certain things..  things that the conscious mind asks of it mostly.

 In such a case.. even the smallest things can easily effect an experience.

[yotsuya]

Ill add to that... in that if you understand the power of the Sub-Conscious mind... 

[Vigo]

If it were nostalgia, then I wouldn't be able to recreate it at will and measure it against something digital. I can play music on my old phono player and immediately notice the warmth in the tone. And it's not like any record I throw on my phono will work either. Most everything modern wont pick up this quality because the vinyl is a press from a digital recording.

I don't consider myself an audiophile, and I never felt that digital music sounds bad, but I know that there is a quality found in analog. For those that care, the litmus test that I hear works best is doing a blind listen to an original Beatles album and comparing it to the vinyl re-releases. The newer pressings got white glove treatment and transferred perfectly, but it was digitally remastered along the way. There were a couple Nirvana re-releases that are the same way.

[ark_ader]

I watched "The Fifth Element" on laserdisc with my daughter last night, and she loved it. Afterword we discussed the movie and read the Production notes and origin of the screenplay on the LD cover. It was fun.

BTW for all of its corny-ness, TFE is one of my Favorite movies.

 Agree

 
   

+1

I have the soundtrack and it is awesome (still missing the taxi chase scene).  I saw it at the cinema and it was really good.  Luc Besson makes some really good movies like Big Blue, Leon and Lockout.

[Xiaou2]

Ill add to that... in that if you understand the power of the Sub-Conscious mind... 

 heh.   Nice Picture...   But this isnt anything to do with Chakras or Mystical stuff.   Its simply science and the way the brain functions.

 New-Age beliefs tend to have a lot of people from many fields.  Technology, science, and discovery, are not left out...  but
in fact are instead used to further higher-truth discoveries and findings.  To utilize technology and science, to further awareness,
expansion, enlightenment.

 One such use, is to know how the brain works, so that one can understand the effects of Meditation.  To get into Meditative states quicker.
To prove Meditations vast claims of benefits.  (Thousands of reputable researchers have published studies and papers on this subject).

 Did you know the brain has 4 main frequency states?   Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta.   Each have their own distinct properties and usefulness.

 But as said... the Subconscious mind...   thats one of the most important things one should know about, in great depth.

 The SubC. controls the very breathing you do.. without  'YOUR'  (ego-centric)  conscious thought. 

 Its far more powerful... and does far more, than you can imagine. 

 It can work for you... but it can also Sabotage your very well intended Conscious efforts... like a computer / robot..  running a corrupt or negative program.