[rparmar]

Telling my wife about it, I said it reminds me of the difference between tube amplified music and solid state amplification.

Except that we (audio engineers) know exactly what it is that tubes do to the sound: they implement a low-pass filter and add second-order harmonic distortion for a start. People (eg. audiophiles) might like the sound, but that does not change the fact that it is distortion in the engineering sense. If you want, you can easily add it into the analogue or digital signal chain and get back the experience that is "lacking".

The differences in lens rendering are, I believe, harder to explain even for optical lens designers.

[GlennG]

I wouldn't venture a guess about how (technically) it is achieved. I do know post processing includes significant enhancements for resolution and contrast, and so far I've not been able to recreate "pixie dust" in a shot with a lens that isn't on the list. To me that suggests the information isn't there. Is my hypothesis plausible . .. that the design of some lenses allow them to capture certain 3D features that render a shot more life like (based on how our brain perceives) than other lenses? Isn't a common superlative applied to "pixie dust" lenses that they impart a sense of three dimensionality?

I certainly agree that there is something there (or "in that space", as we say at work). I agree that your hypothesis is plausible. Thanks. Glenn

[Class A]

Except that we (audio engineers) know exactly what it is that tubes do to the sound: they implement a low-pass filter and add second-order harmonic distortion for a start. .

When emulating tube sound, don't forget to also implement a shitty damping factor for that mushy bass.

[rparmar]

There is no "digital edge" and hasn't been since about the third generation of consumer playback equipment. What audiophiles hear are the frequencies present on the master tape, the frequencies the artist, engineer, producer etc. wanted to be there... but which they would rather remove artificially in the listening chain. Tube systems may be more pleasant to listen to, depending on taste. But by no means are they more "natural" than what I get out of my RME digital converter at 24/96KHz.

Even our ear operates in a manner similar to digital sampling. So much for the argument from nature!

I will stop responding to this subject, now, as this is way off topic. Decades of experience have shown me that there is no convincing those who fervently believe (not implying you, Les, are one -- I don't know enough to make that claim). And it is as a red flag to the bull (me).

In case I convey the wrong idea: I am happy that some mysteries stay mysterious. As I am also willing to compromise on perfection in audio and other realms. I can listen daily to MP3 files knowing full well that a side-by-side comparison to the "originals" will reveal many flaws. But while I am listening I prefer to focus on the content and not the package, so long as the latter is not too irritating -- nothing below 256Kbps VBR please!

Just as I am willing to compromise on the joke called "stereo".

Then I go back to working on my new eight-channel 24/96KHz composition in happiness.

[les3547]

When emulating tube sound, don't forget to also implement a shitty damping factor for that mushy bass.

That is what ultralinear tube amp design and biamplification (SS on the low end) allow a system to avoid.

[stevebrot]

I don't agree with this definition as it would associate pixie dust also with bad lens properties that cannot be captured exactly in a technical sense.

Evil pixies?


Steve