[normhead]

They use the same method that is used by Law Enforcement officers at a Rave - count the number of attendees within easy hitting distance, then extrapolate using the entire cubic capacity of the building.

I don't think that gives you a percentage.

[Sevilla]

We live in a society that tends to fly lower and lower. In the sixties and seventies having a nice stereo like a marantz blue or a nikon was an aspiration. Now the quality of the average stereo is comparable with that of the iphone in photo. Just turn it on and shoot, no creativity, no brains. Fast food for all.
PS. Obviously there are still exceptions but on a fre fall.

[Jonathan Mac]

you would think that
however there are postcards everywhere I look and people are buying them

there is a young photographer who was engaged by a hobby farm north of here to do some marketing art
she told me her most dependable income derives from the sale of souvenir postcards
she had fedex print them and displays them on antique card racks in a half dozen locations

go figure

I stopped buying postcards a few years ago after discovering postcard apps for smartphones. I take photos of my trip, transfer them to my phone over wifi and use the app to design my own postcards, which are then paid for and submitted. The company prints them and sends them to the recipients. True, they don't come from the country where I've gone (in my case I think they're posted from Germany) but that is far out-weighed by the convenience of not having to find a post-office in a foreign land and the ability to use my own photos.

[ThorSanchez]

We live in a society that tends to fly lower and lower. In the sixties and seventies having a nice stereo like a marantz blue or a nikon was an aspiration. Now the quality of the average stereo is comparable with that of the iphone in photo. Just turn it on and shoot, no creativity, no brains. Fast food for all.
PS. Obviously there are still exceptions but on a fre fall.

Have you done a blind comparison between a top end 1960s or 1970s stereo and one today? I assume not, since there's no way the older equipment would compare. Except possibly in living up to your expectations of how a stereo "should" sound based on having grown up with 1960s tube technology and the audio characteristics/distortions inherent in that technology. You think the characteristics of old amps are right so anything different is wrong. If transistors had been invented first the they would sound right, and tubes would be wrong.


Whether it's stereos, cameras, cars, athletes... the supposed free fall of modern things is almost always nostalgic fiction. The technical specifications are all overwhelmingly weighted to the modern, so the argument quickly devolves into one of feeling and art and experience. Characteristics that can't be quantified, so they can't really be argued about in any substantive way.

[normhead]

You think the characteristics of old amps are right so anything different is wrong. If transistors had been invented first the they would sound right, and tubes would be wrong.

Not that I care, but I have heard different arguments. Especially when the recordings of equipment that used tubes in their amplifyiers, it would make sense that tube stereo would better reproduce that sound. I still have my old yamaha CR 400 which has either one or two tubes... in the basement , and we have a Sony solid state equivalent sitting on the shelf unused for 10 years now. That's our work out amp. The upstairs surround sound system barely gets used anymore. So at least around our house, solid state may be better, that's debatable, but it's the tube amp getting all the work.

There's nostalgic, and then there's the belief newer means better even when it isn't. It can go either way.

[DeadJohn]

Most vacation photos are bad photographs. That's okay; other people don't have to impress me with their personal photos. I just wish that some friends were more selective in what they shared. If you're at a museum I've never visited, yeah, send me 3 unique photos, but please don't send a blurred, noisy image of every piece of art And I know what you look like; get out of the frame so I can see the scene!

I usually bring a good camera for scenic trips so I can do "photography". The interface can be as important as the sensor size. Smartphones are awkward to hold and awkward to press the shutter release.

If I want to share a special view and the light is good enough, I'll share a smartphone shot now, then use my better camera to get something worth processing later.

[Helios 1984]

I'm part of the 5% of the 5%, during my last vacation I brought my Olympus Pen-EE2 & 3 rolls of Kodak Gold 200. I haven't developed them yet, I'm waiting to finish the 3rd roll :-)

[Lord Lucan]

Most vacation photos are bad photographs.

My father, who was a semi-pro (did Saturday weddings for some years), would not take a photo unless someone he knew was in it; he could not see the point otherwise. In retirement he and my mother would holiday (US "vacation") several times a year with another retired couple (childless) I shall call Harry and Hilda.

Recently, both my parents having died, I went through my father's 1000's of prints and colour slides. I found that the vast majority of the holiday shots had Harry and Hilda in the foreground (my mother did not like her picture taken) : Harry and Hilda by the Leaning Tower of Pisa, Harry and Hilda under the Eiffel Tower, Harry and Hilda waiting for the ferry. Harry and Hilda at home, Harry and Hilda in fancy dress, etc etc. My father's photo collection, while good technically, was effectively a documentary of Harry and Hilda's life! I tossed every Harry and Hilda photo away

[pentaxfall]

My friend toured 3 National parks with just cell phone as camera. Output is good enough for posting on FB and view on phone. They are in a loop where most of the pictures they see are taken using cell phone. Chances of them getting exposed to DSLR ouput is slim so they are happy with cell phone output.

[LensBeginner]

I both do photographs and travel snapshots, and I sometimes go back and look at them again.
I'm not very fond of going back and trying to remember what a place was like through a layer of flare, banding, noise, low contrast, aggressive NR and various other deformities...

[timb64]

I both do photographs and travel snapshots, and I sometimes go back and look at them again.
I'm not very fond of going back and trying to remember what a place was like through a layer of flare, banding, noise, low contrast, aggressive NR and various other deformities...

....you shouldn't have bought a Canon then

[LensBeginner]

....you shouldn't have bought a Canon then

Uh... I haven't! I was actually talking about smartassphones

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

....you shouldn't have bought a Canon then

To be honest, I always liked Canon for point and shoot cameras. Their menus and controls seemed to make more sense than Kodak, Polaroid, or Sony cameras I used, and the IQ was very good for a compact. Luckily I did research before moving up to a DSLR and found Pentax instead. I still like Canon for point and shoot compacts, I just know not to expect them to match my K-3.

---------- Post added 12-22-17 at 02:47 PM ----------

Uh... I haven't! I was actually talking about smartassphones

My latest Canon compact is an SD780 IS, so it's a few generations old. I was quite surprised to find my 'old' HTC Incredible 4G does better in low light. Now with a LG G5 that has higher resolution and great auto focus my Canon compact only wins using flash or optical zoom. I may get a new compact camera one day, but for now I'm actuary quite happy with my phone (When not using my K-3, of course).

[UncleVanya]

Have you done a blind comparison between a top end 1960s or 1970s stereo and one today? I assume not, since there's no way the older equipment would compare. Except possibly in living up to your expectations of how a stereo "should" sound based on having grown up with 1960s tube technology and the audio characteristics/distortions inherent in that technology. You think the characteristics of old amps are right so anything different is wrong. If transistors had been invented first the they would sound right, and tubes would be wrong.


Whether it's stereos, cameras, cars, athletes... the supposed free fall of modern things is almost always nostalgic fiction. The technical specifications are all overwhelmingly weighted to the modern, so the argument quickly devolves into one of feeling and art and experience. Characteristics that can't be quantified, so they can't really be argued about in any substantive way.

Read this thread. Audio is a really subjective area. Testing audiophile claims and myths | Head-Fi.org

Stay for the conclusion... It's counter intuitive.

[dwalt]

One thing I've noticed is how the specs for audio equipment have changed.
The following is from:
AV Receiver and Amplifier Power Ratings Trends: Manipulating Wattage Ratings | Audioholics

"We've noticed a recent trend with the latest Dolby Atmos/DTS:X AV Receiver releases. Instead of publishing unclipped full bandwidth power with two-channels driven into 8 ohm loads pet FTC mandate, ALL of the major AV receiver manufacturers are now touting power with only one-channel driven, at 1kHz, into a 6 ohm load and 10% distortion. This type of testing scenario inflates the power rating up to 2X the former FTC way of rating power. Only when you search for the fine print on the manufacturers websites or spec sheets do you actually find the two-channel continuous ratings. We decided it was time to republish this article and also supplement it with the following YouTube video citing examples of these latest AV receivers."

This is what depresses me. Instead of improved engineering, we have marketing types trying to find ways to inflate poor performance so they can have better numbers to market.