Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

APS-C versus Full Frame


Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
17 Mar 2013 8:05AM

Quote:
It is definitely how you use the camera/ lens for wildlife. I can't afford a 600mmm f4L lens



That's why I said "as far as possible". If you end up cropping an FF image to the AOV of APS-C you might as well use an APS-C in the first place.


Quote:
All recorded music always has been mostly listened to through very poor systems. MP3 is the best I've ever had, I expect that's true for most people.



Not by me it hasn't. The compression used in MP3 loses a large amount of detail in the sound relative to CD quality (or top quality vinyl). It's really very easy to hear the difference. You should try recording something at 96kHz/24 bit and MP3 and then comparing them - big difference.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
17 Mar 2013 11:03AM
I can tell the difference between CD standard and an MP3, but with my ears, it's not enough to outweigh convenience.
In the past, I never had equipment good enough to play music to the standard of an MP3 on my PC, and I doubt if most people did.

In perspective, we were talking about formats in image and music that would be acceptable to most people, rather than experts and aficionados. I have a friend who has been deciding for years what turntable and sound system to buy. He's very choosy about his music. I simply bought a customer return £40 deck from ebay and it plays vinyl or 78s better than anything I ever had before. In music I'm a very ordinary consumer and I can live with mp3 quality. In photography I'm much more discerning, but I think for most people M4/3 probably is a standard that will do all they want, if not more.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
17 Mar 2013 11:55AM
Quite often the MP3 version sounds better than the CD, because the 'nasties' have been filtered out... a bit like noise reduction in digital photography. Smile
17 Mar 2013 1:47PM
Properly encoded (i.e. with LAME ) MP3 files are transparent. The vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between even a ~160 kbps VBR MP3 and a lossless 44 kHz source, with almost all music, even with top-quality playback equipment.

If you think you can you likely havenít done a blind ABX test. Iíve participated in several run by HydrogenAudio in years past, using excellent headphones in the £100 range, with well-rested ears, and I can tell you these tests are pretty hard on the ego!

Additionally, run-of-the-mill iPods have better audio quality than 90 % of the dedicated audiophile stuff available.

I have a nice turntable in storage waiting for the day Iíll have space to use it again, so Iím not immune to the delights of good vinyl recordings. (One practical advantage of vinyl is that itís rare to get a record thatís suffered severe dynamic-range compression , whereas itís common with CDs and digital files. Thatís not the fault of the CD or digital file, though.) But objectively, a cheap iPod with a downloaded iTunes file blows the doors off anything we listened to for the last hundred years. Youíll need to spend thousands of pounds on speakers to extract the best from a humble AAC or MP3 file. Speakers are the lenses of the audio world.
Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
17 Mar 2013 1:53PM

Quote:I can tell the difference between CD standard and an MP3, but with my ears, it's not enough to outweigh convenience.



Unless you've got cloth ears it's very easy to distinguish between MP3 and uncompressed digital. Good audio equipment is very, very cheap nowadays so there's no excuse (apart from lack of interest) not to have it. Linear PCM 96kHz recorders cost a small fortune not so long ago but they're peanuts now. If your friend has been "deciding for years" about which turntable to buy he's on the wrong track - they're all the same. I challenge anyone to tell one turntable from another (when using the same cartridge and played through the same system). This is/was just marketing hype.

I can't tell the difference between FF and APS-C. If I could I'd go for the better format regardless of convenience. In fact an A99 is no bigger than my A77 and most of my lenses are FF so convenience isn't even a factor.
17 Mar 2013 2:02PM
Youíre off on this, Steppenwolf. The Red Book standard was designed to exceed human hearing capabilities. Codecs like MP3 and AAC were designed to be transparent at reasonable bit-rates.

Turntables and speakers, on the other hand, are analogue devices that are extremely hard (read: expensive) to do well. Whatís more, their designers value different things, so different models have characteristics that appeal to different listeners. MP3 and CD just sounds the same. Any character comes from the recording itself.

Until you get to equipment costing several thousand pounds, most people with reasonable hearing can easily ABX different turntables and speakers (though not different CD players, obviously).

Cameras, though, can be differentiated if you look closely enough. You can always look closer, and you can spend ten minutes staring at three pixels if you want. Whether the often-tiny differences matter is another question.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
17 Mar 2013 2:12PM

Quote:Additionally, run-of-the-mill iPods have better audio quality than 90 % of the dedicated audiophile stuff available.


I have both iPod and high(ish) end audiophile equipment.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say the iPod is better, it is pretty much on par.
Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
17 Mar 2013 5:14PM

Quote:Youíre off on this, Steppenwolf. The Red Book standard was designed to exceed human hearing capabilities. Codecs like MP3 and AAC were designed to be transparent at reasonable bit-rates.

Turntables and speakers, on the other hand, are analogue devices that are extremely hard (read: expensive) to do well. Whatís more, their designers value different things, so different models have characteristics that appeal to different listeners. MP3 and CD just sounds the same. Any character comes from the recording itself.

Until you get to equipment costing several thousand pounds, most people with reasonable hearing can easily ABX different turntables and speakers (though not different CD players, obviously).




I use a Tascam multi-track to record stuff I do. It can record various standards, MP3, 96kHz/24 bit etc. The MP3 is noticeably inferior so I don't use it. My understanding is that MP3 is a lossy standard and that it loses data at each end of the sound spectrum which would account for its inferior quality. Maybe you're talking about later standards that don't lose data when compressing files?

Turntables are a con - and nothing will persuade me to the contrary. I remember setting up a very expensive Linn Sondek and a very cheap Pioneer. Each had arms which were compatible with a separate cartridge so we could easily switch between the two decks using the same cartridge. Absolutely no one could tell the difference between the two decks. Speakers are of course a different matter. They're all different - but which is best is very subjective.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
17 Mar 2013 5:26PM
You can rip a CD to a lossless format which will preserve the bitrate which is, I think, 1411 kbps. And many MP3 players can also play WAV files with this bitrate.
17 Mar 2013 6:31PM
Most hardware MP3 encoders are terrible compared to LAME. I wouldnít be surprised if your Tascam is too, even if itís otherwise a great audio recorder.

MP3 is lossy, but it doesnít simply lop off high and low frequencies. It uses a psychoacoustic model based on human hearing research which says, for instance, that humans canít detect certain high-frequency tones when thereís a dominant low-frequency tone. The high-frequency information can then be harmlessly dumped until the low-frequency tone subsides. And then it further compresses the resulting information losslessly.

By turntable I meant the whole shebang, cartridge included. The cartridge is very important, as you imply, since itís the transducer. A good moving-coil cartridge can really help an affordable turntable, but then the onus shifts to the extremely low-noise amplification required by the low-output cartridge, which drives up the cost. The turntable proper merely acts as a stable, resonant-resistant, low-noise, constant-speed platform for the tonearm and cartridge.

Iíll grant you that many expensive turntables are nothing but snake oil or decorative furniture. Thereís nothing wrong with the latter, but it shouldnít be confused with high-performance audio reproduction.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
17 Mar 2013 6:48PM

Quote:many expensive turntables are nothing but snake oil or decorative furniture


So you won't be buying one of these any time soon, then? Wink
17 Mar 2013 6:56PM
Now why would I when I could get two of these for the same modest outlay?
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
17 Mar 2013 7:00PM

Quote:Now why would I when I could get two of these for the same modest outlay?


If you have floorboards they may not be able to take the weight of two of those.... 770lb each! Grin
17 Mar 2013 7:02PM
Ah, you havenít seen the marble floor in my drawing room.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
17 Mar 2013 7:06PM

Quote:Ah, you havenít seen the marble floor in my drawing room.


You could build a turntable directly onto it! Smile

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.