Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here

2 Interesting articles in Pro AV Magazine

741 Views 8 Replies 8 Participants Last post by CINERAMAX, May 14, 2006

CINERAMAX

Discussion Starter · May 13, 2006

Truth About Exotic cables

And a personal favorite subject: The relative importance of Video over Audio.
Audio Vs. Video

Save

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

â€œThe rules for video are far more solid than for audio,â€ he says. â€œItâ€™s easy to determine when video is right and when itâ€™s wrong. The rules for audio arenâ€™t anywhere near as well spelled out. The rules for displaying video are far better defined than in audio, and there isnâ€™t the room for opinions in video that there is in audio.

So true, thanks for the link.

Art

Save

Dizzman

· #3 · May 13, 2006

i think that one of the suppositions is incorrect.

With Video, we have a visual system that is well documented and defined. even though we have diffreences in how we see, the baselines are similar. D65 is D65.

With audio, we have a much greater variety of hearing... thus the liking (and hating) of so many different products. Audio has loads of firm rules, but there is much more beyond it. We also can't see the difference in shades nearly as clearly as we can hear subtle tonal differences.

Save

ybsane

· #4 · May 13, 2006

Audio's impact is always greater! you could close your eye's and the audio impact can give you visual impact, not vice or versa. I am not saying video is not important but you can be color blind literally and still enjoy a movie by the audio impact to capture you in what you are watching.

Bob

Save

Bulldogger

· #5 · May 13, 2006

The article says that the eyes don't lie but the eyes do lie. Expectation effects are present in visual comparisons as well. I think Mr. Pointdexter is going to be able to compare projectors, "double blind" in his new theater. I"ve seen studies from the 80's were preference could be shown for brand name television vs little known, at the time brands. If you tell someone that one pill is a Bayer aspirin and another is a generic, they will report greater pain relief for the brand name pill. That's documented too. Video does not get a pass with placebo.

Save

Alimentall

· #6 · May 13, 2006

We are much further away from high-fidelity video than audio. Video is about 25-50 years behind audio, but at least it's catching up quickly. We need to get up to 10MP, 12 or 16-bit video and 10K:1 contrast before we're even close to realistic. That's why every improvement in video is so crucial and appreciable.

Save

Dean Roddey

· #7 · May 14, 2006

The eyes can clearly lie. But the point is (and I made this same argument in a recent thread here), there are lots of calibration tools for video. You can know, with fairly good certainty, that your video system is correctly reproducing the intended image, within the capabilities of the hardware you have. That's the important thing. It's always a compromise to some degree, even with very high end video systems. But no matter what you have, you can calibrate it such that it is doing the best it can to produce what was intended, because there is a standard. It makes so much difference. Without that standard, it's all about opinions and likes and dislikes.

And the other big difference is that, for the most part, if I put up a video resolution pattern, no one is going to claim that they can see resolution that not's there. The resolution of the video system can be measured. But people constantly claim that they can hear things that are not measurable. I think that the availabilty of tools on the video side help limit this phenomenon, though it doesn't completely eliminate it by any means. Since there are no readily available tools to measure the 'resolving' capabilities, or even the correct calibration, of audio systems, people can claim whatever they want and believe it. Hence blind tests are really the only true court available on the audio side in so many cases.

See less See more

Save