HD Special on Gadget Show Channel5 13/03/2006
Posted by: Misguided Fool on 13 March 2006
Just read an interesting thread on Digital Spy
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=352892
This guy makes some (erm) interestign comments...
Roger,
Gadgets, Gadgets, Gadgets on Bravo is a different program (Liz Bonin). The Gadget Show is the same as five have shown previously. Its ebay money, but both Bravo and five are in bed with freemantle media so they mirror these programs at the drop of a hat.
Ultimatly all audio is analog, CDs store this in a digital form and then recreate it to an extent that neerly exceeds the capabilities of the human ear (Some would argue it does by a long way), vinyl stores and recreates this information mechanically and cannot come close. You can get some analog tape recorders that outperform some digital recorders, the cost difference is large, but the 'its analog' = better assumption is plain wrong and contry to what most people will experience. Live broadcast analog TV is more often better than Digital TV by quite a long way and this is (usually) reversed when it comes to camcorders, but how many people would say analog SD is better than (decent bitrate) digital HDTV? Or that a studio DAT (digital) recording is worse than the pure analog quality of two coffie tins connected by string?
Tests have shown that people that prefer the sound of vinyl have become used to the lower bandwidth and type of noise and distortion it adds. In the same way tests have shown people that prefer valve amplifiers over transisters just prefer that type of noise even though there is more of it for a given amount of signal (music). To someone grown up with CDs, records sound stone age, even though the technology is victorian.
The neerly tone deaf band did complain the audio from the vinyl was 'muffled' and they couldnt tell the CD and mp3 apart but the questions they were asked were not 'Which sounds the best' or 'which did you prefer'. They were asked 'Which did you think was the record, the CD and the mp3 player?'. This is another typical major flaw in the method. We don't care how good the band are at recognising what medium is being played, its not helpful, we care how good it sounds. The conclusions that were drawn from this were very odd and made much less sense. Are we now supposed to buy the CD player because the band that were told (along with us) the vinyl record should sound the best thought the CD was the vinyl record, or should we buy the mp3 because they couldnt tell it apart from the CD? Or should we buy the record as we've just been told it should be the best even though nobody listening thought so?
Its enough to make me want to go back in time, I assume they'd recommend the HG Wells chair, as they've had 'longer' to fix the bugs over something 'more recent' like the TARDIS or something physics says should actually work like the Tipler cylinder, take Jason out of his cot and shake him till he stops moving along with half the other people involved.
For reliable material, zdnet/cnet are pretty good but just two days ago I was given a url for digital cameras that blew me away. http://www.dpreview.net/ I'm sure there are specific websites like that for neerly everything and for 1+ grand HDTV or digital cameras its well worth the effort to find them.
Gadgets gadgets gadgets seems lower budget (I don't know if this is even still on) tends to deal with things I find less interesting, but they seem more at ease with the technology and I can't say I remeber any mistakes.
colaboy,
"to most people they are up to date and pretty much accurate"
Fairly up to date to things allready released, yes, accurate, no. I'm sure a lot of viewers don't understand the technology, which is why they want advice. When they screw up on familiar stuff, which they do amazingly often, I can't trust what I dont know about.
I don't think I'm missing the point. They can't do in depth technical reviews of everything on the market. No time and they'd bore us silly with tech babble. But when they do quote technical information and its *wrong*, and I mean comple and utter lunacy, I lose all faith in their *conclusions*. They've tested a 1 grand HDTV camcorder against a 20 grand HDTV camcorder and came away telling us the 1 grand camcorder gives a better quality picture. I have no idea if this is true, are these presenters capable of setting up a professional camcorder correctly as opposed to a point and shoot home model? Should we trust that ease of setting up for the first shot is better than us spending the money and reading the manual for 2 hours before figuring it out a week later? Is there really any point in showing us a 20 grand camcorder 99.9999% of the audience, myself obviously included, can't afford? This is not a useful comparison unless we have a choice.
For a 30min program, I need to know whats good, what I must avoid like my life depended on it and what among these I can afford as the bottom line. I also expect any tech info to be spot on and the rules of thumb reliable, or I can't trust what they say. Either give me the full information, examples and review for me to judge myself (Website) or give me a 99% reliable bottom line from the best equipment around (no extra info, trustworthy program, presenters with clue).
Marvin
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=352892
This guy makes some (erm) interestign comments...
Roger,
Gadgets, Gadgets, Gadgets on Bravo is a different program (Liz Bonin). The Gadget Show is the same as five have shown previously. Its ebay money, but both Bravo and five are in bed with freemantle media so they mirror these programs at the drop of a hat.
Ultimatly all audio is analog, CDs store this in a digital form and then recreate it to an extent that neerly exceeds the capabilities of the human ear (Some would argue it does by a long way), vinyl stores and recreates this information mechanically and cannot come close. You can get some analog tape recorders that outperform some digital recorders, the cost difference is large, but the 'its analog' = better assumption is plain wrong and contry to what most people will experience. Live broadcast analog TV is more often better than Digital TV by quite a long way and this is (usually) reversed when it comes to camcorders, but how many people would say analog SD is better than (decent bitrate) digital HDTV? Or that a studio DAT (digital) recording is worse than the pure analog quality of two coffie tins connected by string?
Tests have shown that people that prefer the sound of vinyl have become used to the lower bandwidth and type of noise and distortion it adds. In the same way tests have shown people that prefer valve amplifiers over transisters just prefer that type of noise even though there is more of it for a given amount of signal (music). To someone grown up with CDs, records sound stone age, even though the technology is victorian.
The neerly tone deaf band did complain the audio from the vinyl was 'muffled' and they couldnt tell the CD and mp3 apart but the questions they were asked were not 'Which sounds the best' or 'which did you prefer'. They were asked 'Which did you think was the record, the CD and the mp3 player?'. This is another typical major flaw in the method. We don't care how good the band are at recognising what medium is being played, its not helpful, we care how good it sounds. The conclusions that were drawn from this were very odd and made much less sense. Are we now supposed to buy the CD player because the band that were told (along with us) the vinyl record should sound the best thought the CD was the vinyl record, or should we buy the mp3 because they couldnt tell it apart from the CD? Or should we buy the record as we've just been told it should be the best even though nobody listening thought so?
Its enough to make me want to go back in time, I assume they'd recommend the HG Wells chair, as they've had 'longer' to fix the bugs over something 'more recent' like the TARDIS or something physics says should actually work like the Tipler cylinder, take Jason out of his cot and shake him till he stops moving along with half the other people involved.
For reliable material, zdnet/cnet are pretty good but just two days ago I was given a url for digital cameras that blew me away. http://www.dpreview.net/ I'm sure there are specific websites like that for neerly everything and for 1+ grand HDTV or digital cameras its well worth the effort to find them.
Gadgets gadgets gadgets seems lower budget (I don't know if this is even still on) tends to deal with things I find less interesting, but they seem more at ease with the technology and I can't say I remeber any mistakes.
colaboy,
"to most people they are up to date and pretty much accurate"
Fairly up to date to things allready released, yes, accurate, no. I'm sure a lot of viewers don't understand the technology, which is why they want advice. When they screw up on familiar stuff, which they do amazingly often, I can't trust what I dont know about.
I don't think I'm missing the point. They can't do in depth technical reviews of everything on the market. No time and they'd bore us silly with tech babble. But when they do quote technical information and its *wrong*, and I mean comple and utter lunacy, I lose all faith in their *conclusions*. They've tested a 1 grand HDTV camcorder against a 20 grand HDTV camcorder and came away telling us the 1 grand camcorder gives a better quality picture. I have no idea if this is true, are these presenters capable of setting up a professional camcorder correctly as opposed to a point and shoot home model? Should we trust that ease of setting up for the first shot is better than us spending the money and reading the manual for 2 hours before figuring it out a week later? Is there really any point in showing us a 20 grand camcorder 99.9999% of the audience, myself obviously included, can't afford? This is not a useful comparison unless we have a choice.
For a 30min program, I need to know whats good, what I must avoid like my life depended on it and what among these I can afford as the bottom line. I also expect any tech info to be spot on and the rules of thumb reliable, or I can't trust what they say. Either give me the full information, examples and review for me to judge myself (Website) or give me a 99% reliable bottom line from the best equipment around (no extra info, trustworthy program, presenters with clue).
Marvin