Please Educate Me

People keep talking about differences in printing. I’m a photographer as well, so I’m keenly aware of the fine points of printing. But once the image is fixed in Photoshop or whatever you’re using, printing becomes a mechanical process and isn’t relevant to this discussion. 

What would be relevant is how Photoshop works from one machine to another. I’ve known a lot of photo editors in my day but alas, I’ve never heard anything to indicate the slightest difference. As long as the machine has sufficient horsepower, Photoshop is always the same. 

Since I’m kinda getting into the swing of things here, I add this note just to piss people off. Very obnoxious, very immodest, very unlike me. But just to bolster my printing bona fides, as a photographer, among other exhibitions, I had an image on display at the Louvre in 2015. It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t spend your days mocking those you judge to be unworthy of a presence on this forum. 

And just because I can anticipate the hypertechnical response that note will draw, no, the Louvre doesn’t display photography. I was under the pyramid but not in the official museum. Not a distinction I feel necessary to draw in ordinary life. 

And I’m sincerely sorry for that bit of blowhardlery. (Is that a word, Glupson? I tend to think not.) Getting in must have been some kind of fluke and I don’t expect it to be repeated in this lifetime. Again, my apologies. I’ve been taking a beating here and I had to throw a counterpunch.

...just another 'nite on the 'net.....*g*

Btw....I'm not an angry anything....bemused, sometimes amused, slave of my muse, but not meaning abuse except in a general sense when I make some....sense, that is. *s*

Paul, swing accepted but felt free to duck... ;)

Being meatless entities as opposed to IRL is irritating....look, I'd rather have a drink or share a blunt with any and all instead of 'all this'.  We could obviously 'read' each other and either come to common ground or avoid as needed.....

The OP states a rather open-ended commentary, and we all go off on our particular tangents; responses vary as typical and as expected.

Such is SOP for 'Gon.  Personally, I'm pretty pragmatic about audio and my approach to it.  I don't strive for the perfection that I know (IMHO) doesn't exist.  Too much between me and the performers at the mic or pickups in the studio or the venue.  What I employ to listen to that is a varied bunch of items that makes pleasant enough sounds to amuse me.

'You' may run from 'here' screaming or laughing; I'd rather 'you' pause and tell me what/why/YHO and discuss much; previous offerings accepted or declined.

As to Why we put ourselves through any/all of this is runs around the reefs of philosophy centric to music and the enjoyment of.

Spending time and pixels on the How is fine.
But whether 500 or 150K$...if it makes you smile and transported to the Other....by the Music, and not the How....

Wonderful.
Enjoy.
J

I got so tired of reading the harsh comments I decided to scroll down and just post. Seams to me @paul6001 posed an interesting question - got me thinking. Our DACs are processing digital information the same as our microwaves, yet we judge them very differently. The difference I believe is that music is an aesthetic pursuit - thus the method of delivery comes under more scrutiny. If our goal was to heat food - or process a word document - we would judge it by different standards. I’m not much on a video guy, but I expect those who are judge there DVD players the same way. 

Really?

Yes. Let me put it like this.
Programmer of a game put in a specific CONSTANT hex #13220 is a dark green of green-cyan. And in RGB color mode model #13220 is comprised of 0.39% red, 19.61% green and 12.55% blue.

So it is a constant variable that is in the software and it is not changing.

Take ten laptops install software that includes that constant.

Put all ten laptops side by side and you WILL have 10 DIFFERENT shades of green.

And as I explained why in the previous post, all of the laptops screens reproduce that constant slightly different.

That’s why there is a calibration devices that you suck onto the display and make a calibration of the screen.

The same goes for CD or any digital device there is a data constant number that is made sure that it always stays the same with error correction (matematics calculate checksums and so on to make sure of that.)

But after that what that constant data is leaving the CD transport and what is coming out of the speakers is ALMOST the same like with the monitor example above.

It stops to be a constant and for audio it is in the analog domain and you need to understand that there is no check sums and no control over that the information (the constant) is intact it is now a sliding scale..

You can build two identical amplifiers and when capacitors, resistors, inductors opamps and so on they are ALL individuals and different from one to another for the exact same component!

That is why they have tolerances. So if you have a tolerance of ±1% then it is at the most only for that component alone at most 2% variation between one and another part of the same capacitor for example.

That is why very serious amp builders measure and match each component in the signal path. Like you could pay someone to match and find two tubes that measure closer to each other than other ones in the same batch, to use in a amp tube. So in the analog domain everything is in a flux state..

paul6001,

"...infinitesimally small sense superiority..."

"...infinitesimally small sense of superiority..."

It is not a big difference. It only gives those who questioned your writing a little more credibility and your baffling response to them a tiny bit more silly.