High Frame Rate (HFR) movies: time to overcome resistance? Also, on anachronistic nostalgia. And why I rarely go to movie theaters these days.

This week, indulge me in staying a little longer with discussions on the video theme; since I view audio and video technologies as members of the same family, there will be references and detours made about audio in this post.

Although I think 4K is plenty of spatial resolution already for home use (discussed years ago at the advent of UHD BluRays), there is one obvious way to increase the perceived resolution of video playback - improve the "time domain" performance.

While basically everything about motion picture technology has evolved - aspect ratio changes from 4:3 (silent film) to widescreen, frame sizes (35mm various forms, 65/70mm, various digital sensor sizes), B&W to color, higher effective resolution, transition from analog film to digital - isn't it amazing that the cinematic framerate has remained at a mere 24fps, and commonly 180° shutter rule for motion blurring (more geeky testing here)? Since the dawn of the "sound film" in 1926 - almost exactly a century ago! 

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies - movies that were filmed and projected at more than the "cinematic" 24fps - typically 48fps or 60fps - have been simply uncommon for feature presentations to this point. Perhaps reminiscent of multichannel music which had its starts and misses over the decades (eg. 4.0-channel quad back in the '70s), HFR also had a time in the '70s and early '80s when the company Showscan was trying to achieve higher image quality with 65-70mm film at 60fps. But like quadraphonic audio, the technology of the day wasn't really good enough for practical, economical, trouble-free high-fidelity visual reproduction.

Imagine what kind of physical demands would have been necessary for this. Showscan ran the film at 4.68ft/s or 281ft/minute! Clearly a costly endeavor (estimated $2-3M just for the negatives and processing to make a movie back in the '80s) plus imagine the pounds of film to send out to all the theaters, maintenance needs, plus potential damage to the film after a number of runs. How many showings would have been needed for a decent return on investment?!

No surprise then that full-length films were never released in this format. (Here's an interesting brochure from 1990 of their High Impact Cinema prototype, and their 1987 company prospectus.)

MUSINGS: On YouTube listening tests and the sound of "high-end" vinyl vs. streamed digital playback.

The Internet is wonderful, isn't it?!

In the span of a few decades, we can all make our presence known to the far corners of the world and express (almost) anything we want whether it's sharing what we had for lunch, whether we're "available", our political/moral/ethical affiliations, or even esoteric blog topics. 🤪

Even better, we can project sounds and videos on YouTube and the like, opening up the opportunity to reach others though a modern "boob tube" where instead of the TV station programmer telling us what to watch next, good-ol' YouTube algorithms choose what we might desire from tracked search preferences. Amazing, if not also creepy...

Of course, if we have an entrepreneurial spirit, one could receive great rewards. Monetization potential can be impressive as witnessed by some of the elaborate content on YouTube channels! That's great so long as we're seeing knowledgeable, verifiable content presented in fair ways that can help teach and promote understanding. Not so great when information is perpetuating falsehoods, potentially destructive conspiracies and propaganda.

For this post, let's talk about something we've seen presented over the years on a number of audio channels. There is at least an implied idea out there, thanks to YouTube, we can now "hear" the sound quality of an audiophile system. Furthermore, that we can make comparisons of the sound quality. Is this true?

Pacific Audio Fest 2023: Part I - Ballrooms, marketplaces, and the larger rooms... Thoughts on vinyl / LP at "hi-fi" demos.

At the time of publication, it will have been a week since the Pacific Audio Fest 2023 (June 23-25). Compared to last year, they held it about a month earlier. As usual, I took a number of photos at the show and figured it would be fun to do some reporting on what was seen and heard, offering impressions from my notes and memories of the time in Seattle.

To start, let me remind everyone that while audio shows are fun, they are definitely not the best places to listen for sound quality. This is better done at a local dealer showroom you might be familiar with or best in the comfort of home. Typically at shows, we're treated with unfamiliar music. Even if the song is familiar, they might be playing from a streaming remaster or off an unfamiliar LP. Room acoustics vary widely, and attendees are typically shifting in and out, chatting during the visit while you're trying to appreciate the music.

Nonetheless, there is something to be said about the importance of that first impression for attendees of what we hear. In an age where much of our purchasing habits come from online sources and web-based transactions, being in the presence of these devices, and the impressions they leave us with, are powerful in directing whether we're likely going to explore the brand or specific device. As such, if companies are going to attend audio shows, it is very important that they do it right.

MUSINGS: Regarding the MoFiGate class action document, the love of analogue master tapes (on recent Bernie Grundman interview), and reminder of digital developments. [Yes, Canadian iPhone 14 still has hardware SIM tray.]

There are "hot topic" debates that stand the test of time, never truly resolved as it were. Typically, these debates are arguments of subjective ideologies (thus never fully resolved even if some elements can be shown to be clearly false) rather than explorations of nuanced facts. The "Analogue vs. Digital - which is best?" debate remains popular among audiophiles since the dawn of CD consumer audio in the early 1980's. As if there is ever only one single answer to such a broad topic with various pros and cons. I suspect most of us these days have grown at least a little tiresome of the topic even if we recognize that this "issue" will inevitably arise along our audiophile journeys interacting with others.

In the last while, there have been items in the news related to analogue audio, and by extension this whole debate, I think worth examining honestly. Let's spend some time to talk about this, consider some facts, and address a few of the unsubstantiated beliefs often perpetuated even among some respected members in the audiophile pursuit.

MEASUREMENTS: Onkyo TX-NR1009 "WRAT" AV Receiver Class AB Amplifier... Plus Pi / LP / Resolution miscellany.

I currently have 3 AV receivers here at home. The Denon AVR-3802 is my oldest machine, purchased back in 2001 and being used in the living room for stereo playback. My newer Yamaha RX-V781 (2016) is currently in use for movie playback with Atmos/dts:X decoding. This leaves the Onkyo TX-NR1009 (2011 model) that I bought used in 2013 which has actually been sitting unused for the last few years mainly because it's an older HDMI 1.4 device which did not support full 4K/HDR/60fps switching:

It's a shame because I think of the 3 receivers, subjectively this is probably the best sounding (no blind test done, just a suspicion), has the highest power rating (135W into 8Ω, 1kHz, 1%), THX Select2 Plus certified, can amplify 9 channels (9.2 decoding), and when new, was also the most expensive of the three. I'm sure at some point I'll find a use for this 41 pound monster - maybe if/when the old Denon breaks down :-).

I don't think anyone can fault the external build quality which also looks quite handsome. Onkyo did unfortunately have some electronics failure issues with this generation of receivers however and back around 2016, I sent this unit back to them for an HDMI board replacement (here's a thread on the issue a few years back).

For this post, I think it would be interesting to explore the sound quality of this device as a 2-channel amplifier (especially compared to the little Yeeco TI TPA3116 amp last week). It'll give us an idea of how well a good receiver could perform and give us a peek at a modern Class AB device sitting in the higher end of the consumer price ladder (Class AB receiver amplifier designs have not changed that much in the last number of years). These days a similar tier THX model with equivalent power would be the newer Onkyo TX-NR1030 and TX-RZ1100.

MUSINGS / MEASUREMENTS: Thoughts on Vinyl LP Fidelity... (And thoughts on Sgt. Pepper's 50th Anniversary Remix.)

Alright... Let's not get worked up about the cartoon :-).

I know, the debate between vinyl and CD (digital) remains one of the greatest "wars" of the audio world; not that it should be a big deal IMO... As usual in most audiophile conflicts, there are many words spilled about the topic, but it is rare to see "data" or actual direct comparisons. For example, look at Wikipedia's entry for "Comparison of analog and digital recording" and we see no actual illustration to demonstrate differences.

Years ago, I wrote a little about this here (and I think it's only fair that I have a digital-preferring Batman cartoon). As you know, over the years there are all kinds of vinyl evangelists going around touting the superiority of LPs over CDs and digital overall (and vice versa although I'm not sure the digital camp is as evangelistic). Here's a nice example of all the awesomeness that is vinyl based on someone's opinion.

As I've said before, I agree that there are some great qualities about having an LP collection. So long as you have the space for the non-biodegradable collection, the beauty of the artwork is wonderful. It's comforting and collectable memorabilia. And likewise the sound can be alluring in the same romantic way. For some, the ritualization of the playback process can bring with it that sense of security and physical engagement as well.