Dave Garrett

A couple of sites that have general guidelines: https://success.highfive.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001923611-Recommended-TV-Picture-Settings-all-brands- https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/how-to-calibrate-your-tv There are other sites out there that have ballpark settings for specific TVs - they can usually be found by Googling the specific manufacturer and model of a TV and "recommended settings". Going a bit further, there are several calibration discs that can be used to fine-tune things with more precision than generic recommended settings. Spears & Munsil has one for UHD/4K displays: https://www.amazon.com/Spears-Munsil-Benchmark-Blu-ray-Disc/dp/B07Q2KBDKV Note the reviews which point out that you have to get the detailed instructions for use from S&M's website as there's no documentation included with the disc. S&M also had an earlier version for 1080p displays (Disney's WOW and Digital Video Essentials were two other 1080p calibration discs that were generally well-regarded). Using one of these discs will get you about as far as you can go short of hiring an ISF-certified professional to calibrate your TV.

aka the "soap opera effect", hence the shot live to video look. I haven't made the leap to 4K yet - still using a 1080p plasma panel. When I bought it, the first thing I did upon setting it up was to turn off motion smoothing and crank the torch-level brightness and jacked-up sharpness settings way down. Those changes alone probably got it to within 80% of what a professional calibration could accomplish.

I've never been a fan of the near-religious devotion espoused by both Mac and Windows camps. Use the proper tool for the job at hand, and if there are two reasonably equivalent alternatives, well, then it comes down to personal preference. The first desktop computer I ever bought 30 years ago was a high-end Mac IIx. It was eye-wateringly expensive, and wound up getting stolen a year or two after I got it when my apartment was burglarized. Ever since then, I've owned Windows machines, mainly because they've usually been a lot cheaper than Macs, particularly when you build your own machines, as I did for a long time. When it comes to phones, my first smartphone was an iPhone 3G, and I've been sold on iPhones ever since. None of the things that tend to perturb Android devotees about Apple's hardware and OS (non-user-serviceable battery, no ability to add storage via memory cards, limited user control over the filesystem, etc.) have ever really been an issue to me. Having worked in IT professionally, I can tell you that most of the network and infrastructure guys I've known have been solidly in the Android camp due to Android's vastly superior access to nuts-and-bolts configuration settings within the OS by end-users, but again, that has yet to really be a deal-breaker issue for me. As with many other things, it's frequently a matter of what one is already used to and comfortable with.

I think you've got the right idea as far as the 11 being the "sweet spot" of Apple's newly-revamped lineup. If you don't need (or want) the top-of-the-line camera or OLED screen, the 11 provides a lot more bang for the buck than the Pro models, just like the XR did in last year's lineup. I'll admit to being awfully tempted by OLED screens every time I look at one, but so far not enough to pay the required premium to get one. mjzee's advice is spot on. I'd just add that if you're not under contract with a carrier, you may want to think about buying the phone from an Apple Store instead of an AT&T-affiliated store, particularly if you intend to purchase an AppleCare plan. Apple's iPhone Upgrade Program includes interest-free financing of the phone over a 2-year period and AppleCare, and if you choose to do so, you can trade in your phone and upgrade to a new one every year, otherwise you own it outright after the two-year note is paid up. It's a pretty good deal even if you don't intend to upgrade, now that carriers no longer heavily subsidize the cost of phones the way they used to. I have a 3-year-old 7 with 128GB and will probably replace it with an 11 this year. I almost bought an XR last year, but wound up procrastinating long enough that I eventually figured I'd just wait until this year's new models were released. I used to always be bumping up against the memory limit with older iPhones I've had with less memory (32GB and 64GB), but haven't gotten close to doing so with this one, however, I don't store a lot of music on it either, mainly just apps, photos, videos, and ebooks. Oh, and the ability to read/reset trouble codes in my car's ECU using my phone is a function I can't live without, but I'm damn sure not paying a carrier a monthly subscription cost to do so. I use the OBD Fusion app and a $20 OBD II wi-fi dongle I got from Amazon that plugs into my car's data port. Arguably of questionable utility with a relatively new car that rarely throws codes, but for those of us with older cars it's a godsend.

Ran across this interesting 2015 piece from the Voice on Twitter earlier today: A Step-By-Step Walk Through ‘Just Kids’ and Patti Smith’s New York

This is certainly true (and it's why most of the Blu-rays I buy are non-mainstream titles that aren't available on any streaming service), but streaming is in its relative infancy now, and it's invariably the case that whenever a new format/delivery method comes along, whether audio or video, it's always the warhorses that get released initially. It takes time for a format to mature, but once it does, that's when the esoterica starts becoming available. Also, consider that for every audio format since the dawn of recorded music, there have always been titles that never wind up getting released on a newer format once it supersedes the previous one. Think about the music that was only available on wax cylinders and hasn't been made available again since then. Or 78s. Or LPs (God knows *that* list is near-endless). Or CDs. And inevitably, there will at some point be music that has only been released as a digital file, or via a streaming service. 'Twas ever thus.

I'd venture that the fact that studios don't "allow" DVDs to be ripped to a server has stopped very few film buffs with home servers, and they're not losing any sleep over the legal ramifications of doing so. Yes, there's a bit more involved than there is when ripping a CD, but it's still not an overly complicated process. I don't think studios care much about DVD or Blu-ray sales anymore - as an example, look no further than the drastic staffing cuts in the home video divisions of practically all the major studios over the past couple of years. The studio heads are probably almost rubbing their hands with unrestrained glee, because the ascendance of streaming and the accelerating obsolescence of physical media will allow them to return to a pre-VCR model where they once again have near-complete control over how, when, where, and how often movies are viewed, and consumers that want to gain and maintain access are forced to pay a subscription fee. The studios thus gain a recurring per-user revenue stream in perpetuity, instead of the one-time purchase of a physical disc. The big software companies like Microsoft and Adobe are well ahead of the studios in this regard, having shifted their cash-cow applications from one-time license purchases to the monthly/annual subscription model over the past few years. Many people hate subscriptions, but enough of them capitulate that it more than offsets the lost revenue from those who refuse to do so. The same thing will happen with movies, probably even more so as people are acclimating quickly to the idea of streaming services as a (for now) less-expensive alternative to cable television.

Ran across this SI piece a couple of weeks ago about a particular aspect of the game I was almost totally ignorant of: Mud Maker: The Man Behind MLB’s Essential Secret Sauce

FWIW, Automattic, the parent company of WordPress, just acquired Tumblr a couple of weeks ago. Not sure if that'll eventually mean more integration between the two platforms or not, but either way Tumblr's certain to be in better hands than it was with Yahoo/Verizon.

I couldn't resist the urge to see what Google would turn up related to the search string "Anton Webern's genitals". I wish that I could report that an impressive amount of rarefied genito-musical depravity was the result, but sadly, the only two hits of substance were this post and your similar one at rmcr.

Background and Pennebaker's comments here.

Sanchez was outstanding in his first start in an Astros uniform today - a no-hitter through six innings and only three baserunners allowed (two walks and a hit batter). Was kinda surprised they didn't send him back out for the seventh, but he was at 92 pitches and apparently hadn't gone more than 5 2/3 innings in any of his recent starts.

Oh, no doubt there's a *lot* of bullshit of various flavors on view over at Hoffman, but there's also enough of merit there that I continue to find it a worthwhile exercise to sift through the chaff in search of the wheat. Your question about the Decca sources is fair. I'm sure the details will surface given a little time - the set was just announced, after all.

I don't know Zev Feldman, but I read the comments in question the same way (modulo the usual disclaimer about intent often being hard to gauge on the internet in the absence of visual cues) - maybe not calling them liars directly, but certainly implying intent to deceive or obfuscate. I certainly understand a healthy skepticism about new releases, but the team involved with this one had immediate credibility with me, having read and respected their contributions for years at the Hoffman forum. Jordan's probably forgotten more about Cole than I'll ever know, and Matt's done some pretty exceptional work documenting the variances in sound quality within the Sinatra and (to a lesser extent) Cole catalogs: http://11fifty.com/Site_108/Welcome_Sinatra_Cole.html IMO, they've earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt. Your mileage, as the old saying goes, may vary.

Well, on a huge deep-curve screen, I can see 5 front channels giving more of an illusion of directionality than may really exist, especially in a movie like GRAND PRIX with the cars zipping back and forth within the frame. As far as the subwoofer, 6-track mag can deliver pretty substantial low-frequency effects without one, given the right sound mix and B-chain. Around twenty years ago I saw a 70mm print of BEN-HUR with 6-track mag, and when it got to the scene with the thunderstorm and Christ on the cross, the rumble was definitely visceral and quite impressive.

AFAIK, Super Panavision used 6-track mag sound (five channels up front and a mono surround channel). There's a summary of the format specs here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/superpanavisionspecs.htm in contrast with Ultra Panavision's specs: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/ultrapanavisionspecs.htm

I have both. The second one has the tracks from the three albums it covers in their original running order. The Legendary does not - they are inexplicably reordered. I've read that this change pissed Gilberto off, which is cited as one of the reasons World Pacific didn't reissue the CD once supplies of the original pressing dried up. Also, digital reverb which was not present on the original LPs was supposedly added as well, but I've never had the opportunity to hear the original LPs, so I can't say with any certainty whether that's the case.

I might wet my pants if I ever got the chance to see a Super Panavision print of GRAND PRIX projected in a Cinerama theater. There are really no other racing movies that compare, with the possible exception of Steve McQueen's LE MANS. I believe the optical compensation or rectification wasn't done for any of the Super Panavision films like GRAND PRIX, only for Ultra Panavision films. Instead of an anamorphic squeeze being applied uniformly across the frame, rectified prints had a gradient squeeze, with no anamorphosis at the center of the frame but applying it increasingly toward the edges of the frame. So when such a print was projected on a deep-curve Cinerama screen, the squeeze along the sides of the frame was offset by the curved sides of the screen and appeared to be unsqueezed.

There are at least a couple of different releases of the early recordings on a single CD:

I've seen both ophthalmologists (who are medical doctors) and optometrists (who are not) over the past fifty years that I've worn glasses. Over the past 15-20 years, I've seen an optometrist who is rapidly approaching his 50th year in the practice. Based on my experiences with him, I'd have to challenge the blanket statement that optometrists don't have the equipment or training to detect vision problems, with the big caveat that not all optometrists are equally skilled. The optometrist I see has equipment that goes well beyond the basic phoropter that all optometrists use, specifically, image capture equipment to aid in examining the inside of the eye and the retina after the pupil has been dilated, for patients that are deemed to require such examinations. In my case, he had detected a weak spot in my retina some years ago but determined that it only required observation unless it changed significantly. A couple of years ago, I developed a small hole in my retina, and as I had a pretty good idea of what was going on, immediately went in to his office. He confirmed my suspicions and sent me directly to the ophthalmologist/retinal specialist he refers patients to when needed, who performed an in-office procedure that addressed the problem. Returning to the big caveat I mentioned above, he has sold his practice recently in preparation for retirement, but is (for now) continuing to see patients. I am not too impressed with the new optometrists and staff that have joined the practice in preparation for the eventual transition, so I may very well return to seeing a general ophthalmologist once he finally retires. I'm having a similar problem finding a new dentist, as the one I'd been using retired last month after a similarly lengthy career practicing dentistry. Too many of the dentists I see now seem to be more interested in upselling expensive cosmetic procedures rather than focusing on the cultivation of long-term patient relationships via the provision of basic, old-school dental care.

This debate comes up every time LEDs are slated to replace sodium lighting. The LEDs definitely take some getting used to (when the streetlights on our street were updated, I initially thought it made everything in the area look like a prison yard at night), but it's hard to see the change as anything but inevitable - they put out more/brighter light, they last much longer, and they use far less energy. Oh, and Jim, I did the same swapout over our kitchen sink, and my wife was not happy at all. They definitely stand out compared to the remaining incandescent bulbs in the kitchen. In retrospect, I should've probably done a bit more research on the color temperature before buying.

Put off by the above description? Shit, that sounds like a must see, and the framegrabs only serve to reinforce that feeling! Added to my Prime watchlist posthaste.

That does suck. I had intended to get a copy eventually, but it wasn't a high priority since I have the earlier Reprise CD and it was unclear to me if the ZFT version was a significant improvement. Guess I'll continue to wonder, as I can't see paying what will almost certainly be inflated prices now that it's no longer available.

Someone's just a tad peeved with the Mets' closer (NSFW)