ALAC, FLAC and WAV are the highest resolution available from most online stores. There needs to be a hi-def revolution before that will change.

For anything better there are only a few outlets and the choice of albums is frankly rubbish. It's HDCD all over again.

Then, as you say, you need the right equipment to get the most out of it.

@utiler said:

I think iTunes downloads in mp3 from memory....

That's right, although I can't understand why they don't make ALAC available.

If I do buy a digital only release it's rarely from iTunes. I usually buy direct from the artist/label via Bandcamp, where you have a good choice of formats like ALAC & FLAC (I normally grab both of these: ALAC for iTunes and FLAC for burning to CD). Otherwise I'll use Juno download as they offer WAV format.

I don't have much experience with other formats, so Michalis will probably have a much more informed opinion.

Well that's another problem/issue.

In addition to the overuse of compression and higher recording levels, I have noticed a trend towards mixing recordings in a way that is very neutral.

The best recordings in my view are coming from artists who research and try to reproduce techniques used by studios in 70s, 80s and 90s - I'm thinking of vintage funk, dub and hip-hop.

I hear what you are saying Michalis and agree with everything up to a certain point.

Accuracy and precision are only part of the story. In the same way mixing can change the qualities of a recording, the equipment used for playback also adds it's own character to the sound. That's why I like the philosophy behind Naim; they aren't necessarily aiming for accuracy, but rather a dynamic and engaging musical experience.

If anything I think a 100% precise reproduction of a recording could sound very flat and clinical. I could be wrong and I'll have to explore the possibilities when the availability of physical formats becomes an issue.

@solo said:

I bought a surround sound system a few years ago for a very reasonable price and it seems to do the trick pretty well so far. I am not a purest when it comes to the quality of sound as long as it is crisp to my ear it's fine.

For most folks a surround system should be more than capable of giving you a great experience. When compared to higher end kit, a lot of people simply can't even hear the difference in sound quality.

I think you need a good ear and a huge music collection to justify paying silly money for a separates system. Even then hi-fi is still a very subjective interest and you'll be lucky to find two people who agree 100% on equipment and setup choices

I think the quality of CD depends a lot on the player and the engineering of the recording.

In my opinion high end CD players match or even better turntables at reproduction, but they don't come cheap.

Where CD falls down is the over use of compression. Major labels compress the hell out of recordings and often engineer the music to sound more like MP3. Sometimes they even use compressed CD recordings to cut the vinyl they put out!

Luckily I mostly buy music from small labels and independent artists who put a lot of effort into the engineering of their music.

I've got two setups.

For the office I use an Arcam CD player and amp with Dali Lektor 1 speakers. It's quite a modest bit of kit, but it can really belt out anything I throw at it. I'm also hooked up to my PC via a Cambridge DAC, although I mostly listen to music on CD (the quality is just far superior to iTunes or internet radio).

In my living room I've got a much better all Naim setup. It's a CD source again, although I do have an LP12 turntable as well. I can stream music to the system, but it just highlights the huge difference in quality between CD and downloads.....which is a good job, as I've got enough CDs to start up my own chain of music stores.

The main change over the years has been upgrading to better and better hi-fi components and the switch from vinyl to CD. Vinyl just isn't convenient for listening to music all day while I work and since only a fraction of new releases are on true analogue vinyl, I decided it was time to drop the wax.

On top of that I do listen to a lot of internet radio, but that's mainly a means to discovering new music that gets added to my physical collection.

Hard drive or streamed music is the future, but it will be a while before we get the bandwidth for cloud-based high-def audio and then we need a standardised high quality format that's used by all outlets and universally compatible with hardware.

Then again, I have a feeling that we might see a future where people buy both physical and virtual formats simultaneously. There is something about handling a tangible physical disc and packaging that adds to the listening experience.

Thanks for sharing the model. It was really generous of you to include the pre-subdivision proxy as well

Time to throw a spanner in the works.

What about the new cadmouse? 3dconnexion hasn't let me down with their peripherals so far, so maybe their new mouse is the way to go?

Has anyone had a hands on test yet?

Thanks again for the help

Thanks for the advice (I hadn't thought of doing it that way) it's much appreciated

What I ended up doing was a little simpler. Whilst using the Match Photo scene I used the plugin to correct the camera and then simply added a new scene. The new scene gives me the Match Photo I need and the camera settings are locked in place.

Docking doesn't seem to work - not sure what I'm doing wrong.

Also the Match Photo scene isn't saving the changes I've made. So every time I return to the Match Photo scene I have to use Camera Tools to manually edit the Eye settings.

Is that normal?

Big thanks for the help JQL!

Camera tools did the trick perfectly . For some mysterious reason it was the 'Eye' settings that had changed since last opening the file.

Thanks guys .

I'd already tried adjusting the field of view, but it just snaps me out of the camera match scene (which has a FOV of 8.01 deg).

I'll give Thomthom's plugin a go and hope that works. Otherwise I'm going to have to probably start again from scratch.

I seem to have run into an issue with Photo Match.

I've been working on a scene, had everything aligned properly and did a lot of detailed modelling. I put the project on hold for some commercial work and also installed the latest update for 2015.

Returning to the project most of the modelling is now misaligned with the photo, but correctly aligned with all axes. The guide points for matching the photo are in their original locations, as is the the origin point. Also the part of the model that starts at the origin does align with the photo - it's everything further away that doesn't align properly.

It's almost as if the field of view has changed.

Trying to adjust the Match Phito guides doesn't help. The only way way I can re-match the photo is to move parts of the model closer to the camera.

Has anyone else run into this problem?

If this is an issue with the latest update, is it possible to revert to an older version of 2015 (I should still have the installation file)?

It's an overlay done with Photoshop.

I could have rendered it with a wire procedural, but doing it in post was going to be quicker.

Just a very simple bottle opener that I had to knock together in a rush.

The model and proxy are available to download from the 3DWarehouse

I might be available to help out, depending on your deadline and budget.

See my signature for my contact information and portfolio.

@box said:

Obviously my 35 years of working with molten glass are meaningless.

Pretty sure I didn't say that or give cause for you to take offence.

If you aren't bothered about the topology and the model/render works for your purposes, then you've done a good job. I was just offering some friendly advice on how you could improve the model next time around.

And just because I can see the difficulty in making the design in reality, it doesn't follow that I think you don't know what you are doing and you are not up to doing the job.

@panixia said:

i was only pointing it in case you did'nt know of the control loops stuff, when you know what you are doing, "rules" can be broke here and there

Makes sense to me.

Molten glass has a much greater surface tension than something like honey, so whilst you will get deformation when pulling away gathers of glass, flat surfaces will tend to remain pretty even.

If I was modelling this I would add control loops and then move their position to allow for varying degrees of deformation/stretch.

I'd forget about actually making it in glass as it would be an absolute nightmare. Pulling multiple gathers off the plate whilst maintaining it's shape is one thing, but then adding in a pre-blown centre piece and twisting the gathers before everything collapses is insane....and then you'll have to keep everything in place whilst reheating the plate so that it will form-fit with the wood.....aaaarghhhh!!!!