Can you please explain your motivation for posting this question as your first post on a mountain bike focussed forum?

Why is this relevant?

Was going to say audio books – a colleague did spend 90 minutes each way commute, and found audio books were excellent way of passing the time.

I’ve learned almost as much from audio books as I have on both my degree courses!

Tony don’t worry too much about the cynicism shown in response to your first post. It’s quite normal!

I wrote a similar post (not long after I also rejoined) about how private housing is being concentrated into a smaller number of hands (moderately wealthy people owning more than one property) and this being akin to a re-emergence of a feudal like system.

The baby boomers are dying. They are a very large block of the population and they are thge largst property owning block. As the houses they once lived in become vacant and thus sold, it is possible this will result in a correction.

What may happen however is that the people you would ideally want to have buy the resulting surplus (i.e. first time buyers/millenials buying the houses left over as everyone has finished trading up to the larger baby boomer homes) simply cannot afford them. Instead the relatively wealthy with existing property portfolios leverage these assets to buy more property thus keeping the price high and further disenfranching millenials.

This is such a terrible story but sadly not wholly surprising. It is perhaps however more a product of child deaths being relatively rare more than it is that child deaths by gun are exceptionally high; my point being that you wouldn’t need many child gun deaths for this statistic to become true.

I actually did some research into this subject (gun violence in the US) as I wanted to understand what was really going on.

I looked at rates of gun ownership around the world (firearms per 100 head of capita) and then looked up the data for those countries’ rates of violent crime (one data point) and gun homicide (a separate data point). I then did regression analysis between the two to see if there was any relationship between either of those two data points and rates of gun ownership. It’s a relatively facile analysis but interestingly the value of R was something like 0.01 (note I did this analysis for every country in the world so not a small data set).

However, when you replace rates of gun ownership with the Gini coefficient (the ratio of wealth between the top quartile and bottom quartile, i.e. a measure of wealth inequality) the value of R jumped up to something like 0.7.

The one thing that the analysis doesn’t account for is that whilst there are plenty of other counties with very high levels of gun ownership, Switzerland and the nordics being good examples (which also have vanishingly low levels of both violent crime and gun homicide), the US is so far ahead in those rates (of gun ownership) that they are a complete outlier. there are 122 guns per 100 people in the US. The next closest is the Falklands (66) and the next large industrialised nation is Canada (33).

It’s possible that it is relative abundance rather than actual gun ownership that is the problem. Certainly you cannot make the argument that guns in society leads to high levels of violent crime (and keep in mind that violent crime and homicide is a problem regardless of how it’s perpetrated; the fact that most homicides are executed by gun in a country where guns are legal is not indicative of there being a gun problem per say, more a problem with violent crime).

Very clearly the real problem in the US and elsewhere is wealth inequality. That is what drives violent crime and that is the problem we should aim to avoid in the UK, though we are starting to lose that battle.

As for the child gun mortality rate, I wonder whether accidental deaths are the product of prevalence and thus prevalence drives carelessness; the more guns you have in your house, the more likely it is you will lose track of one and make it available for small hands to play with.

Nice photo’s but as you say, not exactly going to fit well with mine :-). I am hoping to get some of my stuff into a gallery that should be opening soon in Midhurst. If I get in there, do you want me to share your details with the owner?

No it really doesn’t ‘fit’ does it 😆 and that’s totally cool! Yes please, do share my details. That would be awesome thank you.

Southampton Bike Park should be re-opening after a £200,000 refurb

they do but sadly I am stymied with transporting bikes by car so not really an option.

*On your website, on several pages I get a section of text but no accompanying photo. Not sure if this is my computer or your website.

Hmm, that’s not good! Which pages are you looking at? It’s a Squarespace site so it shouldn’t be an issue but it might be that some of the images are quite large (I’m not always good at resizing images to make them more web friendly!)

Audible! Pick all the books you ever wanted to read but didn’t have time or inclination and buy copies of them on Audible and listen to them in the car.

Nick – it’s always a complete joy to discover new art by a talented artist. Your stuff is just fabulous; sincerely I adore your talent! I would love to visit the exbibition and may well just do so. It’s a 90 minute drive so reasonably doable and I will have at least one weekend in May where I am stuck for things to do with the kids so I may just make a day of it out in Southampton with themn. There look to be a few other worthy art galleries in town but I think a 12 and nine year old boy will tire of art quite quickly, Is the Solent Sky worth a visit; if not what else would be a good attraction?

My work is likely not going to fit well with yours! I had an exhibition in a gallery in Brick Lane last year where I prepared three images for display and hopefully sale but sadly, though there was interest, there were no takes. Two of the images are hanging in my house and one is in storage. That would be the image I would like to sell as much as I like the image, it’s a bit too homoerotic for my ‘bi-curious/heteroflexible’ sensitivies!

The image is as follows, limited 1/5 c-type print on super gloss paper, signed and framed 1m x 0.7m:

You can see more of my work here:

Gregory John Turner

My latest project isn’t published on my website yet but a small selection can be found here:

Ivan – The Divided Self

Where can we see your work?

I have some work that’s framed and ready to hang if you need a space filled. They are photographic works, portraits, quite large (1m x 0.7m). Just looked at your venue and I’m not a million miles away.

So the project that I’ve posted a few images of on here – Ivan: The Divided Self – has had some recognition via the online magazine Lens Culture. I thoughtl, vainly I suppose, I would share here. Maybe the wider project is of interest to others here.

The images I submitted into this competition are only a small fraction of the total project, which is likely around 60 images now that I would regard as keepers (probably three times that in images that just won’t ever see the light of day).

I really need to make a selection from that 60 to curate a finished project set that will go on my website, but I just don’t appear to be finished yet! Perhaps I need to publish this project in volumes!
Lens Culture Portrait Awards

Obvious init. Cock ring.

I was not aware there was a *legal* position on this

My understanding is that there is no legal position in any situation unless a court rules on this in conjunction with a pending case. None of the examples cited in this thread (of children’s identities needing to be protected) are legal requirements, rather they are safeguarding requirements.

Surely at that point the child is solely the responsibility of the adoptive parents

In these cases it is because the biological parents still represent a threat to the child.

Railway station platforms is one, and a handful of others I forget now

A lot does rest on what is defined as a public space but railway stations are privately owned by Network Rail. The obvious inference here is photographing a public space that might also be regarded as a target for terrorism. No one can stop you photographing these ares, including public buildings, not even the police, but they might arrest you on the suspicion of planning an act of terrorism. Fortunately simply making a photograph of a building is not enough grounds for suspicion to warrant an arrest.

Because photography is ‘art’ (sometimes a dubious classification) I’m not convinced it’s a get out of jail free card for acting weird.

I’ve only quoted this part but honestly I do largely agree with a lot of what you said in your follow up post.

There are several challenges with the situation you described, the most obvious being that photographing an undisturbed scene is very different to photographing one where your presence becomes known. That knowledge changes the scene quite distinctly. Every Henri Cartier Bresson wannabe wants to shoot ‘street’ without influencing the scene and a child caught in the moment of wonder and beauty (in response to anything, not just the sea), is one of those captures that is both beautiful and important to represent. Reflecting that kind of innocent, wondrous beauty is what helps society to become a better place.

However, the way that particular photographer went about it was indeed clumsy; it’s one thing to recognise the scene, it’s quite another to capture it in a way that is equally sensitive to the scene itself. It’s incredibly difficult to do and it’s why 95% of street photography is garbage. In the case of the guy you encountered, it sounds like the kind of ‘heuristic’ I’ve seen myself many times; a photographer who is more into kit than image making but who recognises the kind of images that are likely to be popular and so paps away clumsily, thinking that they are capturing the decisive moment with a burst of 15fps on a long lens but utterly ignorant of the negative impact they are having around them even if the subject is themselves unaware of their presence.

The reference to inner bias and prejudice is derived from just that heuristic, with the deliciously hypocritical addition of it being a man making those pictures and therefore the predatory nature of men comes into the evaluation. My approach to those kinds of scenes is far more ‘feminine’, (as opposed to ‘masculine’ so this is less about gender and more about gender traits) i.e. sensitive and agreeable rather than clumsy and disagreeable, and yet I’ve still been on the receiving end of hostility because a man with a camera photographing anywhere where there are children is usually seen as a potential threat.

And honestly I understand that heuristic – women are less likely to be child molesters than men! But let’s face it, given that the percentage of men guilty of this is vanishingly small, it’s a good example of what Daniel Khaneman called ‘system one thinking’, fast an automatic but usually inaccurate! I can live with that and it’s rarely a problem for me as a photographer because I’m far more interested in directly interacting with my subjects and making images that are as much a reflection of me as they are them.

Nevertheless, for as clumsy as his approach was, I still don’t think it was weird, at least, not weird in the sense of what he was doing, but perhaps a little weird in the sense that he was either deliberately choosing to ignore the negative impact or else was blithely unaware of it. It was not weird in the senes of the subject matter itself being inappropriate, only in the way he went about it.

At this time I am reminded of the work of Bruce Gilden, whose approach is famously to say ‘go **** yourself’ in response to challenges for his style (he knows perfectly well how disagreeable he is, he just doesn’t care) and Sally Mann, who photographed her own children in some of the most exquisitely beautiful moments I’ve ever seen and yet was still accused of some truly awful things and her children even tried to sue her in later life for the images she made and published of them.

The argument that anyone should be able to take pictures anywhere should perhaps use a bit more understanding of different human circumstances?

It’s less of an argument to that and more that the law is very clear that no one has the right to privacy in a public place. And if you think about it, that’s obviously how it should be since being seen in a public place is no different to being seen in a photograph in a public place.

There are a very small number of people whose pasts make them vulnerable and as such need to try and keep their image out of social media but in those small number of cases (small relative to the population), then it’s easily managed in the situations described above (school settings, sports venues and events etc). Changing the law to include public spaces wouldn’t just be over zealous it would be absurd (since you are by definition in a public space where anyone can see you).

I think that’s getting into bellend/creepy territory, regardless of legality.

That says more about your unconscious biases and prejudices than it does the photographer’s weidness. This is the problem in society currently; there’s an automatic assumption that if you’re photographing children that makes you a weirdo and yet our children are constantly posting (often highly sexualised) images of themselves. It’s one of those ‘through the looking glass’ situations. For the record I don’t do it myself because who needs the hassle of small minded bigots and judgemental idiots but it doesn’t change the underlying problem.

It’s also really useful to talk to estate agents and get their advice. They will usually have a great insight into what would work well (from a useable space perspective) and can also advise on how to balance cost with the value you’d add.

That all being said, if someone asked you, in a reasonable manner, to please not publish pictures of themselves or their children what would your response be?

That would depend on a lot of factors. In general I respect their request (and this has happened a few times including one just recently) because a) who needs the hassle and b) don’t be a dick.

I don’t take candids anyway so this doesn’t often come up as a problem; all my work is arranged and agreed with consent up front. If someone doesn’t want to allow me to publish I typically don’t engage with them in the first place; the right to publish is something I make clear from the outset. Sometimes people try to withdraw that after the event and as I say, I’m most cases I agree to take the image down, but in one or two I have declined to do that, partly because the image was already ‘out there’ and featured in other online or printed publications, in other instances.

It’s a fine line. I’m not Bruce Gilden but then neither am I going to be cowed by vexatious requests.

I know the law on this very well as I am a reasonably accomplished photographer who sometimes exhibits work in galleries and events around the world and people are my main focus. You can’t be a portrait photographer these days without knowing the law!

First off let’s get something very clear. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent you from photographing anyone in a public place irrespective of the subject’s age. Additionally you can then do anything you want with that image except use it to sell a product or promote an ideology. No one has a right to privacy in a public space period. No exceptions.

If you are in a place where that subject has a reasonable right to privacy, for example their home, then whatever image you end up with is bound by their permission to use in any public context. The making of the image is itself against the law if done without consent. Publishing it is another breach of law.

If you are in a privately owned space then the owners of that space set the rules. They can say what you can and cannot do. So if the event you are attending with your child is in say a privately owned hall then the owners are allowed to prevent you from photographing anyone, including your own child.

They do however then need your consent to photograph your child and you can then refuse that right if you wish.

But if you want a picture from that event held in a privately owned space then the event organisers, with the agreement of the space owners, can ostensibly force you to use their photographer.

Hope that helps.

If you couldn’t afford a fancy camera, would you give up photography?

I don’t have a fancy camera though; the equipment i use – a Mamiya RB67 – tends to be very inexpensive, certainly one of the cheapest 6×7 cameras still around today. To give you an idea you can pick these up for maybe £500 in reasonable shape. A more interesting question would be how would I feel if I could no longer shoot film and the answer to that would be that I would go back to shooting digital (I did for a long time anyway).

How much an image is worth is entirely down to the viewer.

Yes indeed; my use of the word ‘worth’ here is deliberately ambiguous however and probably needs several entire threads to resolve the meaning of. I think you understood I didn’t the term monetarily.

Democratisation of art is a bitch huh?

It’s a good point and one I would say ‘yes and no’ to. I think that what the rise of digital cameras in phones has shown is that it’s never been more important to be good at what you do (as a photographer); when the world is saturated with really poor images (and it is) then the ones that are really good stand out and become more valuable as a means to offering us insight into our (human) condition. I, like most people of a certain age, lament the lapsing of our culture into something trite, superficial and, in many ways, hypocritical but ironically, it’s not just popular culture that has headed that way. The world of fine art photography has disappeared so far down a particular political avenue that it’s hard to take seriously any more. Even though I’ve had some success in this area (in terms of recognition and validation), i have to say it sometimes makes me feel uncomfrotable being associated with it. At the very least I am extremely careful not to voice what I really feel in response to some of the work I see. Instead I have adopted a very strict ‘the person in front of my camera’ approach to my work and now steer away from anything overtly political.

Does that mean though, that when I spend ages processing my lofi phone images (which I do) they are worth more than someone with a ‘professional’ setup who throws their images through a paid for Lightroom preset?

I can’t answer that question but I was referring more to the process right up to the point you expose the frame more than the post processing part. There’s no right or wrong answer to this question but when I’ve looked at your images I have found myself trying to understand what it is you’re trying to say; what dialogue do you want to have with me as a viewer of your work? And there doesn’t even have to be an answer to that question either – certainly not one that validates what you’re doing, but since you and I are both here, and you’re showing me your work, then the question becomes implied. We could sit down over dinner with a good bottle of Amarone and within the first few minutes conclude that whilst there was much in our experience of the world that we can enjoy exploring, none of it is related to your image making and that wouldn’t make the conversation less joyous. But it might go the other way; you might articulate some profound thought process I hadn’t seen or recognised.

And yes, all of this could easily be me ‘over thinking’ things and for this I am resolutely and entirely unapologetic. 👍😆

This turned into a very interesting debate and I’m glad it went this direction but it’s late now and I will stop replying.

H

Not a single one of those things depends on the kit being used.

True, and I believe I was saying that in my post. And yet, I’ve not yet come across a photographer making images on their phone that made me feel anything like the above. Not even close, but if you know someone who is, please do show me.

It all depends on whether you see photography as a technical exercise or an expressive process

Again, to reiterate the statement, I see it as an expressive process, where that expression is made by a process that can be either quick and cheap or slow and costly (and I’m not talking about money). Images made quickly and at little cost are less likely to work and are worth less than ones where some one really took the time to create it. The equipment you use does not determine that process, but it does influence it and I will never want to use my phone to create the images that I really care about because I care more about the process than to use something so, well, facile.

Look at the work of people like Jem Southam and Richard Leayroyd as great examples of how the equipment being used demands a certain process to be followed and how the process determines and shapes the image. Leayroyd in particular is a good example because it is utterly impossible for a camera to produce the kind of delicate balancing of light, tone and colour that his images display, precisely because of his equipment and process. It’s similar for Jem Southam, although he’s only using a field camera, which one might almost call a point and shoot set up compared to Learoyd’s approach.

Nadav Kander’s work in The Long River is another example of the sublime beauty inherent in both process and equipment. Those images would never have been as stunning on a phone.

I treat photography as a deep expression of something inside me, more than you might imagine. It is the way in which I express things that are fundamental to me and hopefully fundamental to other people also. I do aspire to move people and change the world with images even if that is perhaps a naive ambition. It is part therapy, part human expression and part exploration of the soul. It is a craft and the permanence of the impressions I hope to make is reflected in the permanence of the substrate on which they are captured. That process is critically important; it has to feel like a craft, which is why I still chose to work with film. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting you have to even shoot film, although that is a good way of trying to explore this subject (which is now way off topic!) as to why the equipment does matter – because it does shape process and that does shape the final image you make.

£3.50 per A3 print is a reasonable price and I doubt you’re going to print it cheaper than that. I can print A3 at home and it costs about that as a minimum at home.

small lenses and small sensors are fine for those who are interested in pursuing photography in a ‘focused or artistic way’

‘Fine’ is fine but fine is not what a lot of people are aiming for. Some people are aiming for ‘blow you away’, ‘make you think’, ‘evoke a visceral emotional response’, ‘change your mind’ or perhaps even ‘change the world’. It’s the difference between an image being ‘just fine’ and one that wins Taylor Wessing, Deutche Borse or a Pulitzer. And an image taken with a mobile phone may well win one of those awards some day, though I think the odds are against it because photographers operating at those levels tend to choose their tools carefully and with thoughtful consideration. But still, that doesn’t preclude it from happening.

Have you considered that you may simply have a personal ‘purist’ preference for chemical vs digital?

Yes of course and I’ve been at pains to explain why and not dismiss the potential for a phone to render a decent image, but to reiterate it’s all about how the camera influences process and how process determines the image you make.

Why don’t camera manufacturers use similar software that to make their products with big lenses and sensors absolutely incredible?

They do, they use things like pixel shift and image stabilisation hardware and their software is all about the signal processing to turn the electrical data into colour and pixels.

That’s why those types of areas are 20 zones

True, I just wish that we would introduce 20 as the standard for anywhere where the road or pavement was narrower than a given width. 30mph where the road is say 8m wide and the houses have a 5m front drive and a 2.5m pavement is quite a different to those where the road is say 4m wide and houses houses have a 1m or less border and pavement.

Brighton is the way to go; everywhere is 20mph regardless. Once you tune in to the fact that you barely save any time driving at 30 as opposed to 20 it’s so much more relaxing.

Sure, so be courteous to those around you and drive at 30.

See this highlights the common problem we have where people believe, mistakenly, that the speed limit is the speed it’s legal to drive at. It’s not. It’s the speed you cannot exceed.

The speed that it’s legal to drive at is the speed which is safe. If you’re on a road outside a school at pick up time, with cars parked down both sides of the road and lots of people milling about, then it’s patently not safe to drive at 30mph. Nor is it really safe to do that on a regular, narrow residential road with cars parked up and down it and very narrow pavements. Context is everything here and 20mph in the right speed in those instances.

I was with you right up to the end, but a quick search online would show that there are plenty of people “pursuing photography in a focused or artistic way” with a phone camera.

Apologies, please don’t interpret my comment as being binary – I am sure there are plenty of people doing this and the fact that I am not aware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If you know anyone producing genuinely interesting work on a mobile phone I would love to know about it. None of the contemporary photographers I admire, love, follow etc use a mobile phone with maybe one exception – Richard Rinaldi – but interestingly each time he posts an image taken with his phone I don’t think much of it. It’s the work he creates with his 8×10 camera that I really take notice of.

The device you use does not prevent you from creating a great image but it can inhibit or limit the results, which again is why so many photographers still use film. That so many acclaimed photographers, i.e. photographers whose results have been recognised as excellent and thus who can offer us some insight into the process of image making, still shooting film that we should probably take notice of this and ask why.

The answer is because the device (the camera and the image substrate) does change our process and our process is how we make images (as opposed to take photographs) and hence my comment that those engaged in image making as a dedicated objective or pursuit, care very much about the device they use to do so. It’s not because the sensor in a camera phone is not capable (excluding the need for things like long telephoto lenses, extremely fast tracking AF and image burst modes, none of which I need ironically for the work I do) of making those images but rather the device is.

I’m hungry, so if no-one minds…

If these are posted to prove a point I am wondering what the point is?

Give more space between me and the vehicle in front, then ignore. Leave it very much in the ‘their problem’ camp

this – has the virtue of also being what the Highway code tells you to do.

Yeah, great comparison

You’re right, it was an obtuse comparison but it was deliberately so to highlight the point, which is that even though a phone is small and light, from a photographic perspective, I (and many others) find the ergonomics dreadful. The lack of a view finder is the most obvious limiting factor but shutter lag is perhaps the biggest issue as is the lack of any kind of dial based/intuitive manual control. For point and shoot of anything that isn’t moving and is all in the correct FOV for your focal length or doesn’t require a very considered and finally timed ‘moment’, they work really well. Which is why they are just fine for people who are only interested in taking snaps rather than pursuing photography in a focused or artistic way.

Clearly not. A phone can only be used for voice calls…

If I gaffer tape a camera to my home home phone it’s still just a phone but now with a camera strapped to it. The camera phone is just like this. Unwieldy I’m use and massively limited.

There isn’t a photograph I’ve taken that I would ever want to see the light of day that I could have taken on my phone.

Apple literally spend billions of dollars a year in R&D to make sure their phones are better at taking pretty much the exact sort of photos you want to take!

It’s still just a phone.

I took this with the Samsung, but you can see it’s dynamic limitations.

You can but realistically there isn’t a digital camera you can buy that would have not resulted in some highlights being blown.

I probably wouldn’t have stopped at all

I understand this. Cameras do shape process and process does shape the final image. I never take anything more than dull crappy family memory snaps on my phone because as an ergonomic device it sucks for image making.

This connection between equipment, process and image is the reason most fine art photographers, and even some commercial photographers, still insist on shooting (large or medium format) film; the medium changes your response to the scene, ironically precisely because of its limitations.

Really? Interesting question, I had a retort but thinking about it the issue may not be as clear.

To be fair, I meant more the environmental impact on my (small) house rather than the planet as a whole 😂 my living room is only 3.8m by 3.6m and where to store what would now be around 1000 albums would be a real challenge. How to navigate them is also tricky, as in experiencing the flow of music.

Oddly, I always thought my listening would end up becoming a little fickle if I moved to ripped/download/streaming as I thought it would encourage flitting from one track to next. Actually I still find myself listening to a complete album maybe 90% of the time.

That doesn’t really explain a lot.

Bless Paul, I think he’s a really lovely bloke and he’s built a very successful audio company (so he clearly does know at least something about electronic engineering as applied to audio equipment) but yes, his videos do tend to be a little superficial!

Most people don’t care why something sounds different/better they just appreciate the difference and then choose to enjoy A versus B. The only time this becomes a problem is when (usually obstinate) engineering types who A) don’t really care about music, B) have never listened to the differecnes and C) do not fully understand the nuances and intricacies of audio equipment design, insist that because music is just zeros and ones or because there is nothing that can be measured and changing, it cannot possibly sound different or make any difference. Even this isn’t really the problem; the real problem is that they deliver that scathing refrain in a way that implies (usually it’s not even implied but quite direcet) that you’re an idiot for thinking so.

BTW I’m not even remotely suggesting that this is you Molgrips or indeed anyone on this thread.

A downloaded copy of the same album sounds better (on my sytem, to my ears) than a streamed one in every instance that I have tested it. I don’t care why so much as I care that buying the media A) gives me more enjoyment and B) give the artist an income.

The camera you have with you is the one you chose to take. If taking pictures is something you really care about, you will choose to take the camera that works best for you and gives you the results you want.

If you find that the camera you have with you is just the one you happened to have (because it’s actually a phone not a camera), then you didn’t go out to take pictures, you just went out (out) and the pictures are incidental so the camera you use is largely irrelevant.

The camera I have with me when I go out to take pictures weighs about 4kg and is the size of a small dog.

Having the CD and ripping it means your music is all under your own roof at whatever quality you want!

I’m not sure I get the point of buying the CD only to then rip it rather than just buying a download veresion from say Qobuz or Tidal? I’ve heard that there is a difference to be heard between different ‘bit perfect’ copies of an album ripped by different software (for example DBAmp, which is the product I used to rip 600 CDs at the end of 2020 when I built my new system), but I’ve not heard that demonstrated and if nothing else, the environmental impact of buying the CD compared to download persduades me that download is an easy choice.

The one other thing I have mentioned several times here in this thread but which no one has picked up on is the value that using Roon brings to the whole experience of music listening. It really is an amazing interface and adds so much value when accessing content from either a NAS drive or streaming service.

It’s definitely nothing to do with error rates. That’s complete nonsense given the tcp error correction and packet replay. It’s actually where streaming is superior to a cd transport.

This video, by an actual audio engineer, explains where the errors in streaming data come from. It’s not in the data but rather than timing. The engineer in the video explains that packet data contains no timing information. I have to take his word for that since I’m not a designer of audio equipment and he is.

I was lucky enough to take Philosophy of Science in my final year and was taught by Popper himself.

Just wow! I read his book, ‘All Life is Problem Solving’ in adult life and it was one of those texts that had a profound effect on how I see the world (the singularly most profound book I have read in that regard was The Politics of Experience by R D Laing but Popper is right up there). That you were taught by him is quite a thing!

Thanks for your response also btw, I very much apprecaite it.

When we put the cds on suddenly the music was more powerful and exciting

Your streaming sound can be just as good and likely way way better than your CD player into the DAC, you just need a really good music server. It’s your source in a set up like this and the quality of the box makes a ton of difference.

Some of the best pics I’ve taken have been with a phone. It’s all about composition and artistic expression, it’s bugger all to do with image quality.

And yet so many of us still shoot film so there’s at least something in the aesthetics of the image rendering that matters.

I will test Spotify and tidal and Qobuz.

Whilst you’re at it, do make sure you have a listen to some high res files on Qobuz. A really good album to listen to is Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories, which is available in 88/24 but is also a supremely well engineered album. Enjoy.