Nearly half of U.S. households use LED bulbs for all or most of their indoor lighting

[N8N]

I've heard some remastered CDs where they squashed out a lot of the dynamic range compared to the original disc, apparently in an effort to make the sound seem fuller or louder. It's ironic in a way that this technique is a throwback to the days of vinyl mastering, where you had to limit dynamic range to keep the stylus from jumping out of the groove.

That seems to be a modern thing and platform agnostic. I do hate the "loudness war" type of mastering on any medium. I agree there is no excuse for it; for use in a noisy environment like a car or in a bedroom late at night when a partner may be sleeping, dynamic range can be compressed by DSP by one's gear easily, there is no need to bake it into the recording and deprive those who want to listen more critically.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

While there is a significant subset of audiophiles that do buy some serious snake oil, I guarantee you that just plain old good original pressings from the heyday of vinyl - 60s through early 90s - played on my Technics SL1200 Mk2 (AKA "ones and twos" AKA a turntable that many audiophiles look down their noses at as a "DJ table") with vintage Audio Technica cartridge and JICO Shibata stylus will compare quite favorably to your streams, unless you are streaming at CD quality or better (that is, Qobuz or Tidal in the US, not Spotify). My circa 1963 HH Scott receiver with 7591 outputs would also like a word.

I'm not pooh poohing streaming - I have a Qobuz subscription and love it. However, some time after the CD era we lost our way and are only coming back to the quality of CDs today (however, I'm shameless, and whenever I have some time to kill after work, root through both the CD and LP bins at Value Village to flesh out my collection. We're finally getting to the point though that save for some rarities, most of my collection can actually be streamed through Qobuz, so now it's more of an affectation than a necessity as it was say 10 years ago.)

Tidal, Quboz, Deezer, Apple Music, Amazon Music HD are all CD or better. Of course even 320KPBS MP3 has far lower distortion and better dynamic range than vinyl.

Vinyl is analog signal processing, a coupling of out of phase cross-talk, distortion, almost almost a non-flat frequency response, and higher noise floor compared to its digital counterpart. The crosstalk alone means it can never be considered technically accurate.

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

It appears the train has been driven off the tracks ........

 

[N8N]

Tidal, Quboz, Deezer, Apple Music, Amazon Music HD are all CD or better. Of course even 320KPBS MP3 has far lower distortion and better dynamic range than vinyl.

Vinyl is analog signal processing, a coupling of out of phase cross-talk, distortion, almost almost a non-flat frequency response, and higher noise floor compared to its digital counterpart. The crosstalk alone means it can never be considered technically accurate.

I'm not going to argue that 44.1/16 or better digital files, CD, SACD, DVD-A, etc. are inferior to vinyl, because they're not. However, a well set up turntable with a good cartridge played through a good preamp can easily approach CD quality sound. A lot of negative impressions of vinyl come from ones that have a lot of tar and dirt stuck in the grooves, possible scratches, being played on turntables with bad cartridge alignment and worn styli. My own gear is neither esoteric nor super expensive, most of the cost is in the turntable itself and then my ultrasonic cleaning setup (which is absolutely fantastic, especially when you're buying old, used vinyl.)

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

I'm not going to argue that 44.1/16 or better digital files, CD, SACD, DVD-A, etc. are inferior to vinyl, because they're not. However, a well set up turntable with a good cartridge played through a good preamp can easily approach CD quality sound. A lot of negative impressions of vinyl come from ones that have a lot of tar and dirt stuck in the grooves, possible scratches, being played on turntables with bad cartridge alignment and worn styli. My own gear is neither esoteric nor super expensive, most of the cost is in the turntable itself and then my ultrasonic cleaning setup (which is absolutely fantastic, especially when you're buying old, used vinyl.)

I have an ultrasonic cleaner as well. Absolutely essential. The importance of the phono pre-amp is IMHO greatly over rated. What is not over rated is matching of the pre-loading to the cartridge. Cartridge setup is also very important and most do a poor job. My turntable gets used almost never. Needle drop into the DAC, then digital every play after that.

 

[N8N]

I have an ultrasonic cleaner as well. Absolutely essential. The importance of the phono pre-amp is IMHO greatly over rated. What is not over rated is matching of the pre-loading to the cartridge. Cartridge setup is also very important and most do a poor job. My turntable gets used almost never. Needle drop into the DAC, then digital every play after that.

Eh, it's kind of like cables. Most are decent enough, but a bad one sounds bad, if that makes any sense. I was never happy with TT sound until I ditched a cheap TEC phono pre (that I'd bought years ago to just hook up a turntable to an AVR before I got real serious), while a used Acurus P10 (that I purchased after finding an Acurus integrated in a thrift store - yes really) wasn't super expensive in the grand scheme of things but makes a world of difference. Of course back in the 60s and 70s most receivers had a phono stage that was at least "good" built right in.

Your approach is a modernized version of what more serious guys did back in the day... clean their LPs well, record them at 7.5 IPS, then archive the LPs indefinitely.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

Eh, it's kind of like cables. Most are decent enough, but a bad one sounds bad, if that makes any sense. I was never happy with TT sound until I ditched a cheap TEC phono pre (that I'd bought years ago to just hook up a turntable to an AVR before I got real serious), while a used Acurus P10 (that I purchased after finding an Acurus integrated in a thrift store - yes really) wasn't super expensive in the grand scheme of things but makes a world of difference. Of course back in the 60s and 70s most receivers had a phono stage that was at least "good" built right in.

Your approach is a modernized version of what more serious guys did back in the day... clean their LPs well, record them at 7.5 IPS, then archive the LPs indefinitely.

Let's not go down that cable path. 99.9% of what is discussed with cables in audio is pure fantasy. There are some really poorly designed speaker cables that have a sound due to high resistance. Some interconnects may be more susceptible to EMI, but have 0 "sound". The only cable in a system that reliably can make a difference is a MM phono cable. The capacitance can significantly affect the frequency response.

 

[N8N]

Let's not go down that cable path. 99.9% of what is discussed with cables in audio is pure fantasy. There are some really poorly designed speaker cables that have a sound due to high resistance. Some interconnects may be more susceptible to EMI, but have 0 "sound". The only cable in a system that reliably can make a difference is a MM phono cable. The capacitance can significantly affect the frequency response.

I think we agree more than not. If you're running a quad rig and trying to decode CD-4 cables are absolutely critical. Most places, though, pretty much anything of good quality will work. I have gone down a vintage rabbit hole so I find myself making up a lot of my own cables with Switchcraft ends because the jacks are close together on some 60s gear. When I do most of them end up being 18" or 24" my theory being that a shorter, good quality cable (I usually use Mogami dual mini coax, I forget the part number) will affect the sound less than a 36" super high end cable. It's just physics... the properties of a cable are dependent on length (resistance, capacitance, and inductance) with possibly some small contribution from the ends. So, just make them as long as they need to be to minimize the effects.

As far as BAD cables go, the only one I can really think of that I've had was some good looking yellow jacketed stuff that I found a whole pile of at goodwill. Bought a couple to try because what the heck. Was tracking down some weird interference that sounded a lot like if you remember the noise your computer speakers would make when you were about to get a call on your cell phone, circa 1999. Discovered big honkin' gaps in the shield braid of this nice looking but obviously NFG interconnect. Still didn't 100% get rid of the noise though, I had to line the wood case of my receiver (at the time, Luxman R-1120) with metal foil tape around the phono stage. Turned out, my WiFi router was in the same room as the stereo, and it was picking up interference from that. There was actually some metal foil in the case but not where it needed to be, although it's hard to fault Luxman engineers for not anticipating a wireless device that wasn't invented for a couple decades. Never had a problem with any unit that had a metal case however (obviously)

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

A thick shield can be beneficial not just for the EMI rejection, but for just providing a low resistance ground path to reduce ground loops both at line rate, and from switching supplies and noise. I would even say the latter is more important. There may been some crazy speaker cables out there through either incompetence of intention that have enough resistance (and maybe the odd inductive one), that there will be a noticeable change the frequency response.

 

[PhotonMaster3]

& they won't even know what they're missing.

Even sadder is that they'll probably eventually ban the sale of incandescent household bulbs altogether. Its nice to have the choice. I like my halogens.

So true, my friend. I only use incandescent myself

 

[N8N]

A thick shield can be beneficial not just for the EMI rejection, but for just providing a low resistance ground path to reduce ground loops both at line rate, and from switching supplies and noise. I would even say the latter is more important. There may been some crazy speaker cables out there through either incompetence of intention that have enough resistance (and maybe the odd inductive one), that there will be a noticeable change the frequency response.

Only example that springs to mind is Polk Audio Cobra Cable which in an attempt to reduce inductance, had enough capacitance that it could cause some amplifiers to oscillate which obviously is bad... on the subject of cables I tend to defer to the late Roger Russell, his web page is still up and I agree with a lot of his thoughts.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

Only example that springs to mind is Polk Audio Cobra Cable which in an attempt to reduce inductance, had enough capacitance that it could cause some amplifiers to oscillate which obviously is bad... on the subject of cables I tend to defer to the late Roger Russell, his web page is still up and I agree with a lot of his thoughts.

It was not just the cable, but the amplifiers hooked up. More esoteric amps may not have had required output filtering to ensure they did not oscillate into capacitive loads. Spec games with stupid large bandwidths essentially. Naim supposedly still does. There is a guy making flat cables with crazy alloys that impressed the audio nobs, but all he has done is made an expensive resistive cable (ohms from that I have read). Someone spaced the conductors in another far enough apart that the inductance would start to impact high frequencies.

 

[wws944]

Only example that springs to mind is Polk Audio Cobra Cable which in an attempt to reduce inductance, had enough capacitance that it could cause some amplifiers to oscillate which obviously is bad... on the subject of cables I tend to defer to the late Roger Russell, his web page is still up and I agree with a lot of his thoughts.

Roger passed away! Oh no!

I've had a pair of his ML-1Cs since the 1970s. Emailed him some years ago about repairing the foam surrounds on the 8" and 12" drivers, and he was quite generous with his feedback and advice. He will be missed.

 

[angerdan]

An entire generation will be raised knowing only 80 CRI indoor lighting

Since April 22 2012 there's a cheap and high CRI93 bulb available - exclusive in the U.S.:

L Prize - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Philips brings home 'L Prize' with efficient LED lamp

Philips' 60-watt equivalent LED bulb, expected in stores next year, wins the L Prize for the most energy-efficient and long-lasting lighting product.

www.cnet.com

Philips Wins L Prize, but the Race Is Still on for a Better Bulb

Philips captures the U.S. government's $10 million L Prize for its LED replacement for the 60-watt bulb, but efficient lighting must still win consumers' hearts.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Department of Energy Announce Philips as Winner of L Prize Competition

The U.S. Department of Energy today announced that Philips Lighting North America has won the 60-watt replacement bulb category of the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize) competition. The Department of Energy’s L Prize challenged the lighting industry to develop high performance...

www.led-professional.com

DOE updates the latest L Prize lamp test results, rebate offers

http://ledsmagazine.com/news/9/11/13 What I find impressive is the results are based on an ambient temp of 45°C! After 20,000 hours of operation, the full lot of 200 sample lamps are all still operating. Moreover, the DOE said that average lumen maintenance remains above 100% of their initial...

www.candlepowerforums.com

Major rebates on Philips L-Prize bulb

According to this article: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/22/11248965-60-light-bulb-comes-down-in-price-just-in-time-for-earth-day You can now get the L-Prize bulb for $22 after rebates. Only trouble is I'm finding it hard to locate rebates for my utility (Southern California...

www.candlepowerforums.com

Philips L-Prize LED Bulb 93.4 lumens/watt - 910 lumen output

I'm probably behind the times, but Philips has an ultra high efficiency LED bulb that won the DOE L-Prize. Does anybody know when these are coming out? http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/lightcommunity/trends/l-prize/lprizeinfo.wpd

www.candlepowerforums.com

Is anybody able to buy some of the Philips L-Prize bulbs for me at the subsidized $$?

This is the bulb I'm looking for: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?334754-Philips-Award-Winning-LED-Bulb-Review It is $60 unsubsidized but should be about $22 with utility company subsidy. Can anyone buy me some (maybe about 6 or so)? I can pay via Pay-Pal.

www.candlepowerforums.com

Cree prototype 152 lumen/watt Bulb and Philips entry wins L-Prize

Yesterday, Cree announced a prototype 150 lumen/watt bulb: http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/8/2 I could not understand why the press release and video went to such lengths to repeatedly state that the Cree bulb is not only better than the current L Prize specifications but it was also better...

www.candlepowerforums.com

Article about LED Lightbulb: Build a Better Bulb for a $10 Million Prize

How about this? ------- "Build a Better Bulb for a $10 Million Prize http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/technology/25bulb.html?_r=1&hp Philips has developed an LED light bulb that uses one-sixth the energy of a standard 60-watt incandescent bulb. The ubiquitous but highly inefficient...

www.candlepowerforums.com

 

[LEDphile]

Since April 22 2012 there's a cheap and high CRI93 bulb available - exclusive in the U.S.:

The L-prize lamps were never cheap (retail on them was almost $50 IIRC), and didn't stay on the market much past 2013. Since then, most of the focus was on getting cost down, although cost bottomed out a few years back and performance is creeping back up. It's only been in the past few years that the efficacy penalty for 90+ CRI has been small enough for the shift from 80+ CRI products to 90+ CRI products to make sense.

 

[angerdan]

There

The L-prize lamps were never cheap

Maybe they have been on sale in 2013 and got cheap then ($15).

Best high CRI LED for 12V RV? Thinking of hacking up L-prize as donor

Knowledgeable ones... My brother and wife are going full time RV'ing and have sold their house. I'd like to give him a send off gift of a few high CRI lamps for his 30' trailer. I gave them a L-prize a few months ago, and they were wildly excited. They run it off shore power 110V, when near a...

www.candlepowerforums.com

A series bulbs with high CRI?

So it's been a few years since I've bought any LED replacement bulbs... Yesterday two let go and it's time to go shopping again. Looking for 60-75 watt equivalent, preferably dimmable, good CRI. Last ones I bought were Cree dimmables, they are OK but only 85 CRI. Would be nice if they went...

www.candlepowerforums.com

[/URL]

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/home-depot-led-bulbs-out-of-date.423090/page-2#post-4964196

High CRI LED bulb

My question is - will I really notice the difference between 84 & 90 CRI? If I can't see the difference, there's no sense in paying almost double for a bulb. In a kitchen, work area, bathroom, or dressing area, the CRI is notable and worthwhile. For general lighting such as outdoors, a...

www.candlepowerforums.com

And cheap alternatives had been available from 2014:

New here...im wondering about these Feit 93 CRI BR30s

Has anyone used these? I cant really find any info on them and have been looking for some BR30 and 40 high CRI LED bulbs for a house im building. Thanks!!

www.candlepowerforums.com

Philips announces a new but strange looking bulb

Home Depot's Canadian website is now listing: Philips LED 10.5W A-Line Slim Style Soft White CAD$$11.97 Philips LED 10.5W A-Line Slim Style Daylight CAD$11.97 Philips LED 8W A-Line Slim Style Soft White CAD$9.97 Philips LED 7W A-Line Slim Style Daylight CAD$9.97 A former colleague of mine got...

www.candlepowerforums.com

 

[idleprocess]

Got some 90CRI 5000K Cree bulbs for the office last year and there was a distinct increase in pop as well as perceived brightness vs their predacessors - the original Cree bulb.

The L-prize lamps were never cheap (retail on them was almost $50 IIRC), and didn't stay on the market much past 2013. Since then, most of the focus was on getting cost down, although cost bottomed out a few years back and performance is creeping back up. It's only been in the past few years that the efficacy penalty for 90+ CRI has been small enough for the shift from 80+ CRI products to 90+ CRI products to make sense.

I got the original alien head Philips - which bore a strong resemblance to the L-Prize bulb - circa 2011 and it was a pricey beast at $40 a hit. Took it out of service because I really don't care for 2700K - it's sitting on a shelf somewhere.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

Got some 90CRI 5000K Cree bulbs for the office last year and there was a distinct increase in pop as well as perceived brightness vs their predacessors - the original Cree bulb.


I got the original alien head Philips - which bore a strong resemblance to the L-Prize bulb - circa 2011 and it was a pricey beast at $40 a hit. Took it out of service because I really don't care for 2700K - it's sitting on a shelf somewhere.

I ppopped one of the lenses out of an alien head Philips bulb just to see how many LEDs were behind it and how bright they were. They are crazy bright.

 

[idleprocess]

I ppopped one of the lenses out of an alien head Philips bulb just to see how many LEDs were behind it and how bright they were. They are crazy bright.

Those remote phosphor panels surely contributed to the high price.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

Those remote phosphor panels surely contributed to the high price.

I'm sure it did/ They were overengineered, probably because household LEDs didn't have a track record yet and they didn't know how long the phosphor would hold up under direct thermal contact with the LEDs. Remote phosphor design seemed like a good idea considering.