Vacuum Tube Motherboard?

[adriel]

Vinyl: As long as there is turntablism, there will be turntables and fresh vinyl.

A digital amplifier and a SACD as the source will wipe the floor with vinyl and a tube amp, but you're not going to ever admit that.

There are factors you aren't taking into consideration. One would be entirely reasonable to prefer the vinyl recording of a song over the SACD version if the vinyl version was mastered better. There are bad sounding vinyl records just as there are bad sounding SACD discs, such as those fake SACDs which come from standard resolution PCM masters.

Tell that to George Lucas...the movie was shot entirely on digital in case you were not aware of that.

I was aware, but what's the point? The HDW-F900 digital camcorder still needs particular attention to contrast and highlights while filming, because it lacks the contrast ratio of film. Also, the colors in Episode II indeed are saturated like the film look. Note, this color saturation is not how digital camcorders shoot. It was purposely added in order to give Episode II a genuine filmy movie look. Otherwise it would look like a soap opera. This brings me to my aesthetic point about film: digital video is too realistic and not beautified enough; it must borrow from the film look. In order to do this, lens filters, diffusers, etc. and post production are used to saturate the colors, blur the image, lessen the depth of field to be more like film, in order to give it the film look. The time for digital video to stand alone as its own established art form without any crutches from the film look has not come.

I see enormous arguments in audiophile forums about for example which $250 (or more) / meter speaker cable is better.

Which forums? My experience is the opposite. People on forums who use $250-$2000 cables act professional although they are in the hobby for the pure enjoyment of it, they respect each other, share experiences, help each other out and share knowledge with entry-level beginners. It is the inexperienced audiophile who can't handle audio discussion at a professional level and who tends toward flame wars...

I don't think anyone disagrees that many audiophiles say that analogue is better.

Just as many audiophiles claim that digital is better. The wiser ones realize that there will never be a perfect implementation of either a digital or analog recording format since that would be impossible. They realize that both analog and digital systems are colorations of the sound. In the end they are able to enjoy the music using whatever coloration they find more acceptable.

 

[Stereodude]

[quote="Prof.Wizard]$500 is little for good analog equipment. Are you familiar with the prices of golden-needle pic-ups?

Get an issue of whatever Photography magazine you want supporting your second statement, and scan it and post it here.[/quote]
That was the whole idea Prof. For $500 you can't get any good analog stuff so I win by default and for $100k I can get 20MP+ backs for a 5x7" view camera. It's easy to win if you play the limiting game.

Stereodude

 

[Stereodude]

No, I think the problem is that I'm the ONLY in this forum supporting that analog is better, while the rest of you try to convince me for something that is against physics. Too bad cause if you do a Google search with the key words of our issue you'll most probably find more people (and audiophile sites) supporting my position and not yours. And with facts that go beyond my time to post them here. (Yes, you may have time-to-lose, time, but I do not. I'm on vacation now.)

Is this actually part of your legitimate argument? You can find associations of child molestors online and groups of people who think the the earth is flat and groups of people who are looking for the plane that hit the pentagon (because they say didn't really hit... *sigh*)

Just because the lunatics gather on the net and have web pages where they all try to encourage and support their delusions doesn't mean they're correct. It only means they've gathered online.

Stereodude

 

[Stereodude]

Which forums? My experience is the opposite. People on forums who use $250-$2000 cables act professional although they are in the hobby for the pure enjoyment of it, they respect each other, share experiences, help each other out and share knowledge with entry-level beginners. It is the inexperienced audiophile who can't handle audio discussion at a professional level and who tends toward flame wars...

You've got to be kidding. I've mixed it up with the best of them on AVSforum. If you were to post a topic like "Vinyl really better than CD?" You will end up with hundred of posts from the rank and file zombies who will flame and mis-information you to death with drivel about how DA converters have jagged waveforms and how vinyl sounds closer to the actual master than a CD. They go on and on and on...

They do not show any respect for anyone else. They can't say, "Well you like your digital and I like my analog. Lets just listen to music." That would defy their very nature. They can't admit that because digital is not "musical", or is "unlistenable". They're views are so twisted that they are bothered in their soul when someone says that they can't hear a difference in digital interconnects, or when someone dares to suggest that speaker cable is speaker cable. Double blind (ABX) test aren't valid. Nothing with these people is valid. Only their little agenda and how they feel like pushing it.

Stereodude

 

[time]

Note, this color saturation is not how digital camcorders shoot. It was purposely added in order to give Episode II a genuine filmy movie look.

All motion pictures are tinted in some way or another. For an extreme example, see Dick Tracy. There is no such thing as a single "filmy look".

In order to do this, lens filters, diffusers, etc. and post production are used to saturate the colors, blur the image, lessen the depth of field to be more like film, in order to give it the film look.

These techniques have little or nothing to do with the medium being analog or digital. The big advantage that digital has is you don't necessarily have to get it 100% right at the shoot. There's way more scope in post production.

Look, two years ago I would have agreed with you about cinematic film, but times change fast. The advantages to any studio are huge, and two or three years from now I'd expect all sizeable productions to be digital. The weaknesses diminish every year while the advantages grow.

Of course, niche areas like Imax will be analog for quite some time. The same situation exists with medium format still photography.

It is the inexperienced audiophile who can't handle audio discussion at a professional level

Professional? That's not the right word. Electronics engineers are professionals. People who spend thousands on speaker flex definitely aren't.

Don't get me wrong. I have no objections to a recording engineer using valve preamps or whatever floats their boat (unless they're recording an orchestral performance or something). Most pros understand the effects such devices add, and how and when to use them.

My complaint revolves around the straightforward definition of fidelity. I want to hear what the producer intended me to hear, not how I think it should sound. It's like your approach to food in a restaurant. It's usually considered an insult to the chef to add salt, even though you may prefer it. If others want to color their sound to their taste, that's fine by me. Just don't outrage my sensibilities by claiming the chef forgot the salt, and the food just can't be as good without it.

...digital video is too realistic...

Sorry, but a free kick like this just can't be ignored.

 

[adriel]

I've mixed it up with the best of them on AVSforum.

That explains it then. AVSforum...sheesh it's worse than Audioreview. I didn't mean that I wasn't aware of the bad forums, just that I spend most of my internet time at the better mannered audio forums.

Time, I appreciate your clarity on the issues.

Professional? That's not the right word. Electronics engineers are professionals. People who spend thousands on speaker flex definitely aren't.

That would be an even more twisted use of the word "professional"--defining electronics engineers as professionals and then stating that people who spend a certain amount of money on speaker cables can't be professional, as if that had anything to do with their chosen career or precluded them from being electronics engineers.

I'm afraid I see the ranks of audiophiles as being a very closed club of snobs where the price of entry is the right bunch of highly expensive equipment...I see enormous arguments in audiophile forums about for example which $250 (or more) / meter speaker cable is better. As has been said earlier, at that stage you are mostly listening to the equipment and not the sound.

I checked out a generic storage forum recently, and being an ordinary kind of guy who isn't too techish and doesn't know much about computers, I'm afraid that I saw the ranks of computerphiles as being a very closed club of snobs where the price of entry is the right bunch of highly expensive equipment...Geforce video cards, SCSI arrays, 1600MHz computers. I see enormous arguments in storage forums about which $250 (or more) hard drive is better. Sometimes I think that at that stage those computer geeks are just arguing over the details of the hardware and are missing the whole point of what computers are for: word processing and email and AOL.

 

[Cliptin]

Note, this color saturation is not how digital camcorders shoot. It was purposely added in order to give Episode II a genuine filmy movie look.

All motion pictures are tinted in some way or another. For an extreme example, see Dick Tracy. There is no such thing as a single "filmy look".

This is quite true. I was revisiting my copy of Three Kings(excellent movie) for a first scene for James' thread. Anyway, In the DVD extras area they talk about what film stock they used.

Very early in the film they used regular film stock but bybassed one of the processing steps, a process called bleach bypass. It gave the picture a slightly washed out but high contrast look. They called it edgy. In the second third of the film they used Ektachrome. The same stuff used in a regular camera. It gives lots of saturation but whatever speed film they were using did not register light very quickly. On some shots which panned from light area to dark area, they had to reshoot with additional lighting because nothing could be seen in the dark area.

To film directors and directors of photography the important thing is not how you get the look but that you get the look. The look is all important. They've been working with traditional film for what, 80 years. It is only a matter of time before folks get enough experience to be able to bend digital film to their will.

 

[adriel]

In order to do this, lens filters, diffusers, etc. and post production are used to saturate the colors, blur the image, lessen the depth of field to be more like film, in order to give it the film look.

These techniques have little or nothing to do with the medium being analog or digital.

But they do have to do with film versus video. Even an amateur with a DV camcorder would know not to shoot with some of the defaults. He would shorten the depth of field (manual focus, neutral density filter, etc.) so that everything is not in focus at once; video has more depth of field than 35mm film for the same given angle. He might also use the full frames setting at 24fps in order to capture the motion blur characteristic of 24fps film. In post he might even apply digital effects to add other film characteristics, being able to pick from a long list of virtual film stocks from different manufacturers.

 

[Tea]

Depth of field is a function of the apature, and (b) the focal length of the lens, nothing to do with the recording medium, except isofar as a faster film (or film substitute) allows the use of smaller apatures.

PS: how the heck do you spell "apature"? I know that is wrong but I dunno what is right.

 

[Cliptin]

aparature

 

[NRG = mc²]

<sigh>

Aperature

 

[NRG = mc²]

Scratch that.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=aperture&r=2

Aperture

 

[Stereodude]

I was aware, but what's the point? The HDW-F900 digital camcorder still needs particular attention to contrast and highlights while filming, because it lacks the contrast ratio of film. Also, the colors in Episode II indeed are saturated like the film look. Note, this color saturation is not how digital camcorders shoot. It was purposely added in order to give Episode II a genuine filmy movie look. Otherwise it would look like a soap opera. This brings me to my aesthetic point about film: digital video is too realistic and not beautified enough; it must borrow from the film look. In order to do this, lens filters, diffusers, etc. and post production are used to saturate the colors, blur the image, lessen the depth of field to be more like film, in order to give it the film look. The time for digital video to stand alone as its own established art form without any crutches from the film look has not come.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Digital projectors have a better contrast ratio than film based projectors. Digital cameras can keep up with film in the contrast department. Digital can capture very vivid and very well saturated images. Look at what digital cameras do. They don't have that "soap opera look" you refer to. They're not that different from the imagers in a digital movie cam. There is no inherent problem with the fact that it's digital.

The soap opera look you're referring too is due mostly too the lighting and limitations of NTSC. NTSC can't do much better than a 20:1 contrast ratio. Digital movie cameras do not have the limitation of NTSC and they do not suffer from the same problems.

Stereodude

 

[Stereodude]

Professional? That's not the right word. Electronics engineers are professionals. People who spend thousands on speaker flex definitely aren't.

This leads me right into a mini rant I was thinking about this morning on the way into work. Audiophiles somehow believe that dropping big bucks on something or the ability throw money around like it's worthless makes them "experts" or knowledgable about something.

Scott Adams (the writer of Dilbert) said that in order for a company to be sucessful they must market to the stupid rich. Lets be honest here. That's what a lot of high end audio outfits do. They sell pipedreams and misinformation and they do so for a lot of money. I'm not 100% certain that I want to called most "Audiophiles" stupid, but I would certainly say they're being taken advantage of. Stereophile and the rest of the elitest magazines do nothing but propagate the BS. They take advertiser money and give glowing reviews.


The fact is when it comes down to it the "Audiophile" is someone who lives in a self fufilling delusional fantasy. Richard Clarke (a respected name in car audio) offered $10k (USD) for anyone who could "hear" the difference between any two car amplifiers. There are some basic rules for the comparison such as the amps can not be distorting and their levels must be matched precisely. People could use whatever speakers they want, and compare any two amps. They were allowed to even compare tube amps to solid state amps. It was all fair game. All someone had to do to get the money was sucessfully ID each amp 12 times in a double blind test. Suffice it to say Richard still has his money.

He even expanded the test to allow home amps to be compared. We've got people who talk about difference in amps that were so large their, "wives could hear the difference in the other room." No one from AVSforum even had the balls to step up and try it. They all swore they could take his money in their sleep, but no one stepped up. They tried to nitpick at his rules and said they weren't fair or were biased against them. Eventually all those complaints were put to rest and the thread turned into a discussion of statistics. They claimed that even if one person could tell the difference between the two amps it wouldn't prove anything because it wasn't statistically significant. It was just one excuse after another. They are willing to do almost anything to avoid reality.

Stereodude

 

[Pradeep]

It was just one excuse after another. They are willing to do almost anything to avoid reality.

Sounds like Mac users :mrgrn:

 

[Cliptin]

Oh, the irony.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Get an issue of whatever Photography magazine you want supporting your second statement, and scan it and post it here.

That was the whole idea Prof. For $500 you can't get any good analog stuff so I win by default and for $100k I can get 20MP+ backs for a 5x7" view camera. It's easy to win if you play the limiting game.

Stereodude[/quote]
Too bad cause you're on both wrong. It's laughable cause by this and only this statement you made me understand you know nothing about photographic cameras.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Is this actually part of your legitimate argument? You can find associations of child molestors online and groups of people who think the the earth is flat and groups of people who are looking for the plane that hit the pentagon (because they say didn't really hit... *sigh*)

Just because the lunatics gather on the net and have web pages where they all try to encourage and support their delusions doesn't mean they're correct. It only means they've gathered online.

Stereodude

I knew you were weird from the moment I saw your photo... :lol:

 

[Cliptin]

Oh, the irony.

That was supposed to refer to the two offers of spelling to be followed by wnother offer of correct spelling.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I'm off this thread. Nice hearing various opinions, seriously.

Flagreen, thanks for reminding us of this new A-Open mobo.

 

[Clocker]

You definitely can't argue with Nyquist on this one. Any digital signals we hear are sampled at a high enough frequency such that we're non the wiser.

On the other hand, if you like the noise associated with an analog signal, you might prefer it.

Nonetheless, digital is the more accurate signal.

C

 

[adriel]

Depth of field is a function of the apature, and (b) the focal length of the lens, nothing to do with the recording medium, except isofar as a faster film (or film substitute) allows the use of smaller apatures.

I've heard this before. Typically it is said that DOF is determined by the aperture, focal length, and distance to object, but not by the medium whether digital sensor or film. However, this ignores the magnification differences required to achieve a given print size, due precisely to the difference between the digital and film mediums. The magnification required in most all digital cameras is greater than that of a 35mm camera to achieve a given print size. Therein is the difference in the DOF, as the DOF lens scale is based upon acceptable Circle of Confusion on the final print which is scaled according to magnification.

André's N-times-F Rule:

"The depth of field of a digital camera with a lens of the 1:N focal length equivalence ratio at a given F-setting is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with a lens closed down to the aperture number of F multiplied by N."

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/index.html

Andrzej Wrotniak's DOF Conversion Rule (outdated by André's rule):

"The depth of field afforded by a digital camera at a given f-stop is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with its aperture stopped down 5 more f-stops."

http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/exposure.htm#andrzej

In terms of 35mm still flim cameras versus a digital still camera, I believe there are digital still cameras which have caught up to their film counterparts in terms of resolution. However, when it comes to 35mm motion film versus digital video, the situation is different. The consumer miniDV format is limited to around 720x480--you can't just increase the megapixel resolution to achieve larger images as it has been done with digital still cameras, due to NTSC specs. As for more professional digital formats, a professional HDcam such as that used in Episode II achieves 1920 x 1080 resolution. Note, some motion pictures scan 35mm for post at slightly above 4k resolution. 2048 X 1556 scanning or a 1828 X 1332 off set are also used. Note the lower vertical resolution offered by the HDcam in Episode II. Although it convinced Lucas that it was indistinguishable once viewed on the large screen, it is irrelevant from a pure technical perspective of numbers superiority. Digital Betacam and DVCPro are what, less than HDcam's resolution? Anyway, they're for broadcast and such.

Interesting 35mm grain-pixel discussion:

http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html

 

[James]

... I'm afraid that I saw the ranks of computerphiles as being a very closed club of snobs where the price of entry is the right bunch of highly expensive equipment...

I think this is one of the points I was making.

 

[adriel]

You definitely can't argue with Nyquist on this one. Any digital signals we hear are sampled at a high enough frequency such that we're non the wiser.

You sure can argue with Nyquist. Any sampler knows that a 16kHz sampling rate isn't sufficient to fully capture the lowest notes on a piano. That is because there are many overtones on low piano keys which are audible, and a 16kHz sample isn't enough to capture the higher overtones, causing the sample to sound darker than it is in real life.

Nyquist holds true for steady state waveforms, but real acoustic waveforms, like transients, are constantly changing in frequency, amplitude, and phase in a non-linear fashion. Compare the sound of a cymbol on a cd and a sacd, say, Kind of Blue cd/sacd and match the volumes.

Interesting:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/16438.html

Nonetheless, digital is the more accurate signal.

It is important to realize that not all digital is the same. Of all people, certainly computer geeks should understand that implementation is key. Not all hard drives with the same digital interface and spindle rate will perform the same. A poorly implemented digital recording and playback system will suffer compared to a properly implemented analog recording and playback system.

On the other hand, if you like the noise associated with an analog signal, you might prefer it.

Well, a digital recording must first be converted to an analog signal before you are able to hear it... Digital has its own associated noise and problems. On a SACD disc, even a direct to DSD recording, everything above 30kHz is pure noise. Proper design was necessary to push the extreme amounts of noise out of the audible range. There are drawbacks to digital (cd, sacd, dvd-a, 50kHz soundstream, md, etc.) just as there are drawbacks to analog (1/2 inch, cassette, vinyl, 8 track, vhs audio, etc.) Implementation is key. Every digital audio format is a tradeoff. Whether or not they are more "accurate" than their analog counterparts is a subjective judgement rather than an objective one, because the problems that affect each are different rather than exactly shared.

 

[adriel]

You're right James. I thought your comparison was interesting, and so made another one in the same vein.

 

[Stereodude]

You sure can argue with Nyquist. Any sampler knows that a 16kHz sampling rate isn't sufficient to fully capture the lowest notes on a piano. That is because there are many overtones on low piano keys which are audible, and a 16kHz sample isn't enough to capture the higher overtones, causing the sample to sound darker than it is in real life.

Nyquist holds true for steady state waveforms, but real acoustic waveforms, like transients, are constantly changing in frequency, amplitude, and phase in a non-linear fashion. Compare the sound of a cymbol on a cd and a sacd, say, Kind of Blue cd/sacd and match the volumes.

You're missing one important detail. Relative to what the human ear can percieve sound waves are "steady state"

Humans can't hear a sound that's shorter than about 1/60th of a second. Even in this short of a time a 20kHz waveform has had several complete cycles. In this regard it is for all intents and purposes a "steady state" waveform. This means that Nyquist's theorem still applies.

If you want to take it to the extreme you can calculate how short in time a 20kHz note would have to be in order to not be properly sampled at 2x the sampling rate. Then please report back to me if a human is capable of perceiving something that short.

Stereodude

 

[Cliptin]

Stereodude, most of this is going over my head but, is it possible that something that can not be heard can color something that can be heard during the performance/studio time but then be lost by the time it somes out of my speakers?

 

[adriel]

They sell pipedreams and misinformation and they do so for a lot of money.

For every dishonest one, there's an honest one.

This audio link is funny, a spoof really, "Can millions of Japanese be wrong?"

http://www.mothraresearch.com/

 

[The Grammar Police]

Stereodude, most of this is going over my head but, is it possible that something that can not be heard can color something that can be heard during the performance/studio time but then be lost by the time it somes out of my speakers?

No. (Sorry, it's Stereodude's question, but I couldn't resist jumping in.)

If a frequency is audible, it is audible, if it's not, then it is not. Simple as that. You can't hear 44KHz. The presence of 44HKz tones in a sound, any sound, is undetectable by human beings. (Unless you use instrumentation, of course.) Naturally, this is equally true of other frequencies beyond the range of human hearing - roughly, 20Hz to 20KHz.

Assume, for the moment, that your speakers are capable of reproducing 44KHz, likewise your amp and so on. The only difference you will be able to hear between a sound that contains a 44KHz component and an otherwise identical sound that does not, is any inability of the reproduction system to deal with the total signal. For example, if you are playing a sine wave test tone at 1KHz at 75% of the maximum volume that your system can produce, and you add a 44KHz test tone, also at 75% of maximum system volume, you will get audible distortion because your amp and speakers are overloaded. (Silly example, but it will do for current purposes.)

"Coloration" is a very useful term sometimes. However, audible coloration, any audible coloration, is (like everything else you can listen to) simply a change in the shape of the waveform. A "colored" signal has a different shape. If the coloration is audible then the waveform shape change is (and must be) occurring somewhere within the 20Hz to 20KHz range. "Bending" the output wave more slowly than 20 times a second (20Hz) produces no effect whatever (bar giving your speakers a hard time - speakers hate DC and a 5Hz signal (for example) is close enough to DC as makes no difference in this context). "Bending" the waveform more rapidly than 20,000 times a second (>20KHz) produces no effect either: that portion of the total waveform which lies between 20Hz and 20KHz, which is the only part of it we ever hear or detect, is completely unaffected. (Bar in circumstances similar to the silly example I gave above.)

 

[The Grammar Police]

Adriel. Thanks for your post about depth of field. It hadn't occurred to me that there were different magnification factors at work. That is a very important point to remember.

I guess I depends, then, if we are taking a theoretical or a here-and-now-practical one. From the theoretical standpoint, the image size is an irelevant detail of implementation, where from a practical standpoint I see (from your post) that current implementations of digital "film" impose restrictions on lens design that current implementations of silver nitrate do not.

 

[Bartender]

Just a thought: If a wave length is beyond our natural ability to hear, cannot the effect of the wave length be seen, felt, or heard as it resonates through some other material and thus still be useful in applying some type of physical effect?

 

[The Grammar Police]

You can most certainly see low frequency vibrations. Just pop the front off your speakers and pump some bass guitar through the woofer. You will see that allright. I forget what the lowest frequency an electric bass produces is, about 50Hz, I think. But you could see way lower than that.

And you can feel low frequencies too, of course.

As for seeing HF, I don't think so. And feeling HF? Dunno. Might be dangerous! What would a 50KHz tweeter do to your fingers?

 

[Bartender]

I was thinking of low frequencies. High frequencies would probably results in destruction, such as glass breaking.

 

[Cliptin]

I was thinking of low frequencies. High frequencies would probably results in destruction, such as glass breaking.

I have heard that low frequencies that can not be heard can be directed at someone and make them feel queasy. Some non-lethal weapons research.

As for what I think you are asking Bartender, at that point you are not listening to the music but to the acoustics of the room, table, nicknacks,....

Keep in mind 1hz is one cycle per second; and you can certainly see that.

 

[Cliptin]

Keep in mind 1hz is one cycle per second; and you can certainly see that.

Oops, depending on the amplitude.

 

[Handruin]

Keep in mind 1hz is one cycle per second; and you can certainly see that.

Oops, depending on the amplitude.

I've also read that very low frequencies with very high Db can stop your heart.

You should see some of the photos of car audio competitions when the do the Db drag race. People have reinforced front windows to keep them from breaking. One video I saw had a girl sitting in a truck and her hair was blowing in the wind from the subs. Funny stuff.

Some church organs can produce frequencies lower then we can hear...you definitely feel those.

 

[Handruin]

Regarding audio in the digital sense, has anyone heard of this?

Ogg Vorbis, the open source audio compression format, went gold today

 

[Stereodude]

Some church organs can produce frequencies lower then we can hear...you definitely feel those.

Some pipe organs have ranks that have a note at 16Hz. However, most organs do not have pipes that long. Most stop at 32Hz.

Stereodude

 

[NRG = mc²]

Talking about low frequencies, a friend of mine has some 1970s audio equipment including a monsterous Sansui 4 channel radio-amp (with humungous heatsinks the back), and a pair of Cerwin-Vegas whose cones we measured to be 65cm. Needless to say, these are more than capable of creating their own earthquakes. Or in fact their own weather

Check out part of the video we made of them some years ago, you can hear things in the cupboard shaking.

www.rotting-energy.net/Forums/comp.avi

I don't know about hearts stopping, but CDs will not play anywhere near the speaker if its turned up - as a result we moved the computer into the living room and played MP3s instead for this video. The volume was nowhere near maximum setting (no we didn't try).

To sum it up: things vibrate themselves across the table and fall off if you keep it loud for enough time.

 

[Stereodude]

www.rotting-energy.net/Forums/comp.avi

They look big, but I can't make out the cone moving in that video.

Stereodude