DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 00:42:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You will be interested in
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

"INTRODUCTION
Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and
percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40
kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement
limit of 102.4 kHz.

so what? you can't hear any of that.

Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet,
to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows
no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this
paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot,
triangle, jangling keys, and piano.

you can't hear that either

The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most
instruments; but for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another,
0.5%; for claves, 3.8%; for a speech sibilant, 1.7%; and for the
cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at
the measurement limit, so its percentage may be much higher.
The spectra in this paper were found by recording each
instrument's sound into a spectrum analyzer, then "prospecting"
moment by moment through the recordings. Two instruments (clarinet
and vibraphone) showed no ultrasonics, and so are absent here.
Other instruments' sounds extended high up though at low energy. A
few combined ultrasonic extension with power.
The mere existence of this energy is the point of this paper,
and most of the discussion just explains why I think that the
spectra are correct, within the limits described below. At the end,
however, I cite others' work on perception of air- and
bone-conducted ultrasound, and offer a few remarks on the possible
relevance of our spectra to human perception and music recording.'
................

"SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS
Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20
kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human
perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above
20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al.
claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of
alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the
absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of
sound quality."

one claim says it matters, zillions say it makes no difference.

They said that about relativity too.

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.

But the brain can. And we don't know exactly what that means.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.

But the brain can. And we don't know exactly what that means.

if the brain can tell, then why doesn't that show up in double-blind
tests?

because it *can't* tell. that's why.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 01:45:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.

But the brain can. And we don't know exactly what that means.

if the brain can tell, then why doesn't that show up in double-blind
tests?

because it *can't* tell. that's why.

Some people are utterly tone-deaf: they can't tell God Save the King
from Pop Goes the Weasel.

A considerable number can follow a tune sufficiently well to make
Apple's fortune.

Another small group have perfect pitch and can tell whether or not a
singer has made a bum note.

There even are a few who can tell pure musical intervals of tuning
from well-tempered tuning.

The fact that bulk testing of human auditory acoustic ability doesn't
necessarily show anything is not at all surprising, especially when so
little is understood about what is being tested.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/31/2015 12:42 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You will be interested in
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

"INTRODUCTION
Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and
percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40
kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement
limit of 102.4 kHz.

so what? you can't hear any of that.

Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet,
to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows
no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this
paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot,
triangle, jangling keys, and piano.

you can't hear that either

The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most
instruments; but for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another,
0.5%; for claves, 3.8%; for a speech sibilant, 1.7%; and for the
cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at
the measurement limit, so its percentage may be much higher.
The spectra in this paper were found by recording each
instrument's sound into a spectrum analyzer, then "prospecting"
moment by moment through the recordings. Two instruments (clarinet
and vibraphone) showed no ultrasonics, and so are absent here.
Other instruments' sounds extended high up though at low energy. A
few combined ultrasonic extension with power.
The mere existence of this energy is the point of this paper,
and most of the discussion just explains why I think that the
spectra are correct, within the limits described below. At the end,
however, I cite others' work on perception of air- and
bone-conducted ultrasound, and offer a few remarks on the possible
relevance of our spectra to human perception and music recording.'
................

"SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS
Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20
kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human
perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above
20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al.
claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of
alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the
absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of
sound quality."

one claim says it matters, zillions say it makes no difference.

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.


You seem to forget that hearing is only one method of sensing waves. But
that's OK.

--
PeterN

On 07/31/2015 12:42 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You will be interested in
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

"INTRODUCTION
Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and
percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40
kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement
limit of 102.4 kHz.

so what? you can't hear any of that.

Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet,
to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows
no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this
paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot,
triangle, jangling keys, and piano.

you can't hear that either

The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most
instruments; but for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another,
0.5%; for claves, 3.8%; for a speech sibilant, 1.7%; and for the
cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at
the measurement limit, so its percentage may be much higher.
The spectra in this paper were found by recording each
instrument's sound into a spectrum analyzer, then "prospecting"
moment by moment through the recordings. Two instruments (clarinet
and vibraphone) showed no ultrasonics, and so are absent here.
Other instruments' sounds extended high up though at low energy. A
few combined ultrasonic extension with power.
The mere existence of this energy is the point of this paper,
and most of the discussion just explains why I think that the
spectra are correct, within the limits described below. At the end,
however, I cite others' work on perception of air- and
bone-conducted ultrasound, and offer a few remarks on the possible
relevance of our spectra to human perception and music recording.'
................

"SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS
Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20
kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human
perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above
20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al.
claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of
alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the
absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of
sound quality."

one claim says it matters, zillions say it makes no difference.

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.

Where might one find this authoritative double blind study? Can you cite
an author? A URL for the study?



--
Ken Hart

On 7/31/2015 1:45 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.

But the brain can. And we don't know exactly what that means.

if the brain can tell, then why doesn't that show up in double-blind
tests?

because it *can't* tell. that's why.

Wrong.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.

But the brain can. And we don't know exactly what that means.

if the brain can tell, then why doesn't that show up in double-blind
tests?

because it *can't* tell. that's why.

Wrong.

prove it.

meanwhile, countless double-blind tests show that there is no
difference whatsoever. people do no better than chance. in other words,
they're guessing.

if there really was a difference, then people would be able to hear it
and be able to identify which is which, and they consistently show that
they *can't*.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Another small group have perfect pitch and can tell whether or not a
singer has made a bum note.

In my younger days I had a sense of perfect pitch. Cheap instruments
were an anathema, as I could tell whether the sour notes were from my
kids learning issues, or it was the instrument's fault. My younger
daughter played the violin and viola. Quite often I would tell her to go
back four or five bars and correct her play. She nearly always agreed
that she made a mistake, and would correct it.

that has absolutely nothing to do with analog versus digital.

On 7/31/2015 1:05 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.

But the brain can. And we don't know exactly what that means.

if the brain can tell, then why doesn't that show up in double-blind
tests?

because it *can't* tell. that's why.

Wrong.

prove it.

Ken Hart asked for a citation to the double blind studies. (patiently
tapping my foot.)


meanwhile, countless double-blind tests show that there is no
difference whatsoever. people do no better than chance. in other words,
they're guessing.

if there really was a difference, then people would be able to hear it
and be able to identify which is which, and they consistently show that
they *can't*.

Oh!

--
PeterN

On 7/31/2015 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Another small group have perfect pitch and can tell whether or not a
singer has made a bum note.

In my younger days I had a sense of perfect pitch. Cheap instruments
were an anathema, as I could tell whether the sour notes were from my
kids learning issues, or it was the instrument's fault. My younger
daughter played the violin and viola. Quite often I would tell her to go
back four or five bars and correct her play. She nearly always agreed
that she made a mistake, and would correct it.

that has absolutely nothing to do with analog versus digital.


Except the discussion was human ability to sense overtones and undertones.

--
PeterN