DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

In article , Ken Hart
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.

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

there have been countless such studies and people do no better than
chance.

i've posted a couple of urls over the years. here's one:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly
superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word
lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD
standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests
comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing
high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a
16-bit/44.1-kHz ³bottleneck.² The tests were conducted for over a
year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems
included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with
electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The
subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a
university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test
results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at
normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of
the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible
only at very elevated levels.

there doesn't actually need to be a study because it's something that
can be mathematically proven.

an audio cd contains more information than a vinyl record and a digital
camera captures more information than film. anything vinyl or film can
do, a cd or digital camera can do better.

nevertheless, there are always those who claim to hear things or see
things that aren't actually there or they have an agenda, such as
trying to sell something to ignorant people like monster cable or other
'audiophile grade' parts.

there are also those who believe that the earth is flat and that the
moon landing is faked, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.

some people don't care about actual facts.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.)

no you're not.

In article ,
Whisky-dave 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?

but our eyes can only distiquish 10 million colours.

and we can sense done to 7Hz.

so what? low frequencies aren't the problem.

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

but it can for teh same reason in tests it is found that music affectsa taste
buds,

music does not affect taste buds.

what the hell are you smoking?

and the colour or lighting effects the way food tastes especailly red meat
and red wine in red light apparently.
We can't see IR but we need sensors filtered from it.

The info is here.
https://noivad.wordpress.com/2012/05...is_not_enough/

no it isn't. that link is rubbish written by yet another idiot who
doesn't understand sampling theory.

if you don;t understand it fair enough, but it is explained quite well I
think.

i understand it much better than the idiot who authored that web page.

try a textbook on sampling theory.

Just like photography when you go to digital as with JPEG your choping the
light levels and colours into disctete levels, once this has happened theres
no going back as it a destructive process and until nodestructive editing
exists in digital then it won't be the same as the analogue version.

this isn't about lossy compression.

obviously if you lossy compress something, it will be different,
however, high quality jpeg is indistinguishable from the original.

As Processing Goes Up, So Does Distortion

Every level of processing outside of the digital realm adds noise--that's
just the way electrical circuits work. So the idea is to record with as
little processing as possible (usually just light compression to avoid
clipping), then process the audio non-destructively. However, once the sound
is digital there is no going back. Once it is digital you can do all sorts of
things except fully the analog source.

more rubbish. you can reconstruct the original analog source from
digital (given proper sampling of course).

Upon output, the signal again is
converted and processed. The processors have gotten better and cheaper, but
this whole conundrum could be mostly avoided by simply updated the baseline
sample rate and bit depth to match today's digital abilities.

they're already more than adequate.

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.

no it wasn't.

On 7/31/2015 2:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.)

no you're not.


You still have not provided a link to any of the peer reviewed
"countless studies."

--
PeterN

On 7/31/2015 2:06 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.

no it wasn't.


Twist ignored

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.)

no you're not.

You still have not provided a link to any of the peer reviewed
"countless studies."

yes i did. try reading before posting.

still waiting for your 'proof' that people can tell. when can we expect
that?

On 7/31/2015 2:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.)

no you're not.

You still have not provided a link to any of the peer reviewed
"countless studies."

yes i did. try reading before posting.

If I missed the link, please provide it again.


still waiting for your 'proof' that people can tell. when can we expect
that?

Proof of what?


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.)

no you're not.

You still have not provided a link to any of the peer reviewed
"countless studies."

yes i did. try reading before posting.

If I missed the link, please provide it again.

it was posted within seconds of the post you replied to saying i didn't
post it.

still waiting for your 'proof' that people can tell. when can we expect
that?

Proof of what?


from above:
because it *can't* tell. that's why.

Wrong.

prove it.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:06:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

nevertheless, there are always those who claim to hear things or see
things that aren't actually there or they have an agenda, such as
trying to sell something to ignorant people like monster cable

I had a cheap HDMI cable once with a bad connector. I'm sure Monster
cables are better. Just not 10x the price better. Or even 2x. I'll
continue to take chances on bad connectors, especially when I've had
maybe 1 bad one in several hundred cheap cables. Oh, I had a bad mic
cable once, too. Monster also makes those, and oddly enough, they're
about the same price as other pro-level cables. I guess they think
musicians are smarter.