DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

On 7/31/2015 9:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

human hearing is 20hz-20khz.
Not necessarily true. Stop cherry picking facts.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml

*your* link confirms that 20khz is the upper limit.

There is far more than your overly simple 20-20 statement.
Do read on. Do look at the lower limit.
Hey buster, this ain't my first time to the rodeo.


The range of human hearing is generally considered to be 20 Hz to 20
kHz, but it is far more sensitive to sounds between 1 kHz and 4 kHz. For
example, listeners can detect sounds as low as 0 dB SPL at 3 kHz, but
require 40 dB SPL at 100 hertz (an amplitude increase of 100).

so what? that has nothing to do with digital audio.

did you have a point? no, you didn't.

My point is that you are a FOS blusterer, and are misrepresenting facts
about what is involved in digital audio. It is clear from your postings
that you have no idea what you are talking about. I have a strnge habit.
I look at reality before investing, or recommending an investment. You
are pathetic.
The only reason I even bothered, is so that no one here relies on your
audio advice.
EOD


a cd can hold up to 22khz.
22khz20khz.

CDs are becoming obsolete.

so what?


What they can or cannot do is not relevant.

NB. You will run into noise issues at the higher frequencies.

no.

Good thing the world of sound engineering does not rely on you.


there are those who claim to hear ultrasonic frequencies and others who
claim to see infrared and ultraviolet light. they can't (other than
cataract patients who sometimes can see infrared but that's not a
normal human condition).


cataracts are a quite normal human condition.
Unless a condition affecting 90% of the people over 65 is not a normal
condition.

more of your bull**** twisting.

surgical removal of the lens and replacing it with a manmade one is not
a normal human condition.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It has something to do with the ability to discriminate between
different standards of recording.

yet nobody can reliably do that. they do no better than chance.

they might *think* they can, but they can't.

Prove your statement with specifics, or it will be presumed to be false.

double-blind studies, one of which was linked.

do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no
better than chance (unless you rig the test).

Not peer reviewed.

as i said, do your own tests and have them peer reviewed.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

human hearing is 20hz-20khz.
Not necessarily true. Stop cherry picking facts.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml

*your* link confirms that 20khz is the upper limit.

There is far more than your overly simple 20-20 statement.

no there isn't.

Do read on. Do look at the lower limit.

lower limit is not the issue. nyquist puts a limit on the *highest*
frequency.

Hey buster, this ain't my first time to the rodeo.

it sure looks like it.

The range of human hearing is generally considered to be 20 Hz to 20
kHz, but it is far more sensitive to sounds between 1 kHz and 4 kHz. For
example, listeners can detect sounds as low as 0 dB SPL at 3 kHz, but
require 40 dB SPL at 100 hertz (an amplitude increase of 100).

so what? that has nothing to do with digital audio.

did you have a point? no, you didn't.

My point is that you are a FOS blusterer, and are misrepresenting facts
about what is involved in digital audio.

i'm not misrepresenting *anything*.

It is clear from your postings
that you have no idea what you are talking about.

it's clear that *yu* have no idea what you're talking about or you
wouldn't be bringing up irrelevant crap like low frequencies, something
that will easily be reproduced even with low sampling rates.

I have a strnge habit.
I look at reality before investing, or recommending an investment. You
are pathetic.
The only reason I even bothered, is so that no one here relies on your
audio advice.
EOD

eod, yet you babble more below.

a cd can hold up to 22khz.
22khz20khz.

CDs are becoming obsolete.

so what?


What they can or cannot do is not relevant.

it's very relevant since it's proof.

NB. You will run into noise issues at the higher frequencies.

no.

Good thing the world of sound engineering does not rely on you.

this isn't about me, no matter how desperately you try to twist things.

this is about sampling theory, aka nyquist-shannon, something that the
world of engineering relies upon, not just sound engineering relies
upon.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:13:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It has something to do with the ability to discriminate between
different standards of recording.

yet nobody can reliably do that. they do no better than chance.

they might *think* they can, but they can't.

Prove your statement with specifics, or it will be presumed to be false.

double-blind studies, one of which was linked.

do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no
better than chance (unless you rig the test).

I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of
Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different
from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected.
This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded
better, the Quad or the Naim.

Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and
couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the
double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On
the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been
listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in
these results in no uncertain fashion.

But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the
results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID
sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and
an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that
this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did
something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a
capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally,
he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad
behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad.

From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in
sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I
expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not
important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that
reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening
even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind
test.

I have already cited
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm which in turn
cited

"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."

So it appears sounds which most people agree are beyond the range of
human hearing "can affect the perception of sound quality". On that
basis high frequency sounds should not be ignored.



At this point I intend to revert to something to do with photography.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:34:42 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/31/2015 7:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:38:08 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Nospam has provided a link in the past. I think an organisation called
the American Acoustic Society carried out a series of tests and then
reported the inability of people to discriminate between various
standards of highness of fi. Unfortunately, although full descriptions
were not given, there appeared to have been various standards of
everything including environment, source, amplifier and speakers. The
people carrying out the tests were well meaning but I think they were
wasting their time.

Was that countless peer reviewed studies?

I don't think so.




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

Proof of what?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:47:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

Nospam has provided a link in the past. I think an organisation called
the American Acoustic Society carried out a series of tests and then
reported the inability of people to discriminate between various
standards of highness of fi. Unfortunately, although full descriptions
were not given, there appeared to have been various standards of
everything including environment, source, amplifier and speakers. The
people carrying out the tests were well meaning but I think they were
wasting their time.

translated: they didn't get the results you wanted.

Translated: they were a bunch of amatuers. I would pay much more
attention to them if the tests were conducted by a good experimental
psychologist.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:09:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-31 23:48:20 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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

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.

That's the article of which I have just written in another post:

" .... carried out a series of tests and then reported the
inability of people to discriminate between various standards of
highness of fi. Unfortunately, although full descriptions were not
given, there appeared to have been various standards of everything
including environment, source, amplifier and speakers. The people
carrying out the tests were well meaning but I think they were
wasting their time."

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

Surely you don't think mathematics defines the world? At best, all it
does is try to describe it. In the current context, you seem to have
no understanding of where the mathematics does and does not fit the
generation of sound and its detectiion by humans.

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.

This gentleman requires that you bow three times in his direction
whenever you say that:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/LR--3938.jpg


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.

You should read Heisenberg.

What would Shrödinger's Cat have to say about that?

"Where is the bloody cat door?"
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:47:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

That's the article of which I have just written in another post:

" .... carried out a series of tests and then reported the
inability of people to discriminate between various standards of
highness of fi. Unfortunately, although full descriptions were not
given, there appeared to have been various standards of everything
including environment, source, amplifier and speakers. The people
carrying out the tests were well meaning but I think they were
wasting their time."

as i wrote there, you just don't like their conclusions.

That's because I don't like their test procedures. They didn't even
carry out tests to determine how well their various speakers handled
high frequencies.

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

Surely you don't think mathematics defines the world? At best, all it
does is try to describe it. In the current context, you seem to have
no understanding of where the mathematics does and does not fit the
generation of sound and its detectiion by humans.

humans can hear 20hz-20khz.
cds can reproduce up to 22khz.

cds can reproduce *more* than what a human can hear.

Does their output affect alpha waves?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 8/1/2015 12:29 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:13:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It has something to do with the ability to discriminate between
different standards of recording.

yet nobody can reliably do that. they do no better than chance.

they might *think* they can, but they can't.

Prove your statement with specifics, or it will be presumed to be false.

double-blind studies, one of which was linked.

do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no
better than chance (unless you rig the test).

I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of
Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different
from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected.
This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded
better, the Quad or the Naim.

Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and
couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the
double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On
the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been
listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in
these results in no uncertain fashion.

But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the
results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID
sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and
an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that
this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did
something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a
capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally,
he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad
behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad.

From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in
sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I
expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not
important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that
reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening
even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind
test.

I have already cited
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm which in turn
cited

"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."

So it appears sounds which most people agree are beyond the range of
human hearing "can affect the perception of sound quality". On that
basis high frequency sounds should not be ignored.



At this point I intend to revert to something to do with photography.


I thought that was off topic.

--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no
better than chance (unless you rig the test).

I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of
Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different
from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected.
This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded
better, the Quad or the Naim.

Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and
couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the
double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On
the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been
listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in
these results in no uncertain fashion.

But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the
results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID
sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and
an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that
this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did
something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a
capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally,
he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad
behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad.

From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in
sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I
expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not
important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that
reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening
even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind
test.

in other words, two systems where a difference can be seen on a test
bench also has an audible difference. imagine that!

the issue with digital versus analog is that there *isn't* a difference
on a test bench and nobody can tell the difference.

monster cable and lamp cord are both exactly the same thing
electrically (just wire), with one having thick insulation and a high
price tag, which is why nobody can tell the difference.