If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive | bugbear | Digital Photography | 33 | July 13th 09 08:08 AM |
P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive | Bob Williams | Digital Photography | 3 | July 4th 09 03:18 PM |
P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive | ray | Digital Photography | 16 | July 3rd 09 11:16 PM |