A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 2nd 15, 10:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:51:05 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/1/2015 10:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:01:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can
reliably tell the difference between 24/192k and 16/44k from the same
source.

also feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can
reliably tell the difference between analog and digital from the same
source.


I know of no satisfactory double-blind tests -period.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

There have been some AXB tests which are open to interpretation. See
for example
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-m...t-audible.html
or http://tinyurl.com/o63vybl

Not a double-blind test - but:

I have a set of vinyl records of the complete organ works of Bach
recorded by Peter Hurford.
I have a set of CDs of the same records recorded from the original
masters used for the vinyls.

There is no doubt of which set I prefer. There is an audible
difference in ambience and the vinyls win every time.


Compare a live performance of Pachelbel's Canon, or Tchaikovsky's 1812,
with any recording. Though digital recordings of the 1812 have been
known to blow out speakers.


I agree almost any live performance is better than a recording but
that is not the point at issue.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #102  
Old August 2nd 15, 03:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

On 8/2/2015 5:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:51:05 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/1/2015 10:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:01:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can
reliably tell the difference between 24/192k and 16/44k from the same
source.

also feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can
reliably tell the difference between analog and digital from the same
source.

I know of no satisfactory double-blind tests -period.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

There have been some AXB tests which are open to interpretation. See
for example
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-m...t-audible.html
or http://tinyurl.com/o63vybl

Not a double-blind test - but:

I have a set of vinyl records of the complete organ works of Bach
recorded by Peter Hurford.
I have a set of CDs of the same records recorded from the original
masters used for the vinyls.

There is no doubt of which set I prefer. There is an audible
difference in ambience and the vinyls win every time.


Compare a live performance of Pachelbel's Canon, or Tchaikovsky's 1812,
with any recording. Though digital recordings of the 1812 have been
known to blow out speakers.


I agree almost any live performance is better than a recording but
that is not the point at issue.


Is it live, or is it Memorex.

--
PeterN
  #103  
Old August 2nd 15, 07:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can
reliably tell the difference between 24/192k and 16/44k from the same
source.

also feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can
reliably tell the difference between analog and digital from the same
source.


I know of no satisfactory double-blind tests -period.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

There have been some AXB tests which are open to interpretation. See
for example

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-m...01-24-vs-16-bi
t-not-audible.html
or http://tinyurl.com/o63vybl


24 bit gives more dynamic range that 16 bit. that's all.

16 bit (96db) is already pushing the limits of human hearing (120db is
threshold of pain), especially if you take into account normal
background noise in a house, so there's no advantage to 24 bit for
listening purposes.

in other words, if you want to hear the quiet passages, the loud
passages are going to *hurt* with a cd, and that's assuming that the
music has 96db dynamic range which just about all does not.

if you're going to use it for mastering and make changes, then 16/192k
helps, but not because of audible differences. it's for minimizing
errors in the math.

Not a double-blind test - but:

I have a set of vinyl records of the complete organ works of Bach
recorded by Peter Hurford.
I have a set of CDs of the same records recorded from the original
masters used for the vinyls.


it might be *from* the original master recording but it is not mastered
the same when making the cd.

the proper test is to take a vinyl record, make a cd recording and then
compare those.

since a cd can contain everything the vinyl record can with room to
spare, it's *guaranteed* that they will be identical and this is
mathematically provable.

There is no doubt of which set I prefer. There is an audible
difference in ambience and the vinyls win every time.


the key is that the cd version can sound just like vinyl, if that's
what you want. just add back the distortion.
  #104  
Old August 2nd 15, 07:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

In article , PeterN
wrote:


If a digital recording is properly mastered, or remastered, it is far
superior to vinyl.


of course it is. that's the whole point.

As to live vs. any recording, I can't agree more.
I enjoy listening to a recording of Mahler's First, but when I heard a
live performance, it was an emotional experience.


did you cry?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.