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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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? still waiting for your 'proof' that people can tell. when can we expect that? Proof of what? -- PeterN |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: 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. human hearing is 20hz-20khz. a cd can hold up to 22khz. 22khz20khz. 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). |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. 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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
In article , Eric Stevens
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. 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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On 7/31/2015 8:47 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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. human hearing is 20hz-20khz. Not necessarily true. Stop cherry picking facts. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml 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). a cd can hold up to 22khz. 22khz20khz. CDs are becoming obsolete. NB. You will run into noise issues at the higher frequencies. 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. -- PeterN |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On 7/31/2015 8:47 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens 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. 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. -- PeterN |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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. 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. a cd can hold up to 22khz. 22khz20khz. CDs are becoming obsolete. so what? NB. You will run into noise issues at the higher frequencies. no. 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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
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). |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On 7/31/2015 9:13 PM, 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). Not peer reviewed. -- PeterN |
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 |