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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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