DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

In article , Bill W
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.

their connectors might be more robust, but you won't notice any
difference in the picture.

this is particularly true with digital signals, where if there's an
error, the packet is retransmitted.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:10:43 -0400, 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.

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:06:49 -0400, 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.

It should have been. I raised the topic in another form: i.e.
harmonics.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/31/2015 7:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:10:43 -0400, 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.

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


Shhhhh!

--
PeterN

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.


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 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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/31/2015 8:09 PM, 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?

Hmm, was there an intercom in the box?

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2015-08-01 00:16:08 +0000, Ron C said:

On 7/31/2015 8:09 PM, 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?

Hmm, was there an intercom in the box?

Just a saucer of milk.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

That was numereous tests?




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

Proof of what?


--
PeterN