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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |