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
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Wed, 31 May 2017 10:25:32 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. They produce pressure waves. so what? humans can't hear them. In many cases the pressure waves can be sensed. not many, and it's not reproduced by vinyl either, so it's irrelevant. You have obviously never listened to the Shure test record which includes the 'Drum' test. It's a test of tracking but my old SME arm with Ortofon 10 cartridge stayed with all the way. stop moving the goalposts. Stop pretending I'm moving the goal posts. i'm not pretending. first you said harmonics, then you talk about low frequencies. You are really struggling. We were then talking about digitizing complex wave forms. At this stage we were discussing ultra low frequency pressure waves, of which the Shure Drum Test contained many. there is no issue with reproducing low frequencies in digital. Why bother? According to you they can't be heard (probably true with the average audio gear in use today). -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. They produce pressure waves. so what? humans can't hear them. In many cases the pressure waves can be sensed. not many, and it's not reproduced by vinyl either, so it's irrelevant. You have obviously never listened to the Shure test record which includes the 'Drum' test. It's a test of tracking but my old SME arm with Ortofon 10 cartridge stayed with all the way. stop moving the goalposts. Stop pretending I'm moving the goal posts. i'm not pretending. first you said harmonics, then you talk about low frequencies. You are really struggling. trying to keep up with the goalpost movement. We were then talking about digitizing complex wave forms. At this stage we were discussing ultra low frequency pressure waves, of which the Shure Drum Test contained many. low frequencies are not a problem at all. i don't know where you got the idea they were. there is no issue with reproducing low frequencies in digital. Why bother? According to you they can't be heard (probably true with the average audio gear in use today). i'm not talking about low frequencies. this was originally about the high frequency harmonics that you claimed produce inaudible brainwaves, even though vinyl records can't reproduce it either, before you realized how ludicrous it is and changed it. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Wed, 31 May 2017 18:39:47 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. They produce pressure waves. so what? humans can't hear them. In many cases the pressure waves can be sensed. not many, and it's not reproduced by vinyl either, so it's irrelevant. You have obviously never listened to the Shure test record which includes the 'Drum' test. It's a test of tracking but my old SME arm with Ortofon 10 cartridge stayed with all the way. stop moving the goalposts. Stop pretending I'm moving the goal posts. i'm not pretending. first you said harmonics, then you talk about low frequencies. You are really struggling. trying to keep up with the goalpost movement. We were then talking about digitizing complex wave forms. At this stage we were discussing ultra low frequency pressure waves, of which the Shure Drum Test contained many. low frequencies are not a problem at all. i don't know where you got the idea they were. there is no issue with reproducing low frequencies in digital. Why bother? According to you they can't be heard (probably true with the average audio gear in use today). i'm not talking about low frequencies. this was originally about the high frequency harmonics that you claimed produce inaudible brainwaves, even though vinyl records can't reproduce it either, before you realized how ludicrous it is and changed it. You are confused and muddled. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: why can't you accept the fact that digital surpasses vinyl, something which can be mathematically proven? It's about "a bunch of incompetent twits (who) *can* **** things up _(which_they_don't_normally_do)_" .... You think they "don't normally do". It all depends upon what you listen to, and what you listen to it on. That's why I asked "What kind of gear do you use to listen to music?" For some reason you don't want to answer this question. Probably 'nuff said. it doesn't depend on anything. music producers or their companies don't **** things up routinely or intentionally. The way you are fudging I am beginning to believe that you listen to equipment which you know can reproduce the sound only a little better than a two tin cans on a string and is incapable of transmitting a quality sound signal to the listener: that you can't know from your ordinary listening experience how well any particular performance was recorded. You say what you say as a matter of dogma which you have read somewhere. i secretly listen to only 78 rpm records using a rolled up newspaper with a sewing needle stuck through the end. i've found that using the wall street journal gives the best sound, with the the sunday new york times a close second. don't try one of the free weekly papers. just don't. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 21:49:11 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: why can't you accept the fact that digital surpasses vinyl, something which can be mathematically proven? It's about "a bunch of incompetent twits (who) *can* **** things up _(which_they_don't_normally_do)_" .... You think they "don't normally do". It all depends upon what you listen to, and what you listen to it on. That's why I asked "What kind of gear do you use to listen to music?" For some reason you don't want to answer this question. Probably 'nuff said. it doesn't depend on anything. music producers or their companies don't **** things up routinely or intentionally. The way you are fudging I am beginning to believe that you listen to equipment which you know can reproduce the sound only a little better than a two tin cans on a string and is incapable of transmitting a quality sound signal to the listener: that you can't know from your ordinary listening experience how well any particular performance was recorded. You say what you say as a matter of dogma which you have read somewhere. i secretly listen to only 78 rpm records using a rolled up newspaper with a sewing needle stuck through the end. You will get better results from a bamboo needle. i've found that using the wall street journal gives the best sound, with the the sunday new york times a close second. don't try one of the free weekly papers. just don't. Gee! That response took you a l o n g time to think up. :-) -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Jul 1, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 21:49:11 -0400, wrote:Snip i secretly listen to only 78 rpm records using a rolled up newspaper with a sewing needle stuck through the end. You will get better results from a bamboo needle. I heard that for optimal performance, and aural warmth, a polished teak needle preserved with linseed oil, was the way to go for the playback of 78s, and wax cylinders. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: why can't you accept the fact that digital surpasses vinyl, something which can be mathematically proven? It's about "a bunch of incompetent twits (who) *can* **** things up _(which_they_don't_normally_do)_" .... You think they "don't normally do". It all depends upon what you listen to, and what you listen to it on. That's why I asked "What kind of gear do you use to listen to music?" For some reason you don't want to answer this question. Probably 'nuff said. it doesn't depend on anything. music producers or their companies don't **** things up routinely or intentionally. The way you are fudging I am beginning to believe that you listen to equipment which you know can reproduce the sound only a little better than a two tin cans on a string and is incapable of transmitting a quality sound signal to the listener: that you can't know from your ordinary listening experience how well any particular performance was recorded. You say what you say as a matter of dogma which you have read somewhere. i secretly listen to only 78 rpm records using a rolled up newspaper with a sewing needle stuck through the end. You will get better results from a bamboo needle. only for hawaiian music. i've found that using the wall street journal gives the best sound, with the the sunday new york times a close second. don't try one of the free weekly papers. just don't. Gee! That response took you a l o n g time to think up. :-) actually it didn't. it's been in the queue and i'm just catching up with some of them. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 20:27:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 1, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 21:49:11 -0400, wrote:Snip i secretly listen to only 78 rpm records using a rolled up newspaper with a sewing needle stuck through the end. You will get better results from a bamboo needle. I heard that for optimal performance, and aural warmth, a polished teak needle preserved with linseed oil, was the way to go for the playback of 78s, and wax cylinders. I was thinking of the playing of shellac records, you know, those which contain abrasive. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 23:30:15 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: why can't you accept the fact that digital surpasses vinyl, something which can be mathematically proven? It's about "a bunch of incompetent twits (who) *can* **** things up _(which_they_don't_normally_do)_" .... You think they "don't normally do". It all depends upon what you listen to, and what you listen to it on. That's why I asked "What kind of gear do you use to listen to music?" For some reason you don't want to answer this question. Probably 'nuff said. it doesn't depend on anything. music producers or their companies don't **** things up routinely or intentionally. The way you are fudging I am beginning to believe that you listen to equipment which you know can reproduce the sound only a little better than a two tin cans on a string and is incapable of transmitting a quality sound signal to the listener: that you can't know from your ordinary listening experience how well any particular performance was recorded. You say what you say as a matter of dogma which you have read somewhere. i secretly listen to only 78 rpm records using a rolled up newspaper with a sewing needle stuck through the end. You will get better results from a bamboo needle. only for hawaiian music. Compton MacKenzie of the Gramophone magazine was adamant that bamboo was best all round. i've found that using the wall street journal gives the best sound, with the the sunday new york times a close second. don't try one of the free weekly papers. just don't. Gee! That response took you a l o n g time to think up. :-) actually it didn't. it's been in the queue and i'm just catching up with some of them. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 1 | May 25th 17 06:50 AM |
David Brooks can be an interesting person... | Diesel | Digital Photography | 14 | May 24th 17 02:01 PM |
Stalking Technique | Brad Thompson | Photographing Nature | 6 | January 2nd 05 03:52 AM |