A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

David Brooks aka the stalking weasel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old May 31st 17, 11:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 31st 17, 11:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old June 1st 17, 05:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old July 2nd 17, 02:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old July 2nd 17, 04:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old July 2nd 17, 04:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old July 2nd 17, 04:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old July 2nd 17, 09:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old July 2nd 17, 09:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.