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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sun, 28 May 2017 21:22:18 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: The issue is the ability to distinguish tonal differences. e.g. In my younger days I had a sense of perfect pitch. The vast majority of people do not. While one may not hear undertones and overtones with their ears, in the traditional meaning, there are other senses that kick in. Of course if you spend your days listening to heavy metal, you will lose that ability. As to all people seeing the same color: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision that's the exception, not the rule. I see you as refusing to acknowledge any of the exceptions. i acknowledge them, however, they do not matter. do you really think nikon and canon are going to design cameras for a tiny, tiny minority, or for the masses who have normal vision? I think they ae going to design cameras to keep their most influential critics happy. that would be stupid. they make cameras to sell to the masses. they also want to sell lots of them, not satisfy a bunch of bloggers, who generally don't know as much as they claim and are being paid off anyway. They are unlikely to require that their critics have their color vision tested first. Unless of course you have heard of this being done. no need. it can be assumed they have normal vision, because that's what most people have. not very many visually impaired people are testing cameras and then blogging about it. Would you call persons with four cones 'visually impaired'? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: The question is not about what can be done but about what is being done. no. the question is which one is better, and the answer is overwhelmingly digital. just because a bunch of incompetent twits *can* **** things up (which they don't normally do, it's just another diversion of yours) doesn't mean the medium itself is bad. What kind of gear you use to listen to music? this isn't about me. it's about the difference in two technologies. why can't you accept the fact that digital surpasses vinyl, something which can be mathematically proven? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Mon, 29 May 2017 00:35:31 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: The question is not about what can be done but about what is being done. no. the question is which one is better, and the answer is overwhelmingly digital. just because a bunch of incompetent twits *can* **** things up (which they don't normally do, it's just another diversion of yours) doesn't mean the medium itself is bad. What kind of gear you use to listen to music? this isn't about me. it's about the difference in two technologies. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: The question is not about what can be done but about what is being done. no. the question is which one is better, and the answer is overwhelmingly digital. just because a bunch of incompetent twits *can* **** things up (which they don't normally do, it's just another diversion of yours) doesn't mean the medium itself is bad. What kind of gear you use to listen to music? this isn't about me. it's about the difference in two technologies. 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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:03:50 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: The question is not about what can be done but about what is being done. no. the question is which one is better, and the answer is overwhelmingly digital. just because a bunch of incompetent twits *can* **** things up (which they don't normally do, it's just another diversion of yours) doesn't mean the medium itself is bad. What kind of gear you use to listen to music? this isn't about me. it's about the difference in two technologies. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article ,
Whisky-dave 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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On 5/30/2017 10:52 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Whisky-dave 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. Strange how you forget that when replying. I'm sure it's inadvertent -- PeterN |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , PeterN
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. Strange how you forget that when replying. I'm sure it's inadvertent strange how you make up ****. actually it's not strange. its what you do. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On 5/30/2017 8:58 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/30/2017 10:52 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Whisky-dave 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. Strange how you forget that when replying. I'm sure it's inadvertent Seems many forget this [sub] thread was about music reproduction. IMHO, if the composer couldn't /sense/ ultrasonic or infrasonic sound then it could not have been considered or envisioned in the composition. ~~ I have seen a few papers on the impact of infrasonic sound and that some composers have experimented with it for theatrical [movie] productions. However, I haven't seen similar ultrasonic experimentation. [YMMV] -- == Later... Ron C -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On 5/30/2017 9:17 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN 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. So you say, despite the underlying science, to the contrary.. Strange how you forget that when replying. I'm sure it's inadvertent strange how you make up ****. actually it's not strange. its what you do. Pants on fire. -- PeterN |
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 |