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
  #51  
Old May 29th 17, 05:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 29th 17, 05:35 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:


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  
Old May 29th 17, 10:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 30th 17, 12:03 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:


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  
Old May 30th 17, 12:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 30th 17, 03:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old May 31st 17, 01:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 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  
Old May 31st 17, 02:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old May 31st 17, 02:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default 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  
Old May 31st 17, 02:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 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

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 11:41 AM.


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.