Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
RichA
Jan 23, 2012, 4:05:22 PM1/23/12
to
Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
camera phones and crappy P&S's?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16690236
Not surprised if bumbling Kodak passed it up though.
camera phones and crappy P&S's?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16690236
Not surprised if bumbling Kodak passed it up though.
Mxsmanic
Jan 23, 2012, 4:17:49 PM1/23/12
to
RichA writes:
> Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> camera phones and crappy P&S's?
If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment, they
> Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> camera phones and crappy P&S's?
might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out.
Alan Browne
Jan 23, 2012, 5:01:13 PM1/23/12
to
On 2012-01-23 16:05 , RichA wrote:
> Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> camera phones and crappy P&S's?
- low light is a greater problem for small sensor site cameras.
> Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> camera phones and crappy P&S's?
- Larger market to address
--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).
nospam
Jan 23, 2012, 5:03:17 PM1/23/12
to
In article <1jjrh7150r8m74lu3...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
no conspiracy here.
significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
no conspiracy here.
RichA
Jan 23, 2012, 6:58:23 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 5:03 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1jjrh7150r8m74lu3o8cb83flsgd8tk...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
Think those new technologies will compensate for noise now that
they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?
> In article <1jjrh7150r8m74lu3o8cb83flsgd8tk...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?
nospam
Jan 23, 2012, 7:46:25 PM1/23/12
to
In article
<2b2fba9b-a5bf-45a9...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
<2b2fba9b-a5bf-45a9...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> > > > camera phones and crappy P&S's?
> >
> > > If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment,
> > > they might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out.
> >
> > the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
> > significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
> > therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
> > smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
> > no conspiracy here.
>
> Think those new technologies will compensate for noise now that
> they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?
have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
> > > > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> > > > camera phones and crappy P&S's?
> >
> > > If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment,
> > > they might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out.
> >
> > the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
> > significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
> > therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
> > smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
> > no conspiracy here.
>
> Think those new technologies will compensate for noise now that
> they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?
many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
Trevor
Jan 23, 2012, 8:15:41 PM1/23/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:230120121646252323%nos...@nospam.invalid...
speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
"not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar! I
even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then complained
about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!
Trevor.
nospam
Jan 23, 2012, 11:38:36 PM1/23/12
to
In article <jfl0nq$beb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
camera is the one you have with you.
my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
multiple lenses.
nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
was considered very good a few years ago.
> I even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then complained
> about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!
like everything, there are both good and bad products. he picked a bad
one.
wrote:
> > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
> > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
> > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
>
> That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
> speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
> anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
> "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar!
what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
> > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
> > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
>
> That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
> speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
> anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
> "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar!
camera is the one you have with you.
my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
multiple lenses.
nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
was considered very good a few years ago.
> I even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then complained
> about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!
one.
David J. Littleboy
Jan 24, 2012, 4:17:49 AM1/24/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> camera is the one you have with you.
said briefcase goes.
> nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> was considered very good a few years ago.
3040) 10 years ago took seriously great, sharp at the pixel level, 3 MP
photos. How do cell phone cameras really compare? Five years ago, there was
the 10MP Canon G7. Cell phones will never reach that level unless the laws
of physics change.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 4:43:46 AM1/24/12
to
In article <Rc-dneuIS--q6oPS...@giganews.com>, David J.
like a grocery store or going out to eat?
> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>
> I wonder about that. Your generic, but high end, 3MP digicam (e.g. Olympus
> 3040) 10 years ago took seriously great, sharp at the pixel level, 3 MP
> photos. How do cell phone cameras really compare? Five years ago, there was
> the 10MP Canon G7. Cell phones will never reach that level unless the laws
> of physics change.
the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
pants pocket.
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> > camera is the one you have with you.
>
> My 5D2 with the Voigtlander 40/2.0 goes in my briefcase, and goes everywhere
> said briefcase goes.
do you take your briefcase with you everywhere you go, including places
> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> > camera is the one you have with you.
>
> My 5D2 with the Voigtlander 40/2.0 goes in my briefcase, and goes everywhere
> said briefcase goes.
like a grocery store or going out to eat?
> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>
> I wonder about that. Your generic, but high end, 3MP digicam (e.g. Olympus
> 3040) 10 years ago took seriously great, sharp at the pixel level, 3 MP
> photos. How do cell phone cameras really compare? Five years ago, there was
> the 10MP Canon G7. Cell phones will never reach that level unless the laws
> of physics change.
f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
pants pocket.
David J. Littleboy
Jan 24, 2012, 6:06:58 AM1/24/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <Rc-dneuIS--q6oPS...@giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
>> > camera is the one you have with you.
>>
>> My 5D2 with the Voigtlander 40/2.0 goes in my briefcase, and goes
>> everywhere
>> said briefcase goes.
>
> do you take your briefcase with you everywhere you go, including places
> like a grocery store or going out to eat?
Pretty much the only place the shoulder-strap equipped briefcase is not with
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
>> > camera is the one you have with you.
>>
>> My 5D2 with the Voigtlander 40/2.0 goes in my briefcase, and goes
>> everywhere
>> said briefcase goes.
>
> do you take your briefcase with you everywhere you go, including places
> like a grocery store or going out to eat?
me is when I'm walking for excercise.
>> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
>> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
>> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
>> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>>
>> I wonder about that. Your generic, but high end, 3MP digicam (e.g.
>> Olympus
>> 3040) 10 years ago took seriously great, sharp at the pixel level, 3 MP
>> photos. How do cell phone cameras really compare? Five years ago, there
>> was
>> the 10MP Canon G7. Cell phones will never reach that level unless the
>> laws
>> of physics change.
>
> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
> pants pocket.
film, and it's amazing how little information you need to make a 3x5 print
or a web image. But there are still laws of physics that put limitations on
these things if you care about your prints. I was knocked out the other day
watching my niece doing the trick of using finger gestures to zoom:
seriously neat. Still, at this particular event, they asked us to snap some
outdoor candles lighting a path up to the house at dusk. The cell phones and
P&S cameras failed miserably.
RichA
Jan 24, 2012, 8:30:11 AM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 4:43 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Rc-dneuIS--q6oPSnZ2dnVY3goSdn...@giganews.com>, David J.
> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
> pants pocket.
Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
THAT is embarrassing.
> In article <Rc-dneuIS--q6oPSnZ2dnVY3goSdn...@giganews.com>, David J.
> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
> pants pocket.
toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
THAT is embarrassing.
bugbear
Jan 24, 2012, 8:39:22 AM1/24/12
to
BugBear
P.S. Nice use of scare quotes.
David J Taylor
Jan 24, 2012, 9:04:29 AM1/24/12
to
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0647d2e6-7298-4816...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Small cameras or using the one in your phone are simply a matter of
convenience - size and weight.
David
news:0647d2e6-7298-4816...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
convenience - size and weight.
David
Bruce
Jan 24, 2012, 9:25:37 AM1/24/12
to
carry a camera ...
While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4. Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range. And who needs
more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
Polaroid's new camera looks interesting, being based on a smartphone
that didn't reach the market, but with the phone feature removed. ;-)
David J Taylor
Jan 24, 2012, 9:59:31 AM1/24/12
to
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kbfth7p7r3crklptm...@4ax.com...
[]
occasions, are my Nokia 2600 ("VGA" resolution), and those in the iPad2!
The latter has VGA at the front, which is "OK" for Skype, and 960 x 720 at
the back (less even than my Coolpix 900 from 1988!). So I claim no
experience of the better examples available today. The shots which Alfred
Molon showed were not at all bad, though. Even with just 3 MP, an
A4-sized print can look impressive - well, until you put it next to a 12
MP DSLR equivalent. Quite agree that for very small sensors the pixel
density is far too high.
[As I make less than a voice call per week I don't need a fancy phone, so
I have the cheapest acceptable PAYG model I could get.]
Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid. Were I to change, it would
likely be to either a mirror-less Nikon which natively used my existing DX
lenses, or to a more compact micro-4/3 to make for a smaller overall
outfit, but I would want acceptable images at ISO 3200.
Cheers,
David
news:kbfth7p7r3crklptm...@4ax.com...
[]
> A cameraphone offers the ultimate in convenience by not having to
> carry a camera ...
>
> While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
> latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
> images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
> my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4. Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
> sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range. And who needs
> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
>
> Polaroid's new camera looks interesting, being based on a smartphone
> that didn't reach the market, but with the phone feature removed. ;-)
The only cameras like that I've used, and then only on a handful of
> carry a camera ...
>
> While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
> latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
> images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
> my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4. Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
> sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range. And who needs
> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
>
> Polaroid's new camera looks interesting, being based on a smartphone
> that didn't reach the market, but with the phone feature removed. ;-)
occasions, are my Nokia 2600 ("VGA" resolution), and those in the iPad2!
The latter has VGA at the front, which is "OK" for Skype, and 960 x 720 at
the back (less even than my Coolpix 900 from 1988!). So I claim no
experience of the better examples available today. The shots which Alfred
Molon showed were not at all bad, though. Even with just 3 MP, an
A4-sized print can look impressive - well, until you put it next to a 12
MP DSLR equivalent. Quite agree that for very small sensors the pixel
density is far too high.
[As I make less than a voice call per week I don't need a fancy phone, so
I have the cheapest acceptable PAYG model I could get.]
Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid. Were I to change, it would
likely be to either a mirror-less Nikon which natively used my existing DX
lenses, or to a more compact micro-4/3 to make for a smaller overall
outfit, but I would want acceptable images at ISO 3200.
Cheers,
David
R. Mark Clayton
Jan 24, 2012, 10:45:28 AM1/24/12
to
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:Rc-dneuIS--q6oPS...@giganews.com...
produce very good images (certainly better than my 2Mp Fuji of a few years
ago). The lens is up to the resolution. OTOH there are issues - no zoom,
weak [xenon] flash, AF does not work in low light and a tendency to flare
out, but on a fine day it is great and the images have more detail than seen
with the naked eye!
Yes it is my pocket all the time, whereas my SLR only goes out when I take
it.
Mxsmanic
Jan 24, 2012, 11:02:33 AM1/24/12
to
RichA writes:
> Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
> toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
> others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
> I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
> doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
> THAT is embarrassing.
Future generations will think that people today had a strange disease that
> Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
> toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
> others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
> I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
> doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
> THAT is embarrassing.
made one arm hugely larger than the other, since almost every photo they see
will feature a person's huge arm extending towards the image border.
Bruce
Jan 24, 2012, 1:00:21 PM1/24/12
to
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid.
Here it is:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/75jl59z
or:
<http://photorumors.com/2012/01/11/polaroid-launches-sc1630-the-worlds-first-android-hd-smart-camera/>
>Were I to change, it would
>likely be to either a mirror-less Nikon which natively used my existing DX
>lenses
>or to a more compact micro-4/3 to make for a smaller overall
>outfit, but I would want acceptable images at ISO 3200.
1600, but I think 3200 is a stop too far - for now.
The new Olympus OM-D might take Four Thirds sensors that bit further,
or it might not. We will know soon after February 8.
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 1:01:13 PM1/24/12
to
In article <kbfth7p7r3crklptm...@4ax.com>, Bruce
original iphone which had the same camera) were *horrible*. an iphone 4
camera is in an entirely different league compared to the 3g. even an
iphone 3gs camera is significantly better than what was in the 3g.
> Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
> sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range.
except when you flip it around and have a backlit sensor, as in the
iphone 4 & 4s.
> And who needs
> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
most people do.
<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
> latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
> images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
> my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4.
bullshit. your iphone 4 is defective. the camera in the iphone 3g (and
> While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
> latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
> images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
> my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4.
original iphone which had the same camera) were *horrible*. an iphone 4
camera is in an entirely different league compared to the 3g. even an
iphone 3gs camera is significantly better than what was in the 3g.
> Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
> sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range.
iphone 4 & 4s.
> And who needs
> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
Chris Malcolm
Jan 24, 2012, 1:15:52 PM1/24/12
to
In rec.photo.digital nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jfl0nq$beb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>> > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
>> > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
>> > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
>>
>> That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
>> speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
>> anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
>> "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar!
> what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> camera is the one you have with you.
> my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
> not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
> multiple lenses.
> nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> was considered very good a few years ago.
Several years ago I chose a P&S for its ability to snap an A4 page of
> In article <jfl0nq$beb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>> > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
>> > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
>> > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
>>
>> That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
>> speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
>> anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
>> "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar!
> what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> camera is the one you have with you.
> my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
> not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
> multiple lenses.
> nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> was considered very good a few years ago.
small text, with even smaller footnotes, and capture an image in which
all of it was clearly legible. Only the better ones could do that.
I recently chose a cheap smartphone without giving a damn about how
good its camera was. I was surprised and delighted to discover it
passed that "page photocopy" test.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Jan 24, 2012, 1:26:59 PM1/24/12
to
the more distant one smaller. And does the same with linear uniformity
to chairs, plates, mugs, everything in sight. Sounds very like
perspective to me. There's no cure, but it can be much ameliorated by
avoiding short focal length lenses.
--
Chris Malcolm
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 1:57:57 PM1/24/12
to
In article <9o8aqo...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
replacement for a desktop scanner, but it works surprisingly well.
there are even augmented reality apps that can translate words on the
fly and replace them in the image.
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>
> Several years ago I chose a P&S for its ability to snap an A4 page of
> small text, with even smaller footnotes, and capture an image in which
> all of it was clearly legible. Only the better ones could do that.
>
> I recently chose a cheap smartphone without giving a damn about how
> good its camera was. I was surprised and delighted to discover it
> passed that "page photocopy" test.
some smartphone cameras are good enough to ocr text. it may not be a
> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>
> Several years ago I chose a P&S for its ability to snap an A4 page of
> small text, with even smaller footnotes, and capture an image in which
> all of it was clearly legible. Only the better ones could do that.
>
> I recently chose a cheap smartphone without giving a damn about how
> good its camera was. I was surprised and delighted to discover it
> passed that "page photocopy" test.
replacement for a desktop scanner, but it works surprisingly well.
there are even augmented reality apps that can translate words on the
fly and replace them in the image.
tony cooper
Jan 24, 2012, 2:18:08 PM1/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:01:13 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
I can only speak from my own experience and observation, but the
overwhelming majority of phone images taken and sent are sent to other
mobile phones with very small screens. With most phones, unless it's
a close-up, the object photographed is a tiny little thing viewed on a
tiny screen.
Yes, I know phone images can be sent to tablets and other viewing
mediums. Yes, I know images can be uploaded and viewed on regular
screens. Yes, I know images can be saved to microSD cards. Yes, I
know some mobile phones have somewhat larger screens than others.
But, that's not what is done most of the time by most of the users.
The phone's camera is mostly used for social or family sharing
purposes to send someone an image of what's happening right now.
There are exceptions, of course, but your use of "most people do" is
ridiculous.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
wrote:
overwhelming majority of phone images taken and sent are sent to other
mobile phones with very small screens. With most phones, unless it's
a close-up, the object photographed is a tiny little thing viewed on a
tiny screen.
Yes, I know phone images can be sent to tablets and other viewing
mediums. Yes, I know images can be uploaded and viewed on regular
screens. Yes, I know images can be saved to microSD cards. Yes, I
know some mobile phones have somewhat larger screens than others.
But, that's not what is done most of the time by most of the users.
The phone's camera is mostly used for social or family sharing
purposes to send someone an image of what's happening right now.
There are exceptions, of course, but your use of "most people do" is
ridiculous.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
David J Taylor
Jan 24, 2012, 2:43:32 PM1/24/12
to
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1vrth7ho513n571b9...@4ax.com...
> "David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>>Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid.
>
>
> Here it is:
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/75jl59z
> or:
> <http://photorumors.com/2012/01/11/polaroid-launches-sc1630-the-worlds-first-android-hd-smart-camera/>
Thanks, I had looked on DPReview but not seen it - I may not have looked
> <snip>
>>Haven't seen anything about this Polaroid.
>
>
> Here it is:
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/75jl59z
> or:
> <http://photorumors.com/2012/01/11/polaroid-launches-sc1630-the-worlds-first-android-hd-smart-camera/>
back far enough, though.
> I find the images from my Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G3 are acceptable at ISO
> 1600, but I think 3200 is a stop too far - for now.
> The new Olympus OM-D might take Four Thirds sensors that bit further,
> or it might not. We will know soon after February 8.
really don't want a camera from a manufacturer who may be shut down or
taken over at any instant.
Cheers,
David
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 3:18:46 PM1/24/12
to
In article <p30uh7lmdp2evel48...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
cameras are rapidly replacing compact cameras and in some cases dslrs.
> Yes, I know phone images can be sent to tablets and other viewing
> mediums. Yes, I know images can be uploaded and viewed on regular
> screens. Yes, I know images can be saved to microSD cards. Yes, I
> know some mobile phones have somewhat larger screens than others.
>
> But, that's not what is done most of the time by most of the users.
actually, it is what's done.
the most popular camera on flickr is not a compact p&s nor is it a
dslr. it's the iphone 4, ahead of nikon and canon dslrs. you know,
'real cameras.' there's even a mobile photoshop (and many other
alternatives) to edit the images on the phone (or ipad) before
uploading.
<http://www.flickr.com/cameras/>
open your eyes and take a look at what people are actually using
cellphone cameras for (not just the iphone either), rather than from
your limited experiences.
> The phone's camera is mostly used for social or family sharing
> purposes to send someone an image of what's happening right now.
maybe the crappy cellphone cameras are used for that because they can't
do anything else. the better cellphone cameras are used for a *lot*
more. just look at flickr for some examples.
> There are exceptions, of course, but your use of "most people do" is
> ridiculous.
not in the least. what's ridiculous are your unsubstantiated claims.
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And who needs
> >> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
> >
> >most people do.
>
> I can only speak from my own experience and observation, but the
> overwhelming majority of phone images taken and sent are sent to other
> mobile phones with very small screens. With most phones, unless it's
> a close-up, the object photographed is a tiny little thing viewed on a
> tiny screen.
your experience is limited. screens are no longer tiny and cellphone
> >> And who needs
> >> more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?
> >
> >most people do.
>
> I can only speak from my own experience and observation, but the
> overwhelming majority of phone images taken and sent are sent to other
> mobile phones with very small screens. With most phones, unless it's
> a close-up, the object photographed is a tiny little thing viewed on a
> tiny screen.
cameras are rapidly replacing compact cameras and in some cases dslrs.
> Yes, I know phone images can be sent to tablets and other viewing
> mediums. Yes, I know images can be uploaded and viewed on regular
> screens. Yes, I know images can be saved to microSD cards. Yes, I
> know some mobile phones have somewhat larger screens than others.
>
> But, that's not what is done most of the time by most of the users.
the most popular camera on flickr is not a compact p&s nor is it a
dslr. it's the iphone 4, ahead of nikon and canon dslrs. you know,
'real cameras.' there's even a mobile photoshop (and many other
alternatives) to edit the images on the phone (or ipad) before
uploading.
<http://www.flickr.com/cameras/>
open your eyes and take a look at what people are actually using
cellphone cameras for (not just the iphone either), rather than from
your limited experiences.
> The phone's camera is mostly used for social or family sharing
> purposes to send someone an image of what's happening right now.
do anything else. the better cellphone cameras are used for a *lot*
more. just look at flickr for some examples.
> There are exceptions, of course, but your use of "most people do" is
> ridiculous.
Savageduck
Jan 24, 2012, 5:03:41 PM1/24/12
to
age and I enjoy playing with mine, but it certainly does not replace my
G11. However if it is the only camera I have with me in a time of need,
it will serve well enough without embarrassing.
Here is a quick shot of a book case taken with my iPhone 4s with
available light for this post. It is just a quick snapshot taken
without concern for critical issues.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Photo.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
Jan 24, 2012, 5:52:36 PM1/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:18:46 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
And your claim of what "most" people do is substantiated how? Another
airplane survey?
I specified that there are exceptions, but "most" means "something
over half of all the users of camera phones". Just the vast number of
high school kids snapping photos of each other negates your claim.
wrote:
airplane survey?
I specified that there are exceptions, but "most" means "something
over half of all the users of camera phones". Just the vast number of
high school kids snapping photos of each other negates your claim.
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 6:56:32 PM1/24/12
to
In article <n1cuh7dtml9afj33l...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
where's *your* proof? oh yea, there is none.
unlike you, not only did i provide proof, but i even suggested that you
examine what people are actually doing rather than take my word for it.
you're refusal to accept any of it, however, does not surprise me in
the least. your mind is made up, despite extensive evidence otherwise.
like i've said before you are not open to new technology, new ideas or
new ways of doing things.
> I specified that there are exceptions, but "most" means "something
> over half of all the users of camera phones". Just the vast number of
> high school kids snapping photos of each other negates your claim.
right, because what high school kids do is exactly the same as what the
rest of the world does, assuming your specious claim is even true, for
which you've offered no evidence.
the iphone 4 is the #1 camera on all of flickr, more than any other
compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
are doing what you claim they are.
you're wrong (again).
unlike you, not only did i provide proof, but i even suggested that you
examine what people are actually doing rather than take my word for it.
you're refusal to accept any of it, however, does not surprise me in
the least. your mind is made up, despite extensive evidence otherwise.
like i've said before you are not open to new technology, new ideas or
new ways of doing things.
> I specified that there are exceptions, but "most" means "something
> over half of all the users of camera phones". Just the vast number of
> high school kids snapping photos of each other negates your claim.
rest of the world does, assuming your specious claim is even true, for
which you've offered no evidence.
the iphone 4 is the #1 camera on all of flickr, more than any other
compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
are doing what you claim they are.
you're wrong (again).
Trevor
Jan 24, 2012, 9:11:24 PM1/24/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> camera is the one you have with you.
Plenty of P&S that are smaller than smartphones, but with far more
> camera is the one you have with you.
capabilities. But the one I have with me needn't fit in my pocket in any
case, usually doesn't in fact.
> my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
> not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
> multiple lenses.
Canon IXUS does now. Both superior to any phone cam I've seen.
> nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> was considered very good a few years ago.
taking photo's I wouldn't want to look at myself.
>> I even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then
>> complained
>> about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!
>
> like everything, there are both good and bad products. he picked a bad
> one.
phone and better pocket camera. As always, it's your choice.
Trevor.
Trevor
Jan 24, 2012, 9:17:19 PM1/24/12
to
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9o8bfj...@mid.individual.net...
> A remarkable disease that always makes the nearer arm or leg larger,
> the more distant one smaller. And does the same with linear uniformity
> to chairs, plates, mugs, everything in sight. Sounds very like
> perspective to me. There's no cure, but it can be much ameliorated by
> avoiding short focal length lenses.
Pretty hard to do with phone cams! And then imagine how long your arm would
> the more distant one smaller. And does the same with linear uniformity
> to chairs, plates, mugs, everything in sight. Sounds very like
> perspective to me. There's no cure, but it can be much ameliorated by
> avoiding short focal length lenses.
need to be to take those self portraits with a long lens anyway! :-)
Trevor.
tony cooper
Jan 24, 2012, 9:18:06 PM1/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:56:32 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Did you write your own dictionary? You didn't provide "proof" of
anything. Not even close. You alluded to what I mentioned: that
there are exceptions.
Where is there *any* indication of what "most people" do? I limited
my comment to "in my experience and observation", but you made another
one of your unsubstantiated cheerleader claims that is clearly
unsupportable.
> but i even suggested that you
>examine what people are actually doing rather than take my word for it.
What does "experience and observation" mean?
>you're refusal to accept any of it, however, does not surprise me in
>the least. your mind is made up, despite extensive evidence otherwise.
>like i've said before you are not open to new technology, new ideas or
>new ways of doing things.
Got your own definition of "evidence", too. Pointing to exceptions is
not evidence of what most people do.
>> I specified that there are exceptions, but "most" means "something
>> over half of all the users of camera phones". Just the vast number of
>> high school kids snapping photos of each other negates your claim.
>
>right, because what high school kids do is exactly the same as what the
>rest of the world does, assuming your specious claim is even true, for
>which you've offered no evidence.
>
>the iphone 4 is the #1 camera on all of flickr,
Exactly how does that refute anything I said? I saw the chart, too.
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/ You aren't fooling anyone plopping out
a figure without a cite thinking you will be challenged.
The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
social and family snapshots.
The Flickr people are more honest than you are. They admit that it is
not usually possible to automatically detect what camera was used and
this may affect the accuracy of their figures.
> more than any other
>compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
>are doing what you claim they are.
Why? I claim that most people are using phone cameras to take social
and family snapshots. Why in the world would use of a popular phone
with a camera mean this "can't happen"?
And "more than any other" again ignores the cumulative number.
>you're wrong (again).
You have a different definition of "wrong", too.
wrote:
anything. Not even close. You alluded to what I mentioned: that
there are exceptions.
Where is there *any* indication of what "most people" do? I limited
my comment to "in my experience and observation", but you made another
one of your unsubstantiated cheerleader claims that is clearly
unsupportable.
> but i even suggested that you
>examine what people are actually doing rather than take my word for it.
>you're refusal to accept any of it, however, does not surprise me in
>the least. your mind is made up, despite extensive evidence otherwise.
>like i've said before you are not open to new technology, new ideas or
>new ways of doing things.
not evidence of what most people do.
>> I specified that there are exceptions, but "most" means "something
>> over half of all the users of camera phones". Just the vast number of
>> high school kids snapping photos of each other negates your claim.
>
>right, because what high school kids do is exactly the same as what the
>rest of the world does, assuming your specious claim is even true, for
>which you've offered no evidence.
>
>the iphone 4 is the #1 camera on all of flickr,
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/ You aren't fooling anyone plopping out
a figure without a cite thinking you will be challenged.
The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
social and family snapshots.
The Flickr people are more honest than you are. They admit that it is
not usually possible to automatically detect what camera was used and
this may affect the accuracy of their figures.
> more than any other
>compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
>are doing what you claim they are.
and family snapshots. Why in the world would use of a popular phone
with a camera mean this "can't happen"?
And "more than any other" again ignores the cumulative number.
>you're wrong (again).
You have a different definition of "wrong", too.
ala
Jan 24, 2012, 9:31:02 PM1/24/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> some smartphone cameras are good enough to ocr text. it may not be a
> replacement for a desktop scanner, but it works surprisingly well.
> there are even augmented reality apps that can translate words on the
> fly and replace them in the image.
share please?
> some smartphone cameras are good enough to ocr text. it may not be a
> replacement for a desktop scanner, but it works surprisingly well.
> there are even augmented reality apps that can translate words on the
> fly and replace them in the image.
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 10:36:25 PM1/24/12
to
In article <eepuh7lcde8i3afu7...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
uploading. there is a very wide variety. it's not just closeups for
tiny screens like you originally said (which has now morphed to family
and social photos).
> The Flickr people are more honest than you are. They admit that it is
> not usually possible to automatically detect what camera was used and
> this may affect the accuracy of their figures.
and your point is what? most images have the info in the exif data, so
their numbers are going to be a very good guide. do you have any
evidence that a particular camera is underrepresented or just how much
of a potential error there might be? didn't think so.
> > more than any other
> >compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
> >are doing what you claim they are.
>
> Why? I claim that most people are using phone cameras to take social
> and family snapshots. Why in the world would use of a popular phone
> with a camera mean this "can't happen"?
i never said you can't take those types of photos with a cellphone
camera.
what i said was cellphone cameras are replacing compacts and even dslrs
due to the convenience and that they are more than adequate for most
purposes, which means that whatever a person would have photographed
with a compact might now be done with a smartphone or even a feature
phone camera (but those tend to not be as good). that includes all
sorts of photos, including landscapes, panoramas, movies and quite a
bit more. in fact, i'd say that a smartphone is *more* flexible due to
the assortment of apps.
<http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/compact-
camera-sales-drop-by-30--1054578>
Sales of compact cameras fell by 30% during 2011, according to
research by GfK.
Similar trends are being spotted globally, with US research reporting
a 10% increase in the number of photographs taken with a phone.
> And "more than any other" again ignores the cumulative number.
you're ignoring the cumulative number of cellphone cameras.
do you really not see what's happening in the industry?
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
> ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
> outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
> doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
> social and family snapshots.
look at the actual photos iphone and other cellphone users are
> The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
> ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
> outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
> doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
> social and family snapshots.
uploading. there is a very wide variety. it's not just closeups for
tiny screens like you originally said (which has now morphed to family
and social photos).
> The Flickr people are more honest than you are. They admit that it is
> not usually possible to automatically detect what camera was used and
> this may affect the accuracy of their figures.
their numbers are going to be a very good guide. do you have any
evidence that a particular camera is underrepresented or just how much
of a potential error there might be? didn't think so.
> > more than any other
> >compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
> >are doing what you claim they are.
>
> Why? I claim that most people are using phone cameras to take social
> and family snapshots. Why in the world would use of a popular phone
> with a camera mean this "can't happen"?
camera.
what i said was cellphone cameras are replacing compacts and even dslrs
due to the convenience and that they are more than adequate for most
purposes, which means that whatever a person would have photographed
with a compact might now be done with a smartphone or even a feature
phone camera (but those tend to not be as good). that includes all
sorts of photos, including landscapes, panoramas, movies and quite a
bit more. in fact, i'd say that a smartphone is *more* flexible due to
the assortment of apps.
<http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/compact-
camera-sales-drop-by-30--1054578>
Sales of compact cameras fell by 30% during 2011, according to
research by GfK.
Similar trends are being spotted globally, with US research reporting
a 10% increase in the number of photographs taken with a phone.
> And "more than any other" again ignores the cumulative number.
do you really not see what's happening in the industry?
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 10:36:28 PM1/24/12
to
In article <T_Sdndt4prDx9ILS...@earthlink.com>, ala
<http://questvisual.com/>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2OfQdYrHRs>
<alac...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > some smartphone cameras are good enough to ocr text. it may not be a
> > replacement for a desktop scanner, but it works surprisingly well.
> > there are even augmented reality apps that can translate words on the
> > fly and replace them in the image.
>
> share please?
word lens
> > some smartphone cameras are good enough to ocr text. it may not be a
> > replacement for a desktop scanner, but it works surprisingly well.
> > there are even augmented reality apps that can translate words on the
> > fly and replace them in the image.
>
> share please?
<http://questvisual.com/>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2OfQdYrHRs>
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 10:36:29 PM1/24/12
to
In article <jfnoc8$ulo$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> > camera is the one you have with you.
>
> Plenty of P&S that are smaller than smartphones, but with far more
> capabilities.
not really. most are thicker and none can run apps such as mobile
photoshop or instantly upload images to the cloud, nevermind everything
else a smartphone can do.
> But the one I have with me needn't fit in my pocket in any
> case, usually doesn't in fact.
some people don't want to lug a lot of camera equipment, or even carry
a second device. not everyone is a camera geek.
> > my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
> > not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
> > multiple lenses.
>
> My DSLR's don't either, my Olympus XA did decades ago however, just as my
> Canon IXUS does now. Both superior to any phone cam I've seen.
you need to see more phone cams then. film was eclipsed by digital long
ago, and certainly by any decent cellphone camera now.
> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>
> True, I often see what many call "very good", but I can't see the point in
> taking photo's I wouldn't want to look at myself.
then you need to learn how to take better photos.
> >> I even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then
> >> complained about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!
> >
> > like everything, there are both good and bad products. he picked a bad
> > one.
>
> It's camera was the best at the time though. For less money I had a cheaper
> phone and better pocket camera. As always, it's your choice.
different tools for different jobs.
wrote:
> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> > camera is the one you have with you.
>
> Plenty of P&S that are smaller than smartphones, but with far more
> capabilities.
photoshop or instantly upload images to the cloud, nevermind everything
else a smartphone can do.
> But the one I have with me needn't fit in my pocket in any
> case, usually doesn't in fact.
a second device. not everyone is a camera geek.
> > my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
> > not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
> > multiple lenses.
>
> My DSLR's don't either, my Olympus XA did decades ago however, just as my
> Canon IXUS does now. Both superior to any phone cam I've seen.
ago, and certainly by any decent cellphone camera now.
> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>
> True, I often see what many call "very good", but I can't see the point in
> taking photo's I wouldn't want to look at myself.
> >> I even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then
> >> complained about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!
> >
> > like everything, there are both good and bad products. he picked a bad
> > one.
>
> It's camera was the best at the time though. For less money I had a cheaper
> phone and better pocket camera. As always, it's your choice.
Trevor
Jan 24, 2012, 10:57:22 PM1/24/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
>> > camera is the one you have with you.
>>
>> Plenty of P&S that are smaller than smartphones, but with far more
>> capabilities.
>
> not really. most are thicker and none can run apps such as mobile
> photoshop or instantly upload images to the cloud, nevermind everything
> else a smartphone can do.
If that's what you want to do then fine, others want decent photo's. And
>> > camera is the one you have with you.
>>
>> Plenty of P&S that are smaller than smartphones, but with far more
>> capabilities.
>
> not really. most are thicker and none can run apps such as mobile
> photoshop or instantly upload images to the cloud, nevermind everything
> else a smartphone can do.
there are many P&S 's that are smaller than the iPhone.
>
>> But the one I have with me needn't fit in my pocket in any
>> case, usually doesn't in fact.
>
> some people don't want to lug a lot of camera equipment, or even carry
> a second device. not everyone is a camera geek.
>
>> > my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
>> > not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
>> > multiple lenses.
>>
>> My DSLR's don't either, my Olympus XA did decades ago however, just as my
>> Canon IXUS does now. Both superior to any phone cam I've seen.
>
> you need to see more phone cams then. film was eclipsed by digital long
> ago, and certainly by any decent cellphone camera now.
have a lens as good as the XA? And of course that was 3 decades before the
current cell phone cams!
>> True, I often see what many call "very good", but I can't see the point
>> in
>> taking photo's I wouldn't want to look at myself.
>
> then you need to learn how to take better photos.
> different tools for different jobs.
Trevor.
nospam
Jan 24, 2012, 11:25:41 PM1/24/12
to
In article <jfnuiu$9ds$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> >> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> >> > camera is the one you have with you.
> >>
> >> Plenty of P&S that are smaller than smartphones, but with far more
> >> capabilities.
> >
> > not really. most are thicker and none can run apps such as mobile
> > photoshop or instantly upload images to the cloud, nevermind everything
> > else a smartphone can do.
>
> If that's what you want to do then fine, others want decent photo's.
what makes you think they're not getting decent photos?
do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
> And there are many P&S 's that are smaller than the iPhone.
a few, but most are bigger and even if it was smaller, it's an
additional item to carry and another battery to keep charged (probably
with its own charger too).
> >> But the one I have with me needn't fit in my pocket in any
> >> case, usually doesn't in fact.
> >
> > some people don't want to lug a lot of camera equipment, or even carry
> > a second device. not everyone is a camera geek.
>
> And not everyone only wants to send pictures to other phones or the net.
they don't have to if they don't want to and not everyone wants to have
to deal with copying images to a computer all the time.
> >> > my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
> >> > not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
> >> > multiple lenses.
> >>
> >> My DSLR's don't either, my Olympus XA did decades ago however, just as my
> >> Canon IXUS does now. Both superior to any phone cam I've seen.
> >
> > you need to see more phone cams then. film was eclipsed by digital long
> > ago, and certainly by any decent cellphone camera now.
>
> Name a cellphone that beats any of the latest IXUS camera's, or any that
> have a lens as good as the XA? And of course that was 3 decades before the
> current cell phone cams!
what matters are the final images, not specs of a particular camera or
lens. this is something camera geeks completely forget. there are also
a *lot* more people taking a *lot* more images with cellphone cameras
than they ever did with the xa or any other compact film camera.
wrote:
> >> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> >> > camera is the one you have with you.
> >>
> >> Plenty of P&S that are smaller than smartphones, but with far more
> >> capabilities.
> >
> > not really. most are thicker and none can run apps such as mobile
> > photoshop or instantly upload images to the cloud, nevermind everything
> > else a smartphone can do.
>
> If that's what you want to do then fine, others want decent photo's.
do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
> And there are many P&S 's that are smaller than the iPhone.
additional item to carry and another battery to keep charged (probably
with its own charger too).
> >> But the one I have with me needn't fit in my pocket in any
> >> case, usually doesn't in fact.
> >
> > some people don't want to lug a lot of camera equipment, or even carry
> > a second device. not everyone is a camera geek.
>
> And not everyone only wants to send pictures to other phones or the net.
to deal with copying images to a computer all the time.
> >> > my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
> >> > not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
> >> > multiple lenses.
> >>
> >> My DSLR's don't either, my Olympus XA did decades ago however, just as my
> >> Canon IXUS does now. Both superior to any phone cam I've seen.
> >
> > you need to see more phone cams then. film was eclipsed by digital long
> > ago, and certainly by any decent cellphone camera now.
>
> Name a cellphone that beats any of the latest IXUS camera's, or any that
> have a lens as good as the XA? And of course that was 3 decades before the
> current cell phone cams!
lens. this is something camera geeks completely forget. there are also
a *lot* more people taking a *lot* more images with cellphone cameras
than they ever did with the xa or any other compact film camera.
tony cooper
Jan 25, 2012, 12:24:17 AM1/25/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:25 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <eepuh7lcde8i3afu7...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
>> ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
>> outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
>> doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
>> social and family snapshots.
>
>look at the actual photos iphone and other cellphone users are
>uploading.
I'm sure there are some good ones. There's also a lot more of horrid
ones, but that's been true of all types of photographic devices.
> there is a very wide variety. it's not just closeups for
>tiny screens like you originally said (which has now morphed to family
>and social photos).
In my original statement on this, I said most shots are family and
social photos. No morphing. About close-ups, I said that except for
close-ups, you can't really see what's being photographed on tiny
screens.
>> The Flickr people are more honest than you are. They admit that it is
>> not usually possible to automatically detect what camera was used and
>> this may affect the accuracy of their figures.
>
>and your point is what? most images have the info in the exif data, so
>their numbers are going to be a very good guide. do you have any
>evidence that a particular camera is underrepresented or just how much
>of a potential error there might be? didn't think so.
>> > more than any other
>> >compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
>> >are doing what you claim they are.
>>
>> Why? I claim that most people are using phone cameras to take social
>> and family snapshots. Why in the world would use of a popular phone
>> with a camera mean this "can't happen"?
>
>i never said you can't take those types of photos with a cellphone
>camera.
And you are the one who whines about twisting? You said "that can't
happen" in response to my statement that most people are taking family
and social photographs. I allowed for exceptions.
>what i said was cellphone cameras are replacing compacts and even dslrs
>due to the convenience and that they are more than adequate for most
>purposes, which means that whatever a person would have photographed
>with a compact might now be done with a smartphone or even a feature
>phone camera (but those tend to not be as good). that includes all
>sorts of photos, including landscapes, panoramas, movies and quite a
>bit more. in fact, i'd say that a smartphone is *more* flexible due to
>the assortment of apps.
I don't see anything wrong with the above, but your position was that
"most people" need more than the 2 or 3 mp that some camera phones
offer. You've morphed it into what can be done with a different type
of device. You don't need more than that for the average family or
social phone photo. There won't be a significant market for new
phones with only 2 or 3 mp, but that's because the newer phones will
all offer more. People will be getting more than they need or, often,
want. That's been true of the cellphone products for years now.
>> And "more than any other" again ignores the cumulative number.
>
>you're ignoring the cumulative number of cellphone cameras.
Yes? And? The cumulative total includes phones sold and in use
before many of the smartphone models were on the market.
>do you really not see what's happening in the industry?
Sure I do. Apple's going up from about 12% of the cellular phone
market, other companies are introducing smartphones, and the camera
feature of the phones is improving. I have no argument there.
What I argue with is your ridiculous statement that "most people" are
using phone cameras to take quality photographs and not just social
and family photographs...Little Lucy wearing mommy's high heels or
older Lucy sucking on a beer bong.
About your statement of the camera phone use on Flickr:
Device A has 30 users
Device B has 26 users
Device C has 24 users
Device D has 15 users
Device E has 5 users
Total of 100 users. We agree that A is the most popular choice of
users. However, this in no way shows that "most users" are using
Device A. In fact, most users are not...by a long shot. And, it
doesn't show that "most users" are using the most popular choice
because it takes quality images.
wrote:
>In article <eepuh7lcde8i3afu7...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
>> ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
>> outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
>> doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
>> social and family snapshots.
>
>look at the actual photos iphone and other cellphone users are
>uploading.
ones, but that's been true of all types of photographic devices.
> there is a very wide variety. it's not just closeups for
>tiny screens like you originally said (which has now morphed to family
>and social photos).
social photos. No morphing. About close-ups, I said that except for
close-ups, you can't really see what's being photographed on tiny
screens.
>> The Flickr people are more honest than you are. They admit that it is
>> not usually possible to automatically detect what camera was used and
>> this may affect the accuracy of their figures.
>
>and your point is what? most images have the info in the exif data, so
>their numbers are going to be a very good guide. do you have any
>evidence that a particular camera is underrepresented or just how much
>of a potential error there might be? didn't think so.
>> > more than any other
>> >compact, dslr or other cellphone camera. that can't happen if people
>> >are doing what you claim they are.
>>
>> Why? I claim that most people are using phone cameras to take social
>> and family snapshots. Why in the world would use of a popular phone
>> with a camera mean this "can't happen"?
>
>i never said you can't take those types of photos with a cellphone
>camera.
happen" in response to my statement that most people are taking family
and social photographs. I allowed for exceptions.
>what i said was cellphone cameras are replacing compacts and even dslrs
>due to the convenience and that they are more than adequate for most
>purposes, which means that whatever a person would have photographed
>with a compact might now be done with a smartphone or even a feature
>phone camera (but those tend to not be as good). that includes all
>sorts of photos, including landscapes, panoramas, movies and quite a
>bit more. in fact, i'd say that a smartphone is *more* flexible due to
>the assortment of apps.
"most people" need more than the 2 or 3 mp that some camera phones
offer. You've morphed it into what can be done with a different type
of device. You don't need more than that for the average family or
social phone photo. There won't be a significant market for new
phones with only 2 or 3 mp, but that's because the newer phones will
all offer more. People will be getting more than they need or, often,
want. That's been true of the cellphone products for years now.
>> And "more than any other" again ignores the cumulative number.
>
>you're ignoring the cumulative number of cellphone cameras.
before many of the smartphone models were on the market.
>do you really not see what's happening in the industry?
market, other companies are introducing smartphones, and the camera
feature of the phones is improving. I have no argument there.
What I argue with is your ridiculous statement that "most people" are
using phone cameras to take quality photographs and not just social
and family photographs...Little Lucy wearing mommy's high heels or
older Lucy sucking on a beer bong.
About your statement of the camera phone use on Flickr:
Device A has 30 users
Device B has 26 users
Device C has 24 users
Device D has 15 users
Device E has 5 users
Total of 100 users. We agree that A is the most popular choice of
users. However, this in no way shows that "most users" are using
Device A. In fact, most users are not...by a long shot. And, it
doesn't show that "most users" are using the most popular choice
because it takes quality images.
Savageduck
Jan 25, 2012, 1:17:20 AM1/25/12
to
On 2012-01-24 21:24:17 -0800, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:25 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <eepuh7lcde8i3afu7...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
>>> ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
>>> outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
>>> doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
>>> social and family snapshots.
>>
>> look at the actual photos iphone and other cellphone users are
>> uploading.
>
> I'm sure there are some good ones. There's also a lot more of horrid
> ones, but that's been true of all types of photographic devices.
>
>> there is a very wide variety. it's not just closeups for
>> tiny screens like you originally said (which has now morphed to family
>> and social photos).
>
> In my original statement on this, I said most shots are family and
> social photos. No morphing. About close-ups, I said that except for
> close-ups, you can't really see what's being photographed on tiny
> screens.
As much as I shoot mainly with my D300s with the G11 as a compact
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:25 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <eepuh7lcde8i3afu7...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
>>> ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
>>> outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
>>> doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
>>> social and family snapshots.
>>
>> look at the actual photos iphone and other cellphone users are
>> uploading.
>
> I'm sure there are some good ones. There's also a lot more of horrid
> ones, but that's been true of all types of photographic devices.
>
>> there is a very wide variety. it's not just closeups for
>> tiny screens like you originally said (which has now morphed to family
>> and social photos).
>
> In my original statement on this, I said most shots are family and
> social photos. No morphing. About close-ups, I said that except for
> close-ups, you can't really see what's being photographed on tiny
> screens.
supplement, while it is not my first or even second choice, I have
found the iPhone able to produce useful images if that is the only
camera I have with me.
I would also add that not all iPhoto images are viewed on a tiny phone
displays.
Again the subject matter here is irrelevant with no editing or artistic
cropping other than resizing for the web. Not that there are any
artistic merits to the shot. It is just recording a moment with nary a
family member in sight. ;-)
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/photo2w.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Trevor
Jan 25, 2012, 1:31:25 AM1/25/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance on
convenience than quality.
> what matters are the final images,
> not specs of a particular camera or
> lens. this is something camera geeks completely forget. there are also
> a *lot* more people taking a *lot* more images with cellphone cameras
> than they ever did with the xa or any other compact film camera.
choice, and not MY problem.
Amazing though that lots of people who take pictures on the phone cams these
days, still want to buy mine as well when they see them! :-)
Trevor.
nospam
Jan 25, 2012, 2:54:18 AM1/25/12
to
In article <jfo7jp$o9j$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
>
> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance on
> convenience than quality.
there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
they can't.
> > what matters are the final images,
>
> Exactly!
then why do you care about which camera was used?
wrote:
> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
>
> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance on
> convenience than quality.
people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
they can't.
> > what matters are the final images,
>
> Exactly!
Eric Stevens
Jan 25, 2012, 4:12:24 AM1/25/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:54:18 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <jfo7jp$o9j$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
>wrote:
>
>> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
>>
>> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance on
>> convenience than quality.
>
>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>they can't.
They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
used.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <jfo7jp$o9j$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
>wrote:
>
>> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
>>
>> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance on
>> convenience than quality.
>
>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>they can't.
used.
>
>> > what matters are the final images,
>>
>> Exactly!
>
>then why do you care about which camera was used?
Regards,
>> > what matters are the final images,
>>
>> Exactly!
>
>then why do you care about which camera was used?
Eric Stevens
tony cooper
Jan 25, 2012, 9:10:22 AM1/25/12
to
photos can be viewed on tablets and uploaded for viewing on other
devices. The point is about what *most* are viewed on. Most, in my
opinion, are just sent from one phone to another. All phones have
"tiny" screens compared to the screens we use on our computers.
Some phones have larger tiny screens than others.
>Again the subject matter here is irrelevant with no editing or artistic
>cropping other than resizing for the web. Not that there are any
>artistic merits to the shot. It is just recording a moment with nary a
>family member in sight. ;-)
depends on your personal circumstances. My son has two young sons,
and they are the subjects he most often photographs with his phone.
If you don't have small children or grandchildren about, then you'd
use the camera for something different. I don't see you as sending
shots of you sucking at a beer bong to your social circle.
>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/photo2w.jpg >
Had you sent that to me by phone, I'd view it on a tiny screen.
nospam
Jan 25, 2012, 9:31:22 AM1/25/12
to
In article <cqhvh790vi6fd6b4h...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
chance).
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
> >>
> >> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance
> >> on convenience than quality.
> >
> >there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >they can't.
>
> They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> used.
like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> >> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
> >>
> >> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance
> >> on convenience than quality.
> >
> >there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >they can't.
>
> They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> used.
don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
chance).
RichA
Jan 25, 2012, 2:21:53 PM1/25/12
to
On Jan 25, 9:31 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cqhvh790vi6fd6b4hsitph0asaiupon...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
Please lets not drag audio into this, it is contentious enough and we
can SEE images for what they are, unlike making claims for the nuances
of one power amp versus another.
> In article <cqhvh790vi6fd6b4hsitph0asaiupon...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
can SEE images for what they are, unlike making claims for the nuances
of one power amp versus another.
Eric Stevens
Jan 25, 2012, 2:35:21 PM1/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:31:22 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Were electrostatic speakers used?
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Jan 25, 2012, 2:35:55 PM1/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:21:53 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The speaker is the weak point.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Alfred Molon
Jan 25, 2012, 5:08:31 PM1/25/12
to
In article <240120121001132648%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
To increase also the the dynamic range you'd need a bigger well, and I
wonder if that could be done by having some kind of vertical capacitor
below each pixel.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
> > Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
> > sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range.
>
> except when you flip it around and have a backlit sensor, as in the
> iphone 4 & 4s.
That increases the sensitivity, not the dynamic range.
> > sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range.
>
> except when you flip it around and have a backlit sensor, as in the
> iphone 4 & 4s.
To increase also the the dynamic range you'd need a bigger well, and I
wonder if that could be done by having some kind of vertical capacitor
below each pixel.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Trevor
Jan 25, 2012, 7:42:34 PM1/25/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> they can't.
I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
> people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> they can't.
Trevor.
Trevor
Jan 25, 2012, 7:43:40 PM1/25/12
to
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cqhvh790vi6fd6b4h...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:54:18 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>>they can't.
>
> They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> used.
They can, HE can't obviously.
> wrote:
>>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>>they can't.
>
> They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> used.
Trevor.
Trevor
Jan 25, 2012, 7:46:06 PM1/25/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> chance).
You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven wrong,
> don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> chance).
IF you ever tried.
Trevor.
Bruce
Jan 25, 2012, 4:30:19 PM1/25/12
to
evaluate a new medium for recorded music. A string quartet recorded a
piece using the new medium. Then, in the theatre, the piece was
performed twice, one by the quartet and one by the new medium.
Finally, the audience were asked to rate which of the two performances
they preferred.
About half chose the live performance and about half the new medium.
The new medium? A 78 RPM record.
So much for double blind tests. ;-)
Trevor
Jan 30, 2012, 4:29:22 AM1/30/12
to
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ps0i7pu6k80lknb5...@4ax.com...
> Some years ago, a double blind test was staged in a theatre to help
> evaluate a new medium for recorded music. A string quartet recorded a
> piece using the new medium. Then, in the theatre, the piece was
> performed twice, one by the quartet and one by the new medium.
> Finally, the audience were asked to rate which of the two performances
> they preferred.
> About half chose the live performance and about half the new medium.
>
> The new medium? A 78 RPM record.
> So much for double blind tests. ;-)
Right, any DB test is only as good as the person conducting it, and the
> evaluate a new medium for recorded music. A string quartet recorded a
> piece using the new medium. Then, in the theatre, the piece was
> performed twice, one by the quartet and one by the new medium.
> Finally, the audience were asked to rate which of the two performances
> they preferred.
> About half chose the live performance and about half the new medium.
>
> The new medium? A 78 RPM record.
> So much for double blind tests. ;-)
people taking part. Both can easily be sub par.
Trevor.
Bruce
Jan 30, 2012, 6:07:23 AM1/30/12
to
It's a bit like democracy. ;-)
Trevor
Jan 30, 2012, 11:20:55 PM1/30/12
to
news:oduci79kec8bsdipj...@4ax.com...
EXACTLY like politics (which is not real democracy at all)
Trevor.
> If you don't like the results, blame the participants.
> It's a bit like democracy. ;-)
Or in your case select only examples/statistics that suit your argument,
> It's a bit like democracy. ;-)
EXACTLY like politics (which is not real democracy at all)
Trevor.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:17:42 AM2/8/12
to
In article <7ps0i7pu6k80lknb5...@4ax.com>, Bruce
tell the difference and had to pick something.
> The new medium? A 78 RPM record.
>
> So much for double blind tests. ;-)
my favourite test was monster cable versus coat hangers for speaker
cable. audiophiles picked the coat hangers.
<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some years ago, a double blind test was staged in a theatre to help
> evaluate a new medium for recorded music. A string quartet recorded a
> piece using the new medium. Then, in the theatre, the piece was
> performed twice, one by the quartet and one by the new medium.
> Finally, the audience were asked to rate which of the two performances
> they preferred.
>
> About half chose the live performance and about half the new medium.
half each means it's nothing more than chance. they obviously couldn't
> Some years ago, a double blind test was staged in a theatre to help
> evaluate a new medium for recorded music. A string quartet recorded a
> piece using the new medium. Then, in the theatre, the piece was
> performed twice, one by the quartet and one by the new medium.
> Finally, the audience were asked to rate which of the two performances
> they preferred.
>
> About half chose the live performance and about half the new medium.
tell the difference and had to pick something.
> The new medium? A 78 RPM record.
>
> So much for double blind tests. ;-)
cable. audiophiles picked the coat hangers.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:17:43 AM2/8/12
to
In article <jfq7o9$hh6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> > like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> > don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> > chance).
>
> You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven wrong,
> IF you ever tried.
there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
the coat hangers won.
wrote:
> > like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> > don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> > chance).
>
> You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven wrong,
> IF you ever tried.
difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
the coat hangers won.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:17:44 AM2/8/12
to
In article <jfq7hl$h1t$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> > there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> > they can't.
>
> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
i guarantee you can't tell the difference anywhere near as well as you
think you can.
wrote:
> > there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> > they can't.
>
> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
think you can.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:17:45 AM2/8/12
to
In article <jfq7jn$h39$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> >>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >>they can't.
> >
> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> > used.
>
> They can, HE can't obviously.
nobody can, outside of luck. repeated double-blind tests prove this.
> >>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >>they can't.
> >
> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> > used.
>
> They can, HE can't obviously.
tony cooper
Feb 8, 2012, 11:49:06 AM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:17:43 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
I have no idea what tests you are referring to, but the music involved
might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
the quality of the sound. Sending an audio file of some of the
"American Idol" contestant's efforts via a tin can and string vs a
high-end audio system might not make a discernable difference to the
listener.
wrote:
might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
the quality of the sound. Sending an audio file of some of the
"American Idol" contestant's efforts via a tin can and string vs a
high-end audio system might not make a discernable difference to the
listener.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 12:03:01 PM2/8/12
to
In article <mj95j7ttq4hjfooq1...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
between-monster-cable-and/>
...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
> but the music involved
> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
> the quality of the sound.
it didn't.
> Sending an audio file of some of the
> "American Idol" contestant's efforts via a tin can and string vs a
> high-end audio system might not make a discernable difference to the
> listener.
straw man.
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> >> > don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> >> > chance).
> >>
> >> You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven
> >> wrong, IF you ever tried.
> >
> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> >the coat hangers won.
>
> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
<http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-
> >> > like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> >> > don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> >> > chance).
> >>
> >> You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven
> >> wrong, IF you ever tried.
> >
> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> >the coat hangers won.
>
> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
between-monster-cable-and/>
...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
> but the music involved
> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
> the quality of the sound.
> Sending an audio file of some of the
> "American Idol" contestant's efforts via a tin can and string vs a
> high-end audio system might not make a discernable difference to the
> listener.
tony cooper
Feb 8, 2012, 2:19:14 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:03:01 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <mj95j7ttq4hjfooq1...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
>> >> > don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
>> >> > chance).
>> >>
>> >> You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven
>> >> wrong, IF you ever tried.
>> >
>> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
>> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
>> >the coat hangers won.
>>
>> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
>
><http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/>
>
> ...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
> recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
> cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
> A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
> running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
> soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
> tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
> all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
coat hanger of market research.
>> but the music involved
>> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> the quality of the sound.
>
>it didn't.
How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
was used.
>> Sending an audio file of some of the
>> "American Idol" contestant's efforts via a tin can and string vs a
>> high-end audio system might not make a discernable difference to the
>> listener.
>
>straw man.
And using "self-professed" isn't?
wrote:
>In article <mj95j7ttq4hjfooq1...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
>> >> > don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
>> >> > chance).
>> >>
>> >> You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven
>> >> wrong, IF you ever tried.
>> >
>> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
>> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
>> >the coat hangers won.
>>
>> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
>
><http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/>
>
> ...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
> recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
> cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
> A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
> running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
> soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
> tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
> all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
coat hanger of market research.
>> but the music involved
>> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> the quality of the sound.
>
>it didn't.
was used.
>> Sending an audio file of some of the
>> "American Idol" contestant's efforts via a tin can and string vs a
>> high-end audio system might not make a discernable difference to the
>> listener.
>
>straw man.
Eric Stevens
Feb 8, 2012, 3:27:59 PM2/8/12
to
http://consumerist.com/2008/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables.html
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Feb 8, 2012, 3:36:30 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:17:45 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
The weasel words are 'properly encoded'. I agree with you that
properly encoded digital music can't be distinguished from the best
analogue but bog standard MP3 as it used to be (and often still is) is
audibly inferior. But, as I said, it has to be the right music on the
right gear to hear the difference.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
properly encoded digital music can't be distinguished from the best
analogue but bog standard MP3 as it used to be (and often still is) is
audibly inferior. But, as I said, it has to be the right music on the
right gear to hear the difference.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 3:37:30 PM2/8/12
to
In article <8ai5j71lp21o3e7od...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
difference. how would the average person notice?
feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
is ludicrous.
> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> coat hanger of market research.
nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
> >> but the music involved
> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
> >> the quality of the sound.
> >
> >it didn't.
>
> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
> was used.
it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
here's another fraud, audiophile power cables (the ones that plug into
the wall). they're not even *in* the audio chain. the sad thing is some
idiots fall for this stuff.
<http://gizmodo.com/371536/300-audiophile-grade-power-cable-is-really-wo
rth-15>
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> >> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> >> >the coat hangers won.
> >>
> >> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
>
> >><http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-bet
> >ween-monster-cable-and/>
> >
> > ...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
> > recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
> > cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
> > A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
> > running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
> > soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
> > tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
> > all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
>
> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
> >> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> >> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> >> >the coat hangers won.
> >>
> >> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
>
> >><http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-bet
> >ween-monster-cable-and/>
> >
> > ...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
> > recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
> > cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
> > A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
> > running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
> > soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
> > tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
> > all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
>
> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
difference. how would the average person notice?
feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
is ludicrous.
> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> coat hanger of market research.
industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
> >> but the music involved
> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
> >> the quality of the sound.
> >
> >it didn't.
>
> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
> was used.
of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
here's another fraud, audiophile power cables (the ones that plug into
the wall). they're not even *in* the audio chain. the sad thing is some
idiots fall for this stuff.
<http://gizmodo.com/371536/300-audiophile-grade-power-cable-is-really-wo
rth-15>
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 3:58:01 PM2/8/12
to
In article <4qm5j7lc6s17pn2oa...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
each, not the best of one versus the worst of the other, unless of
course, you have an agenda.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >> >>they can't.
> >> >
> >> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> >> > used.
> >>
> >> They can, HE can't obviously.
> >
> >nobody can, outside of luck. repeated double-blind tests prove this.
>
> The weasel words are 'properly encoded'. I agree with you that
> properly encoded digital music can't be distinguished from the best
> analogue but bog standard MP3 as it used to be (and often still is) is
> audibly inferior. But, as I said, it has to be the right music on the
> right gear to hear the difference.
it's not weasel words. the proper way to compare is between the best of
> >> >>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >> >>they can't.
> >> >
> >> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> >> > used.
> >>
> >> They can, HE can't obviously.
> >
> >nobody can, outside of luck. repeated double-blind tests prove this.
>
> The weasel words are 'properly encoded'. I agree with you that
> properly encoded digital music can't be distinguished from the best
> analogue but bog standard MP3 as it used to be (and often still is) is
> audibly inferior. But, as I said, it has to be the right music on the
> right gear to hear the difference.
each, not the best of one versus the worst of the other, unless of
course, you have an agenda.
tony cooper
Feb 8, 2012, 7:14:54 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:37:30 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <8ai5j71lp21o3e7od...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
>> >> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
>> >> >the coat hangers won.
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
>>
>> >><http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/>
>> >
>> > ...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
>> > recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
>> > cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
>> > A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
>> > running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
>> > soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
>> > tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
>> > all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
>>
>> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
>> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
>
>they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
>
>audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
>and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
>difference. how would the average person notice?
An "audiophile" is simply someone who has a great interest in
high-fidelity sound reproduction. Look it up. You don't need to be
an "expert" to have great interest.
The article stated that these audiophiles were "self-professed".
Experts don't "self-profess".
>feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
>and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
>because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
>is ludicrous.
>> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
>> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
>> coat hanger of market research.
>
>nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
>industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
>better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
>world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
>numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
to some sort of market share conclusion.
>> >> but the music involved
>> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> >> the quality of the sound.
>> >
>> >it didn't.
>>
>> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
>> was used.
>
>it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
Of course the type of music makes a difference. You are talking about
the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
matter what wire was use.
>do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
>if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
able to tell if they were different or not.
wrote:
>In article <8ai5j71lp21o3e7od...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
>> >> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
>> >> >the coat hangers won.
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
>>
>> >><http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/>
>> >
>> > ...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
>> > recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
>> > cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
>> > A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
>> > running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
>> > soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
>> > tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
>> > all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
>>
>> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
>> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
>
>they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
>
>audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
>and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
>difference. how would the average person notice?
high-fidelity sound reproduction. Look it up. You don't need to be
an "expert" to have great interest.
The article stated that these audiophiles were "self-professed".
Experts don't "self-profess".
>feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
>and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
>because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
>is ludicrous.
>> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
>> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
>> coat hanger of market research.
>
>nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
>industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
>better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
>world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
>numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
to some sort of market share conclusion.
>> >> but the music involved
>> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> >> the quality of the sound.
>> >
>> >it didn't.
>>
>> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
>> was used.
>
>it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
matter what wire was use.
>do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
>if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
able to tell if they were different or not.
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 9:06:30 PM2/8/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> the coat hangers won.
Considering the number of times the audiophool press have claimed "a lifting
> difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> the coat hangers won.
of the seven veils" for every crackpot idea known to man, I'm not surprised.
My favourite was the idea of spending thousands on power main cables for
amplifiers (not as speaker cables but for the 110V/230V) The idea that was
more important than the miles of cable from the power station, and all the
transformers etc. in between still amazes me, but it wasn't just an April
1st joke apparently, it did the rounds for quite some time. I'm glad many of
those "writers" have since recanted some of their looney ideas. It must suck
for many to still be associated with such ignorance for ever on the internet
now though :-)
Trevor.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 9:14:58 PM2/8/12
to
In article <1kv5j7pu6kqomu8f5...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere. second,
just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
consistent growth outpacing the market for many years and is now the
most valuable tech company based on market cap?
obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
> >> >> but the music involved
> >> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
> >> >> the quality of the sound.
> >> >
> >> >it didn't.
> >>
> >> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
> >> was used.
> >
> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>
> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
could there be?
> You are talking about
> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> matter what wire was use.
*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
at all. it could be dc.
> >do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
> >if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
>
> The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
> on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
> two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
> able to tell if they were different or not.
actually, it *is* about what the electrons do.
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> >> coat hanger of market research.
> >
> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
>
> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
> to some sort of market share conclusion.
then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> >> coat hanger of market research.
> >
> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
>
> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
> to some sort of market share conclusion.
said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere. second,
just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
consistent growth outpacing the market for many years and is now the
most valuable tech company based on market cap?
obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
> >> >> but the music involved
> >> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
> >> >> the quality of the sound.
> >> >
> >> >it didn't.
> >>
> >> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
> >> was used.
> >
> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>
> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
could there be?
> You are talking about
> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> matter what wire was use.
characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
at all. it could be dc.
> >do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
> >if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
>
> The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
> on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
> two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
> able to tell if they were different or not.
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 9:21:02 PM2/8/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
>> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
>
> they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the copper
>> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
>
> they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
proves is the difference is not a major problem.
> audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
> and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
> difference. how would the average person notice?
NOT those making money from promoting more ways to extract money from
suckers.
Any correlation of either with acoustic perception accuarcy is purely
coincidental.
> feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
> and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
> because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
> is ludicrous.
just how much difference there needs to be in any given audio set up, for
anyone, let alone average people to tell the difference. Most people realise
the difference are totally negligable at less than $1 a metre, not $100's of
dollars per metre!
Those that don't, who cares?
> Wire is wire. the laws of physics.....
Say nothing of the sort!
Trevor.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 9:25:34 PM2/8/12
to
In article <jgv9mn$u5i$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> > there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> > difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> > the coat hangers won.
>
> Considering the number of times the audiophool press have claimed "a lifting
> of the seven veils" for every crackpot idea known to man, I'm not surprised.
> My favourite was the idea of spending thousands on power main cables for
> amplifiers (not as speaker cables but for the 110V/230V) The idea that was
> more important than the miles of cable from the power station, and all the
> transformers etc. in between still amazes me, but it wasn't just an April
> 1st joke apparently, it did the rounds for quite some time. I'm glad many of
> those "writers" have since recanted some of their looney ideas. It must suck
> for many to still be associated with such ignorance for ever on the internet
> now though :-)
i posted a link about audiophile grade power cables that exposed it to
be nothing more than plain wire, but to think that it even could make a
difference versus the miles of who knows what to the grid, is flat out
ludicrous.
here's one that's even better: denon had a $500 audiophile grade
ethernet cable. it has 'high purity copper', therefore it must be good.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9967991-1.html>
you know you have a special cable when the price goes up 20-fold after
being discontinued. some of the comments are hilarious:
<http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM/>
wrote:
> > there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> > difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> > the coat hangers won.
>
> Considering the number of times the audiophool press have claimed "a lifting
> of the seven veils" for every crackpot idea known to man, I'm not surprised.
> My favourite was the idea of spending thousands on power main cables for
> amplifiers (not as speaker cables but for the 110V/230V) The idea that was
> more important than the miles of cable from the power station, and all the
> transformers etc. in between still amazes me, but it wasn't just an April
> 1st joke apparently, it did the rounds for quite some time. I'm glad many of
> those "writers" have since recanted some of their looney ideas. It must suck
> for many to still be associated with such ignorance for ever on the internet
> now though :-)
be nothing more than plain wire, but to think that it even could make a
difference versus the miles of who knows what to the grid, is flat out
ludicrous.
here's one that's even better: denon had a $500 audiophile grade
ethernet cable. it has 'high purity copper', therefore it must be good.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9967991-1.html>
you know you have a special cable when the price goes up 20-fold after
being discontinued. some of the comments are hilarious:
<http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM/>
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 9:29:52 PM2/8/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> > there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>> > they can't.
>>
>> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
>
> i guarantee you can't tell the difference anywhere near as well as you
> think you can.
What you guarantee is pretty worthless without specifying bit rates, music
>> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>> > they can't.
>>
>> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
>
> i guarantee you can't tell the difference anywhere near as well as you
> think you can.
types, listening conditions or any other relevant criteria, and also
compensation when you fail to fullfill the guarantee!
But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
What YOU can manage is your problem!
Trevor.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 9:32:52 PM2/8/12
to
In article <jgvai0$vp6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> >> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
> >> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
> >
> > they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
>
> No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the copper
> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
> proves is the difference is not a major problem.
do you have those measurements? didn't think so.
*if* there's an electrical difference, there *might* be an audible
effect. some differences won't matter. nobody is going to notice a
difference of a fraction of an ohm, for example.
> > audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
> > and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
> > difference. how would the average person notice?
>
> The people who pay big money for the stuff are the audiophiles (audiophools)
> NOT those making money from promoting more ways to extract money from
> suckers.
> Any correlation of either with acoustic perception accuarcy is purely
> coincidental.
there's a sucker born every minute.
> > feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
> > and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
> > because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
> > is ludicrous.
>
> There clearly is a *measureable* difference between wires.
depends on the wire.
14 gauge lamp cord at pennies a foot is going to be the same as 14
gauge monster cable at $5 a foot or whatever they charge, mainly
because that's all that monster cable *is* (plus some fancy looking
insulation to make it look cool).
nobody is suggesting that 30 gauge copper wire is going to sound the
same as the same length of 12 gauge wire, especially with a high
wattage amp behind it. obviously, there will be a very measurable
difference between those.
wrote:
> >> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
> >> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
> >
> > they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
>
> No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the copper
> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
> proves is the difference is not a major problem.
*if* there's an electrical difference, there *might* be an audible
effect. some differences won't matter. nobody is going to notice a
difference of a fraction of an ohm, for example.
> > audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
> > and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
> > difference. how would the average person notice?
>
> The people who pay big money for the stuff are the audiophiles (audiophools)
> NOT those making money from promoting more ways to extract money from
> suckers.
> Any correlation of either with acoustic perception accuarcy is purely
> coincidental.
> > feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
> > and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
> > because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
> > is ludicrous.
>
> There clearly is a *measureable* difference between wires.
14 gauge lamp cord at pennies a foot is going to be the same as 14
gauge monster cable at $5 a foot or whatever they charge, mainly
because that's all that monster cable *is* (plus some fancy looking
insulation to make it look cool).
nobody is suggesting that 30 gauge copper wire is going to sound the
same as the same length of 12 gauge wire, especially with a high
wattage amp behind it. obviously, there will be a very measurable
difference between those.
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 9:35:14 PM2/8/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>> >>they can't.
>> >
>> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
>> > used.
>>
>> They can, HE can't obviously.
>
> nobody can, outside of luck. repeated double-blind tests prove this.
So if one test for one bit rate proves one person can't tell the difference,
>> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>> >>they can't.
>> >
>> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
>> > used.
>>
>> They can, HE can't obviously.
>
> nobody can, outside of luck. repeated double-blind tests prove this.
you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit rate.
What a sad deluded fool you are!
Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference for
MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you though!
Trevor.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 9:41:15 PM2/8/12
to
In article <jgvbcj$1hg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> So if one test for one bit rate proves one person can't tell the difference,
> you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit rate.
> What a sad deluded fool you are!
> Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference for
> MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
> research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you though!
thousands of tests? which ones show that someone can consistently and
reliably the difference between 320 kbit aac versus the original
uncompressed audio, which eliminates everything other than the
encoding, and do so more than just blind luck?
wrote:
> So if one test for one bit rate proves one person can't tell the difference,
> you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit rate.
> What a sad deluded fool you are!
> Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference for
> MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
> research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you though!
reliably the difference between 320 kbit aac versus the original
uncompressed audio, which eliminates everything other than the
encoding, and do so more than just blind luck?
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 9:41:19 PM2/8/12
to
In article <jgvb2h$tt$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> >> > there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >> > they can't.
> >>
> >> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
> >
> > i guarantee you can't tell the difference anywhere near as well as you
> > think you can.
>
> What you guarantee is pretty worthless without specifying bit rates, music
> types, listening conditions or any other relevant criteria, and also
> compensation when you fail to fullfill the guarantee!
you use the highest quality for each side.
unfortunately, people tend to use low or even medium quality of one and
compare it with the best of another and call that a proper test. not
surprisingly, they get the results they want.
> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> What YOU can manage is your problem!
when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
won't be able to do better than chance.
wrote:
> >> > there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >> > they can't.
> >>
> >> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
> >
> > i guarantee you can't tell the difference anywhere near as well as you
> > think you can.
>
> What you guarantee is pretty worthless without specifying bit rates, music
> types, listening conditions or any other relevant criteria, and also
> compensation when you fail to fullfill the guarantee!
unfortunately, people tend to use low or even medium quality of one and
compare it with the best of another and call that a proper test. not
surprisingly, they get the results they want.
> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> What YOU can manage is your problem!
like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
won't be able to do better than chance.
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 9:47:51 PM2/8/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the
>> copper
>> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
>> proves is the difference is not a major problem.
>
> do you have those measurements?
Give me the cables and I'll do it for you with certification to Australian
>> copper
>> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
>> proves is the difference is not a major problem.
>
> do you have those measurements?
National standards if you want! :-)
>didn't think so.
So you do then? YOU claimed there was no difference.
> *if* there's an electrical difference, there *might* be an audible
> effect.
>some differences won't matter. nobody is going to notice a
> difference of a fraction of an ohm, for example.
may hear the difference for significant fractions of an ohm though.
>>
>> There clearly is a *measureable* difference between wires.
>
> depends on the wire.
> 14 gauge lamp cord at pennies a foot is going to be the same as 14
> gauge monster cable at $5 a foot or whatever they charge, mainly
> because that's all that monster cable *is* (plus some fancy looking
> insulation to make it look cool).
> nobody is suggesting that 30 gauge copper wire is going to sound the
> same as the same length of 12 gauge wire, especially with a high
> wattage amp behind it. obviously, there will be a very measurable
> difference between those.
length of a coat hanger.
Trevor.
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 9:54:39 PM2/8/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> So if one test for one bit rate proves one person can't tell the
>> difference,
>> you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit
>> rate.
>> What a sad deluded fool you are!
>> Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference
>> for
>> MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
>> research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you
>> though!
>
> thousands of tests? which ones show that someone can consistently and
> reliably the difference between 320 kbit aac versus the original
> uncompressed audio,
See NOW you must specify *ONLY* 320kbitS, because you know it CAN be done at
>> difference,
>> you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit
>> rate.
>> What a sad deluded fool you are!
>> Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference
>> for
>> MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
>> research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you
>> though!
>
> thousands of tests? which ones show that someone can consistently and
> reliably the difference between 320 kbit aac versus the original
> uncompressed audio,
low bit rates! IF you had said that all along, you would be closer to
correct, and yet it has been demonstrated that some people can still tell
the difference with some source material in an A-B test, even at 320kbs.
That most people can't with most source material is also true, but not what
you originally claimed.
Trevor.
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 9:57:52 PM2/8/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using
>> an
>> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
>> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
>> What YOU can manage is your problem!
>
> when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
>> an
>> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
>> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
>> What YOU can manage is your problem!
>
> when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!
> like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> won't be able to do better than chance.
Trevor.
Doug McDonald
Feb 8, 2012, 10:33:22 PM2/8/12
to
that means, oh, say 32 kbps stereo Mp3 on an orchestral recording.
I suspect that anybody that claims to be able to tell a 32 kbps
.mp3 file from the high quality master tape it was made from
would indeed be able to do so.
that's 32 ... not 320
Doug McDonald
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:40:15 PM2/8/12
to
In article <jgvcn1$45i$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> >> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using
> >> an A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> >> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> >> What YOU can manage is your problem!
> >
> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
>
> Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
> card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!
that's not a double-blind test.
> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>
> And what YOU *think* is still wrong.
prove it.
wrote:
> >> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using
> >> an A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> >> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> >> What YOU can manage is your problem!
> >
> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
>
> Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
> card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!
> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>
> And what YOU *think* is still wrong.
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:44:57 PM2/8/12
to
In article <jgveq0$afi$1...@dont-email.me>, Doug McDonald
the best of the other. certainly you understand this very basic
concept, right?
<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
> >> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> >> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> >> What YOU can manage is your problem!
> >
> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
> >
> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>
> Mr. nospam ... READ what he said: "at some bit rates"
>
> that means, oh, say 32 kbps stereo Mp3 on an orchestral recording.
>
> I suspect that anybody that claims to be able to tell a 32 kbps
> .mp3 file from the high quality master tape it was made from
> would indeed be able to do so.
>
> that's 32 ... not 320
a fair comparison is with the best of both, not the worst of one and
> >> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
> >> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> >> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> >> What YOU can manage is your problem!
> >
> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
> >
> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>
> Mr. nospam ... READ what he said: "at some bit rates"
>
> that means, oh, say 32 kbps stereo Mp3 on an orchestral recording.
>
> I suspect that anybody that claims to be able to tell a 32 kbps
> .mp3 file from the high quality master tape it was made from
> would indeed be able to do so.
>
> that's 32 ... not 320
the best of the other. certainly you understand this very basic
concept, right?
Eric Stevens
Feb 8, 2012, 11:24:22 PM2/8/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:47:51 +1100, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:080220122132526660%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>>> No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the
>>> copper
>>> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
>>> proves is the difference is not a major problem.
>>
>> do you have those measurements?
>
>Give me the cables and I'll do it for you with certification to Australian
>National standards if you want! :-)
>
>>didn't think so.
>
>So you do then? YOU claimed there was no difference.
>
>
>> *if* there's an electrical difference, there *might* be an audible
>> effect.
>
>Right, or might not.
>
>>some differences won't matter. nobody is going to notice a
>> difference of a fraction of an ohm, for example.
>
>So you agree with what I said. Good to hear. It's possible in some cases you
>may hear the difference for significant fractions of an ohm though.
There are differences and they do matter.
>
>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:080220122132526660%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>>> No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the
>>> copper
>>> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
>>> proves is the difference is not a major problem.
>>
>> do you have those measurements?
>
>Give me the cables and I'll do it for you with certification to Australian
>National standards if you want! :-)
>
>>didn't think so.
>
>So you do then? YOU claimed there was no difference.
>
>
>> *if* there's an electrical difference, there *might* be an audible
>> effect.
>
>Right, or might not.
>
>>some differences won't matter. nobody is going to notice a
>> difference of a fraction of an ohm, for example.
>
>So you agree with what I said. Good to hear. It's possible in some cases you
>may hear the difference for significant fractions of an ohm though.
First, the moving coil (or whatever) of the speaker forms part of the
output stage of the amplifier. The quality of the music depends upon
the ability of the amplifier to control the peregrinations of the
speaker. Impedance in the connecting wires interferes with the ability
of the amplifier to do this so connection impedance should be kept to
a minimum.
Second, different speaker cables have their own unique sounds and this
is invariably due to differences in the reactance of the cables. What
you are hearing with these is not the music but the 'ringing' of the
circuitry. On one notorious occasion a cable was found to be so bad
that it would blow up any NAIM amplifier it was connected to.
I believe in lots of fine-strand copper and it seems to work for me.
Nothing fancy: just good low impedance copper.
-- snip --
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Feb 8, 2012, 11:28:47 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:58:01 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
My agenda is getting the best quality sound. Right from day 1 I have
found that MP3 does not give this. It may be theoretically possible
for MP3 to match audiophile standards but I've never found any that
good. Maybe things have changed.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
found that MP3 does not give this. It may be theoretically possible
for MP3 to match audiophile standards but I've never found any that
good. Maybe things have changed.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
tony cooper
Feb 8, 2012, 11:39:15 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:14:58 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <1kv5j7pu6kqomu8f5...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
>> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
>> >> coat hanger of market research.
>> >
>> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
>> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
>> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
>> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
>> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
>>
>> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
>> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
>> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
>> to some sort of market share conclusion.
>
>then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
>said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere.
Oh, yeah. I forgot that you also visually estimate Apple's market
share based on what you see at Starbucks.
>second,
>just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
>company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
>consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
but it is still a small percentage of the total market.
> and is now the
>most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
>why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
>really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
>expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
still a lot of units.
>
>> >> >> but the music involved
>> >> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> >> >> the quality of the sound.
>> >> >
>> >> >it didn't.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
>> >> was used.
>> >
>> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>>
>> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
>
>nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
>
>if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
>difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
>could there be?
There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
>> You are talking about
>> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
>> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
>> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
>> matter what wire was use.
>
>*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
>characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
>around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
>at all. it could be dc.
If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
Olufsen high-end speakers.
>> >do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
>> >if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
>>
>> The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
>> on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
>> two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
>> able to tell if they were different or not.
>
>actually, it *is* about what the electrons do.
wrote:
>In article <1kv5j7pu6kqomu8f5...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
>> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
>> >> coat hanger of market research.
>> >
>> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
>> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
>> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
>> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
>> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
>>
>> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
>> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
>> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
>> to some sort of market share conclusion.
>
>then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
>said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere.
share based on what you see at Starbucks.
>second,
>just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
>company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
>consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
but it is still a small percentage of the total market.
> and is now the
>most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
>why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
>really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
>expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
still a lot of units.
>
>> >> >> but the music involved
>> >> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> >> >> the quality of the sound.
>> >> >
>> >> >it didn't.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
>> >> was used.
>> >
>> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>>
>> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
>
>nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
>
>if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
>difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
>could there be?
music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
>> You are talking about
>> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
>> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
>> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
>> matter what wire was use.
>
>*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
>characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
>around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
>at all. it could be dc.
laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
Olufsen high-end speakers.
>> >do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
>> >if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
>>
>> The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
>> on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
>> two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
>> able to tell if they were different or not.
>
>actually, it *is* about what the electrons do.
Trevor
Feb 9, 2012, 1:07:37 AM2/9/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
>>
>> Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
>> card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!
>
> that's not a double-blind test.
Gee now you're really clutching at semantic straws!
>>
>> Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
>> card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!
>
> that's not a double-blind test.
Using an A-B comparator with random file presentation gives you no clue
which is which. Of course since you've never tried it you have no idea, like
everything else you clain.
>> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
>> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>>
>> And what YOU *think* is still wrong.
>
> prove it.
nonsense you believe!
Trevor.
Trevor
Feb 9, 2012, 1:11:09 AM2/9/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
particular" being a debating fallacy obviously.
If YOU can't state what you *actually* mean, don't expect us to read your
mind (what there is of it) correctly.
Trevor.
Trevor
Feb 9, 2012, 1:23:41 AM2/9/12
to
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:g3i6j755pkivgvi8g...@4ax.com...
> First, the moving coil (or whatever) of the speaker forms part of the
> output stage of the amplifier. The quality of the music depends upon
> the ability of the amplifier to control the peregrinations of the
> speaker. Impedance in the connecting wires interferes with the ability
> of the amplifier to do this so connection impedance should be kept to
> a minimum.
Right, with a point being reached where further reduction provides no
> output stage of the amplifier. The quality of the music depends upon
> the ability of the amplifier to control the peregrinations of the
> speaker. Impedance in the connecting wires interferes with the ability
> of the amplifier to do this so connection impedance should be kept to
> a minimum.
audible or even measureable benefits. This depends on many factors of the
amplifier/speakers involved, but often not as low as many imagine for home
audio cable length.
> Second, different speaker cables have their own unique sounds
most prefer musical instruments with normal strings, reeds etc. to do that!
:-)
> and this
> is invariably due to differences in the reactance of the cables. What
> you are hearing with these is not the music but the 'ringing' of the
> circuitry.
but certainly more so with some badly designed amps and difficult speakers.
Most of those are a problem regardless of what speaker cable you use
however.
>On one notorious occasion a cable was found to be so bad
> that it would blow up any NAIM amplifier it was connected to.
> I believe in lots of fine-strand copper and it seems to work for me.
> Nothing fancy: just good low impedance copper.
Trevor.
nospam
Feb 9, 2012, 1:38:14 AM2/9/12
to
In article <0gi6j7d6d9t5nueo7...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> >second,
> >just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
> >company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
> >consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
>
> The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
> but it is still a small percentage of the total market.
and as i explained last summer, that number has little relevance to
what's actually happening in the real world. i don't know why you hold
it in such high regard.
> > and is now the
> >most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>
> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
>
> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
> still a lot of units.
it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
the difference, right?
> >> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
> >> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
> >>
> >> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
> >
> >nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
> >
> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
> >could there be?
>
> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
cds, scratched or not.
minor scratches won't be noticed due to error correction. even an
unscratched cd will have some number of correctable read errors. if a
scratch is bad enough to cause uncorrectable errors, then the cd player
will mistrack. that *will* be noticed.
> >> You are talking about
> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> >> matter what wire was use.
> >
> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
> >at all. it could be dc.
>
> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
> Olufsen high-end speakers.
there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.
wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
difference, right?
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> >> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> >> >> coat hanger of market research.
> >> >
> >> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
> >> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
> >> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
> >> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
> >> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
> >>
> >> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
> >> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
> >> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
> >> to some sort of market share conclusion.
> >
> >then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
> >said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere.
>
> Oh, yeah. I forgot that you also visually estimate Apple's market
> share based on what you see at Starbucks.
nope.
> >> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> >> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> >> >> coat hanger of market research.
> >> >
> >> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
> >> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
> >> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
> >> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
> >> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
> >>
> >> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
> >> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
> >> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
> >> to some sort of market share conclusion.
> >
> >then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
> >said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere.
>
> Oh, yeah. I forgot that you also visually estimate Apple's market
> share based on what you see at Starbucks.
> >second,
> >just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
> >company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
> >consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
>
> The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
> but it is still a small percentage of the total market.
what's actually happening in the real world. i don't know why you hold
it in such high regard.
> > and is now the
> >most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>
> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
>
> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
> still a lot of units.
the difference, right?
> >> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
> >> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
> >>
> >> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
> >
> >nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
> >
> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
> >could there be?
>
> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
cds, scratched or not.
minor scratches won't be noticed due to error correction. even an
unscratched cd will have some number of correctable read errors. if a
scratch is bad enough to cause uncorrectable errors, then the cd player
will mistrack. that *will* be noticed.
> >> You are talking about
> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> >> matter what wire was use.
> >
> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
> >at all. it could be dc.
>
> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
> Olufsen high-end speakers.
speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.
wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
difference, right?
nospam
Feb 9, 2012, 1:59:40 AM2/9/12
to
In article <jgvo1e$mt0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> Better than you understand the concept of "arguing from the general to the
> particular" being a debating fallacy obviously.
> If YOU can't state what you *actually* mean, don't expect us to read your
> mind (what there is of it) correctly.
i did state what i meant, several times.
why do you insist on flawed slanted comparisons? afraid of the truth?
wrote:
> Better than you understand the concept of "arguing from the general to the
> particular" being a debating fallacy obviously.
> If YOU can't state what you *actually* mean, don't expect us to read your
> mind (what there is of it) correctly.
why do you insist on flawed slanted comparisons? afraid of the truth?
Eric Stevens
Feb 9, 2012, 3:37:19 AM2/9/12
to
another with the result that there has been an audible change in the
sound of the music. That's what I meant when I said that different
cables have different 'sounds'.
>
>
>>On one notorious occasion a cable was found to be so bad
>> that it would blow up any NAIM amplifier it was connected to.
>
>Now that's a bad cable AND amp then!
Nothing wrong with a NAIM amp if its connected to a normal
>
>>On one notorious occasion a cable was found to be so bad
>> that it would blow up any NAIM amplifier it was connected to.
>
>Now that's a bad cable AND amp then!
resistive/inductive load. It's when it is connected to a
resistive/capacitive load that it got into trouble. This was never a
problem until it ran into the fad for fancy cables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Audio
"The company's pre- and power- amplifiers, especially, are
electrically matched and are designed to be used together. Dire
warnings attach to experimentation with other manufacturers
components,[6] particularly in the case for some "high-end"
loudspeaker cables, whose inductance/capacitance characteristics
present unstable loads to the high-current devices used inside Naim
power amplifiers – these have been documented to cause damage to
same.[5]"
>
>
>> I believe in lots of fine-strand copper and it seems to work for me.
>> Nothing fancy: just good low impedance copper.
>
>Works for most people.
>
>Trevor.
>
Eric Stevens
Trevor
Feb 9, 2012, 3:39:41 AM2/9/12
to
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> i did state what i meant, several times.
Rubbish! ONLY in your very last post did you change your argument to ONLY at
320kbs.
> why do you insist on flawed slanted comparisons? afraid of the truth?
yourself, and have ABSOLUTELY no idea what others can hear, but will keep
claiming yourself as an authority hoping someone might believe you. Fact is
nobody else cares what you think. They simply make up their own minds what
to listen to and why.
Trevor.
Trevor
Feb 9, 2012, 3:51:31 AM2/9/12
to
news:sr07j7hoqqn8q42oh...@4ax.com...
speaker cable, as well as some electrodynamics with poorly designed
crossovers for that matter.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Audio
> "The company's pre- and power- amplifiers, especially, are
> electrically matched and are designed to be used together."
Irrelevant to speaker cable, and more likely to be a ploy to sell both
components, especially if the used non standard levels and impedance to
force you to do so. Usually a good enough reason for me to go elsewhere!
> "Dire
> warnings attach to experimentation with other manufacturers
> components,[6] particularly in the case for some "high-end"
> loudspeaker cables, whose inductance/capacitance characteristics
> present unstable loads to the high-current devices used inside Naim
> power amplifiers - these have been documented to cause damage to
> same.[5]"
>
Probably didn't use load compensation on the output like most other
manufacturers. More of an amplifier problem than a cable problem IMO.
Trevor.
> Nothing wrong with a NAIM amp if its connected to a normal
> resistive/inductive load. It's when it is connected to a
> resistive/capacitive load that it got into trouble. This was never a
> problem until it ran into the fad for fancy cables.
What crap, most electrostatic speakers will be harder to drive than any
> resistive/inductive load. It's when it is connected to a
> resistive/capacitive load that it got into trouble. This was never a
> problem until it ran into the fad for fancy cables.
speaker cable, as well as some electrodynamics with poorly designed
crossovers for that matter.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Audio
> "The company's pre- and power- amplifiers, especially, are
> electrically matched and are designed to be used together."
components, especially if the used non standard levels and impedance to
force you to do so. Usually a good enough reason for me to go elsewhere!
> "Dire
> warnings attach to experimentation with other manufacturers
> components,[6] particularly in the case for some "high-end"
> loudspeaker cables, whose inductance/capacitance characteristics
> present unstable loads to the high-current devices used inside Naim
> same.[5]"
>
Probably didn't use load compensation on the output like most other
manufacturers. More of an amplifier problem than a cable problem IMO.
Trevor.
tony cooper
Feb 9, 2012, 9:26:14 AM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:38:14 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>
>> >second,
>> >just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
>> >company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
>> >consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
>>
>> The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
>> but it is still a small percentage of the total market.
>
>and as i explained last summer, that number has little relevance to
>what's actually happening in the real world. i don't know why you hold
>it in such high regard.
>
>> > and is now the
>> >most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>>
>> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
>> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
>> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
>> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
>>
>> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
>> still a lot of units.
>
>it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
>the difference, right?
This is the kind of statement that destroys your credibility. In
reply to a comment about "...one wouldn't expect to see anywhere near
as many...", I wrote "The total number of units is huge" and you
idiotically replied "it's not about total units, it's about
percentages".
Your whole argument is based on the number of total units. You feel
that because you see a lot of units in use that Apple has a greater
share - percentage - of the market. Not seeing that a huge market
results in a lot of units in use of a brand that holds a small share
of the total market is almost unbelievably dense.
>> >> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>> >> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>> >>
>> >> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
>> >
>> >nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
>> >
>> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
>> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
>> >could there be?
>>
>> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
>> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
>
>there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
>cds, scratched or not.
You are talking about the clarity of sound as heard delivered by two
different systems. You can't *hear* the music using just wire of any
kind. The clarity of sound is dependent on all of the components of
the system.
>minor scratches won't be noticed due to error correction. even an
>unscratched cd will have some number of correctable read errors. if a
>scratch is bad enough to cause uncorrectable errors, then the cd player
>will mistrack. that *will* be noticed.
>
>> >> You are talking about
>> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
>> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
>> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
>> >> matter what wire was use.
>> >
>> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
>> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
>> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
>> >at all. it could be dc.
>>
>> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
>> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
>> Olufsen high-end speakers.
>
>there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
>speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.
Read what I wrote above.
Are you seriously claiming that the laptop and the B&O systems would
reproduce sound the same if both used the same wire?
>wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
>electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
>difference, right?
Read what I wrote above.
You make inane statements and unsupportable claims and then whine that
any contradiction of those statements or claims is "twisting" what you
say. Pitiful.
wrote:
>
>> >second,
>> >just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
>> >company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
>> >consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
>>
>> The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
>> but it is still a small percentage of the total market.
>
>and as i explained last summer, that number has little relevance to
>what's actually happening in the real world. i don't know why you hold
>it in such high regard.
>
>> > and is now the
>> >most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>>
>> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
>> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
>> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
>> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
>>
>> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
>> still a lot of units.
>
>it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
>the difference, right?
reply to a comment about "...one wouldn't expect to see anywhere near
as many...", I wrote "The total number of units is huge" and you
idiotically replied "it's not about total units, it's about
percentages".
Your whole argument is based on the number of total units. You feel
that because you see a lot of units in use that Apple has a greater
share - percentage - of the market. Not seeing that a huge market
results in a lot of units in use of a brand that holds a small share
of the total market is almost unbelievably dense.
>> >> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>> >> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>> >>
>> >> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
>> >
>> >nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
>> >
>> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
>> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
>> >could there be?
>>
>> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
>> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
>
>there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
>cds, scratched or not.
different systems. You can't *hear* the music using just wire of any
kind. The clarity of sound is dependent on all of the components of
the system.
>minor scratches won't be noticed due to error correction. even an
>unscratched cd will have some number of correctable read errors. if a
>scratch is bad enough to cause uncorrectable errors, then the cd player
>will mistrack. that *will* be noticed.
>
>> >> You are talking about
>> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
>> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
>> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
>> >> matter what wire was use.
>> >
>> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
>> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
>> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
>> >at all. it could be dc.
>>
>> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
>> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
>> Olufsen high-end speakers.
>
>there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
>speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.
Are you seriously claiming that the laptop and the B&O systems would
reproduce sound the same if both used the same wire?
>wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
>electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
>difference, right?
You make inane statements and unsupportable claims and then whine that
any contradiction of those statements or claims is "twisting" what you
say. Pitiful.
tony cooper
Feb 9, 2012, 9:27:36 AM2/9/12
to
nospam
Feb 9, 2012, 12:50:22 PM2/9/12
to
In article <sr07j7hoqqn8q42oh...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> There have been tests where one type of cable has been substituted for
> another with the result that there has been an audible change in the
> sound of the music. That's what I meant when I said that different
> cables have different 'sounds'.
cite one.
> There have been tests where one type of cable has been substituted for
> another with the result that there has been an audible change in the
> sound of the music. That's what I meant when I said that different
> cables have different 'sounds'.
nospam
Feb 9, 2012, 12:50:23 PM2/9/12
to
In article <jh00nt$8cl$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> > i did state what i meant, several times.
>
> Rubbish! ONLY in your very last post did you change your argument to ONLY at
> 320kbs.
i didn't change a thing, nor did i say only 320k. some things are
obvious and don't have to be explicitly spelled out. one is that you
must pick the best of each for a fair comparison. anything else will
skew the results, which is what it looks like you want to do.
wrote:
> > i did state what i meant, several times.
>
> Rubbish! ONLY in your very last post did you change your argument to ONLY at
> 320kbs.
obvious and don't have to be explicitly spelled out. one is that you
must pick the best of each for a fair comparison. anything else will
skew the results, which is what it looks like you want to do.
nospam
Feb 9, 2012, 12:50:26 PM2/9/12
to
In article <52l7j75kkj17q2ssi...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> You feel
> that because you see a lot of units in use that Apple has a greater
> share - percentage - of the market. Not seeing that a huge market
> results in a lot of units in use of a brand that holds a small share
> of the total market is almost unbelievably dense.
nope. what i said was those 'official' market share numbers don't match
reality.
apple stock broke 490 today, which means apple is now worth more than
microsoft and google *combined*, further proof that those 'official'
numbers don't mean a whole lot.
> >> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
> >> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
> >> >could there be?
> >>
> >> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
> >> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
> >
> >there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
> >cds, scratched or not.
>
> You are talking about the clarity of sound as heard delivered by two
> different systems. You can't *hear* the music using just wire of any
> kind. The clarity of sound is dependent on all of the components of
> the system.
of course all of the components matter to the sound. nobody said
otherwise. yet another diversion.
the issue that started this thread is about speaker cable, not other
components. in particular, it was monster cable versus coat hanger. you
are bringing up scratched cds, laptop speakers and who knows what else
you have in mind.
> >> >> You are talking about
> >> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> >> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> >> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> >> >> matter what wire was use.
> >> >
> >> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
> >> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
> >> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
> >> >at all. it could be dc.
> >>
> >> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
> >> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
> >> Olufsen high-end speakers.
> >
> >there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
> >speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.
>
> Read what I wrote above.
>
> Are you seriously claiming that the laptop and the B&O systems would
> reproduce sound the same if both used the same wire?
i never said that. read what i wrote above.
> >wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
> >electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
> >difference, right?
>
> Read what I wrote above.
>
> You make inane statements and unsupportable claims and then whine that
> any contradiction of those statements or claims is "twisting" what you
> say. Pitiful.
all my statements are supportable and i provide links when necessary.
what's pitiful is you keep twisting what i say and adding all sorts of
unrelated things in a desperate attempt to show that something i said
was wrong. it isn't working and it is making you look incredibly
foolish.
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
> >> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
> >> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
> >> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
> >>
> >> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
> >> still a lot of units.
> >
> >it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
> >the difference, right?
>
> This is the kind of statement that destroys your credibility. In
> reply to a comment about "...one wouldn't expect to see anywhere near
> as many...", I wrote "The total number of units is huge" and you
> idiotically replied "it's not about total units, it's about
> percentages".
>
> Your whole argument is based on the number of total units.
no it isn't and it never was. don't twist what i've said.
> >> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
> >> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
> >> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
> >> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
> >>
> >> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
> >> still a lot of units.
> >
> >it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
> >the difference, right?
>
> This is the kind of statement that destroys your credibility. In
> reply to a comment about "...one wouldn't expect to see anywhere near
> as many...", I wrote "The total number of units is huge" and you
> idiotically replied "it's not about total units, it's about
> percentages".
>
> Your whole argument is based on the number of total units.
> You feel
> that because you see a lot of units in use that Apple has a greater
> share - percentage - of the market. Not seeing that a huge market
> results in a lot of units in use of a brand that holds a small share
> of the total market is almost unbelievably dense.
reality.
apple stock broke 490 today, which means apple is now worth more than
microsoft and google *combined*, further proof that those 'official'
numbers don't mean a whole lot.
> >> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
> >> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
> >> >could there be?
> >>
> >> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
> >> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
> >
> >there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
> >cds, scratched or not.
>
> You are talking about the clarity of sound as heard delivered by two
> different systems. You can't *hear* the music using just wire of any
> kind. The clarity of sound is dependent on all of the components of
> the system.
otherwise. yet another diversion.
the issue that started this thread is about speaker cable, not other
components. in particular, it was monster cable versus coat hanger. you
are bringing up scratched cds, laptop speakers and who knows what else
you have in mind.
> >> >> You are talking about
> >> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> >> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> >> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> >> >> matter what wire was use.
> >> >
> >> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
> >> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
> >> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
> >> >at all. it could be dc.
> >>
> >> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
> >> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
> >> Olufsen high-end speakers.
> >
> >there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
> >speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.
>
> Read what I wrote above.
>
> Are you seriously claiming that the laptop and the B&O systems would
> reproduce sound the same if both used the same wire?
> >wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
> >electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
> >difference, right?
>
> Read what I wrote above.
>
> You make inane statements and unsupportable claims and then whine that
> any contradiction of those statements or claims is "twisting" what you
> say. Pitiful.
what's pitiful is you keep twisting what i say and adding all sorts of
unrelated things in a desperate attempt to show that something i said
was wrong. it isn't working and it is making you look incredibly
foolish.
Eric Stevens
Feb 9, 2012, 3:33:21 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:51:31 +1100, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:sr07j7hoqqn8q42oh...@4ax.com...
>> Nothing wrong with a NAIM amp if its connected to a normal
>> resistive/inductive load. It's when it is connected to a
>> resistive/capacitive load that it got into trouble. This was never a
>> problem until it ran into the fad for fancy cables.
>
>What crap, most electrostatic speakers will be harder to drive than any
>speaker cable, ...
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:sr07j7hoqqn8q42oh...@4ax.com...
>> Nothing wrong with a NAIM amp if its connected to a normal
>> resistive/inductive load. It's when it is connected to a
>> resistive/capacitive load that it got into trouble. This was never a
>> problem until it ran into the fad for fancy cables.
>
>What crap, most electrostatic speakers will be harder to drive than any
Quite right, which is why many amplifiers couldn't drive them.
>... as well as some electrodynamics with poorly designed
>crossovers for that matter.
>
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Audio
>> "The company's pre- and power- amplifiers, especially, are
>> electrically matched and are designed to be used together."
>
>Irrelevant to speaker cable, and more likely to be a ploy to sell both
>components, especially if the used non standard levels and impedance to
>force you to do so. Usually a good enough reason for me to go elsewhere!
A perfectly accurate statement. NAIM gear was known to be fussy in
>
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Audio
>> "The company's pre- and power- amplifiers, especially, are
>> electrically matched and are designed to be used together."
>
>Irrelevant to speaker cable, and more likely to be a ploy to sell both
>components, especially if the used non standard levels and impedance to
>force you to do so. Usually a good enough reason for me to go elsewhere!
this regard.
>
>
>> "Dire
>> warnings attach to experimentation with other manufacturers
>> components,[6] particularly in the case for some "high-end"
>> loudspeaker cables, whose inductance/capacitance characteristics
>> present unstable loads to the high-current devices used inside Naim
>> power amplifiers - these have been documented to cause damage to
>> same.[5]"
>>
>
>Probably didn't use load compensation on the output like most other
>manufacturers. More of an amplifier problem than a cable problem IMO.
Probably because they regarded any extraneous circuitry as detracting
>
>> "Dire
>> warnings attach to experimentation with other manufacturers
>> components,[6] particularly in the case for some "high-end"
>> loudspeaker cables, whose inductance/capacitance characteristics
>> present unstable loads to the high-current devices used inside Naim
>> power amplifiers - these have been documented to cause damage to
>> same.[5]"
>>
>
>Probably didn't use load compensation on the output like most other
>manufacturers. More of an amplifier problem than a cable problem IMO.
from the sound quality.
On the other hand I have seen/heard a demonstration in which a Naim
was driving a pair of Linn Isobarik speakers at such high power levels
that the power-on light on the amplifier was winking out, while all
the time maintaining a high quality sound output.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages