«

David J Taylor <david-> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> []
>> Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument with
>> more notes?

> You can tune and tweak many instruments to get as many notes as you want!
> And then there is the string section, and trombones....

That's true, but the more you make the less you can tell the
difference. There's a limit to how many different notes the best human
ear can hear, quite apart from the restricted range of our own
personal ears.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David J Taylor
> <david-> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> []
>>> Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument
>>> with more notes?
>
>> You can tune and tweak many instruments to get as many notes as you
>> want! And then there is the string section, and trombones....
>
> That's true, but the more you make the less you can tell the
> difference. There's a limit to how many different notes the best human
> ear can hear, quite apart from the restricted range of our own
> personal ears.

Were that the same was true with eyes! I believe that I have been able to
see quantisation even in 24-bit displays ("16 million colours") if the
colours are carefully chosen to be adjacent (G=50, B=51 etc.) and the
image chosen to maximise quantisation visibility (slow changes across the
display, "circular greyscale"). Hence my comment that "thousands of
colours" would stop me purchasing a camera.

The trouble is that, with using LCD displays (as opposed to CRT) you never
know where you are with colour (it could even be 6-bits per channel, and
goodness knows what calibration), and I also watch some digital TV
(FreeView) and you have no idea how the bit-rate reduction there may have
damaged the original.

Cheers,
David

nospam wrote:
>
> In article <>, ASAAR
> <> wrote:
>
> > Many dolts also support Canon, Fuji, Kodak,
> > Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras.
>
> don't forget sigma.


Hello, nospam:

Why? Sigma is quite forgettable, if nothing else.


Cordially,
John Turco <>

David J Taylor <david-> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> []
>>>> Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument
>>>> with more notes?
>>
>>> You can tune and tweak many instruments to get as many notes as you
>>> want! And then there is the string section, and trombones....
>>
>> That's true, but the more you make the less you can tell the
>> difference. There's a limit to how many different notes the best human
>> ear can hear, quite apart from the restricted range of our own
>> personal ears.

> Were that the same was true with eyes! I believe that I have been able to
> see quantisation even in 24-bit displays ("16 million colours") if the
> colours are carefully chosen to be adjacent (G=50, B=51 etc.) and the
> image chosen to maximise quantisation visibility (slow changes across the
> display, "circular greyscale"). Hence my comment that "thousands of
> colours" would stop me purchasing a camera.

> The trouble is that, with using LCD displays (as opposed to CRT) you never
> know where you are with colour (it could even be 6-bits per channel, and
> goodness knows what calibration), and I also watch some digital TV
> (FreeView) and you have no idea how the bit-rate reduction there may have
> damaged the original.

It's obvious what's going to happen if you leave digitisation quality
in the hands of someone who is going to profit from underestimating
the capacity of human senses. I reluctantly accept the bland
cartoonish plasticisation of digital TV as a worthwhile trade off
which gives me in return more reliable noise-free reception, more
channels, etc..

It's a shame the purveyors of digital sound broadcasting couldn't have
rested content with CD quality, and rather disgusting that the BBC,
who used to lead the world in broadcast sound quality, have made such
a greedy pig's breakfast of digital radio "quality". The compression
artefacts annoy me even when listening to the news despite my ears
being far too old to be able to hear TV pictures or bats.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]
> It's obvious what's going to happen if you leave digitisation quality
> in the hands of someone who is going to profit from underestimating
> the capacity of human senses. I reluctantly accept the bland
> cartoonish plasticisation of digital TV as a worthwhile trade off
> which gives me in return more reliable noise-free reception, more
> channels, etc..
>
> It's a shame the purveyors of digital sound broadcasting couldn't have
> rested content with CD quality, and rather disgusting that the BBC,
> who used to lead the world in broadcast sound quality, have made such
> a greedy pig's breakfast of digital radio "quality". The compression
> artefacts annoy me even when listening to the news despite my ears
> being far too old to be able to hear TV pictures or bats.

Chris,

I still have FM analogue radio here, and it's fine for my purposes. My
radio news is restricted to BBC Radio 3. I do agree with you about the
trade-off with digital TV, although I would prefer less quantity and more
quality (both of the broadcast material and the technical transmission
aspects). Fewer, higher-quality channels.

Cheers,
David