Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2012
"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> 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
>people taking part. Both can easily be sub par.



If you don't like the results, blame the participants.

It's a bit like democracy.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2012

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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,
EXACTLY like politics (which is not real democracy at all)

Trevor.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
In article <jfq7o9$hh6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
In article <jfq7hl$h1t$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
In article <jfq7jn$h39$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:17:43 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <jfq7o9$hh6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
>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, 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 - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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/a...he-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.

> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:03:01 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> 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?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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/a...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.

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-audiop...e-is-really-wo
rth-15>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Fuji S3000 3.2m/pixel output, or 6 m/pixel interpolated output? Peter H Digital Photography 43 12-04-2003 02:35 PM
Fuji S3000 - 3.2 m/pixel or 6 m/pixel? Peter H Digital Photography 3 11-18-2003 11:17 PM
Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel Robert E. Williams Digital Photography 2 09-16-2003 03:02 PM
Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel Tom Thackrey Digital Photography 2 09-14-2003 04:17 PM
Hot pixel vs. stuck pixel Abrasha Digital Photography 5 09-02-2003 04:49 PM



Advertisments