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?

 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
In rec.photo.digital 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.


If the coat hangers won there must have been a discernible
difference. So the audiophiles were right about there being a
difference, just wrong about which was the best. Unless of course the
test involved music with some unpleasant artefact in the recording or
reproduction chanin which it so happened the coat hanger's
imperfections ameliorated.

I'd say on balance if the coat hangers were picked by the audiophiles
then the audiophiles made their point about there being signifcant
differences and the test was flawed.

More likely however this test was never done, just made up by a
plausible liar and repeated by all those who "knew" it must be
true. That's how urban mysths work.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:50:26 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

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


Of course it is. You have argued with industry market share figures
solely on the basis of the number of units you have personally
observed.

>> 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.


The only "reality" involved is the ridiculously limited personal view
of your own observations. You have found no one, and no source, to
support your "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.


Proof? Of what? Stock prices reflect what investors see as the
potential of a company. They are not based on what the company's
market share is, but they may be affected by *changes* in market
share. An increase in market share, from a relatively minor share to
a larger number, could result in an increase in the stock price.

>> 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.


Whine, whine, whine.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
On 2/8/2012 10:28 PM, Eric Stevens 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.
>
>

Well, if you have not done a double blind
test since day one, things have changed a lot!

The original tests were done with MP3 encodes written
by what amounted to the people who designed it.
Those encoders were abysmally bad.

The only valid test of MP3 potential transparency is using
the current LAME encoder at 320 kbps and set to try its
hardest to do a good job (even at a fixed bitrate
there is a setting for how hard it tries.)

I can't hear the difference between original and LAME
even at 192 kbps so I'm not qualifies to say whether or
not 320 is really transparent. But what I HAVE done is
listen to difference files (i.e. decoded MP3 time-aligned
with origional wave file and subtracted). Even at 144
kbps LAME is generating differences that sound like colored
Gaussian noise, not at all like the 1000 chirping
canaries of the early MP3 encoders. At higher biotrates the
difference noise simply gets lower in amplitude and less
colored.

Doug McDonald

 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2012
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:51:31 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> 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, ...

>
> Quite right, which is why many amplifiers couldn't drive them.


Then I'm one lucky Hombre. I have a couple of 7ft tall Martin-Logan
electrostatic speakers being driven by a couple of McLaren (made in New
Zealand) 250 watt amplifiers. Never had a problem and I don't use
monster cable. Eh! .... whatja say??

>
>> ... 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
> 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
> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2012

"nick c" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jh1rjs$q7p$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:51:31 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> What crap, most electrostatic speakers will be harder to drive than any
>>> speaker cable, ...

>>
>> Quite right, which is why many amplifiers couldn't drive them.

>
> Then I'm one lucky Hombre. I have a couple of 7ft tall Martin-Logan
> electrostatic speakers being driven by a couple of McLaren (made in New
> Zealand) 250 watt amplifiers. Never had a problem and I don't use monster
> cable. Eh! .... whatja say??


Yours isn't one of the "many" he referred to obviously.
Whilst I might agree with "many", it's still a reasonably small percentage
fortunately, certainly not most.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2012

"Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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.

>
> If the coat hangers won there must have been a discernible
> difference. So the audiophiles were right about there being a
> difference, just wrong about which was the best. Unless of course the
> test involved music with some unpleasant artefact in the recording or
> reproduction chanin which it so happened the coat hanger's
> imperfections ameliorated.
>
> I'd say on balance if the coat hangers were picked by the audiophiles
> then the audiophiles made their point about there being signifcant
> differences and the test was flawed.
>
> More likely however this test was never done, just made up by a
> plausible liar and repeated by all those who "knew" it must be
> true. That's how urban mysths work.



Nope they quite likely "won", but still with a statisticly insignificant
difference. In other words they couldn't pick the difference, but chose
something anyway, with the results favouring the coat hangers purely by
luck. Which is not so much a "win" for the coat hangers, but *IS* a "fail"
for the monster cable! That was the point of the test after all, NOT to sell
coat hangers!!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2012
Trevor wrote:
> "nick c" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:jh1rjs$q7p$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:51:31 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> What crap, most electrostatic speakers will be harder to drive than any
>>>> speaker cable, ...
>>> Quite right, which is why many amplifiers couldn't drive them.

>> Then I'm one lucky Hombre. I have a couple of 7ft tall Martin-Logan
>> electrostatic speakers being driven by a couple of McLaren (made in New
>> Zealand) 250 watt amplifiers. Never had a problem and I don't use monster
>> cable. Eh! .... whatja say??

>
> Yours isn't one of the "many" he referred to obviously.
> Whilst I might agree with "many", it's still a reasonably small percentage
> fortunately, certainly not most.
>
> Trevor.
>
>


I'll accept "a reasonably small percentage" as probably being more
likely to be encountered, if a compatibility problem exists. But I must
say, among my circle of friends who prefer electrostatic speakers, I
don't know of anyone who has encountered a compatibility problem with
any brand of amplifiers having sufficient power to drive electrostatics.

I do know of situations where there were amplifiers that didn't output
sufficient wattage to drive a couple of electrostatic speakers. But I
see that as a different type problem.



 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2012
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:24:04 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:51:31 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> 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, ...
>>> Quite right, which is why many amplifiers couldn't drive them.

>> Then I'm one lucky Hombre. I have a couple of 7ft tall Martin-Logan
>> electrostatic speakers being driven by a couple of McLaren (made in New
>> Zealand) 250 watt amplifiers. Never had a problem and I don't use
>> monster cable. Eh! .... whatja say??

>
> You have a good combination.
>
> I have a pair of Quad ESL63s driven by a Quad 606. The quad is
> unconditionally stable into any load, including a dead short!
>>>> ... as well as some electrodynamics with poorly designed
>>>> crossovers for that matter.


My Martin-Logan's are driven by a McLaren preamp coupled to a couple of
McLaren amplifiers. I chose the McLaren equipment because they too are
stable, use very high quality component parts, and are basically easy to
maintain (or trouble shoot) should that become necessary. The
Martin-Logan's have their own (rather complicated) built-in crossover
circuitry to feed their individually enclosed 16 inch Woofer's.










>>>
>>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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

>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2012
David J. Littleboy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[monster cable versus coat hangers blind test]

> And it's the same story in guitar cables (and wine!). There's.No.Difference.
> But I use somewhat higher priced cables, because the generic ones are so
> shoddily made they break.


I'm unable to tell if there are significant differences between
expensive wines --- not my thing. But I know there are wines
I like and wines I emphatically don't like --- so there is
a difference.

I agree however that a low priced wine doesn't mean it is bad,
nor must a higher priced wine be good (by whatever measure)
by default. However, the chances that a very cheap wine is bad
(unless you're drinking to dull your senses) are much better than
a somewhat pricier wine.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2012
Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David J. Littleboy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> [monster cable versus coat hangers blind test]
>
>> And it's the same story in guitar cables (and wine!). There's.No.Difference.
>> But I use somewhat higher priced cables, because the generic ones are so
>> shoddily made they break.

>
> I'm unable to tell if there are significant differences between
> expensive wines --- not my thing. But I know there are wines
> I like and wines I emphatically don't like --- so there is
> a difference.


Wine certainly doesn't correlate price to quality really exactly. And
there's a wide range of preferences in what kind of wines people like.

But I've been to tastings of things I can't afford to drink, and run a
lot of tastings including doing double-blind tests, and there certainly
are differences between wines. And I tend to prefer more expensive
wines a lot, sadly.

> I agree however that a low priced wine doesn't mean it is bad,
> nor must a higher priced wine be good (by whatever measure)
> by default. However, the chances that a very cheap wine is bad
> (unless you're drinking to dull your senses) are much better than
> a somewhat pricier wine.


Especially at the margins, the cheapest wines are unlikely to be good,
and the very best wines are unlikely to be cheap.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
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