The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 25th April 2014
  #3871
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Frankly, I pity people for whom the real actual physical universe that we live in is not interesting enough! That they have to make stuff up. As someone interested in science, I am filled with awe and wonder every single day, and I do not have to believe in unicorns, ghosts, bigfoots, fairies or human ultrasonic hearing to get that feeling!
You must know that the most important part of the spectrum for unicorn calls is the ultrasonic (specifically, the 23-52khz band). 16/44 just does not cut it if you're doing unicorn pop.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3872
Gear Addict
 

Sometimes Nobel winning scientist and leading theoretical Physicists don't even agree with each other. You can't argue the math behind the "anti-Pono" theme, but there's is a lot we don't know about how music affects the human body and psyche. I know you "science people" (WTF is that?) don't want to have this conversation, but perhaps we hear with more than just our ears? For all we know certain frequencies tickles our eyelids which in turn tickles the back your balls which open's your third eye? I'm making an outlandish metaphor to make a point. Quantum mechanics has recently raised a lot of interesting questions about our perception of reality. The book is far from closed. The universe is made of mathematical and musical language. It's obviously not just some inanimate "product" that's only existed in the last 100 + years on wax, vinyl, tape and digital formats. When we really connect with music it affects our whole being, not just your eardrums and certain and separate parts of the brain. In my subjective opinion the digital format as it has existed up to this point. does not bring that experience to as high a level immersion and pleasure as is possible in the reality of a live experience or in some of the other formats such as vinyl and tape (despite their own inaccuracies etc... ) As an experience it goes down a more cerebral way compared to reality, tape etc... Why? I don't know, but let's find out instead of clinging to the numbers.

-"When conflicts of principle arise, that's when major paradigm shifts happen." Theoretical Physicist Leonard Susskind
Old 25th April 2014
  #3873
Lives for gear
Of course it is possible we hear with the hair on our arms, or something. Who knows, maybe we have eight more sense science has yet to discover. And of course "science" doens't "know everything." (These kind of arguments always make it sounds as if "science" is the professor on Gilligan's island or something) But that's not the argument for Pono. You seem to be suggesting "Pono is good because there might be other forms of hearing." This doesn't strike me as a very good argument. "You should buy my device because it might be very useful for some as yet undiscovered superpowers you might possibly have."

That's kind of backwards.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3874
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Sometimes Nobel winning scientist and leading theoretical Physicists don't even agree with each other. You can't argue the math behind the "anti-Pono" theme, but there's is a lot we don't know about how music affects the human body and psyche. I know you "science people" (WTF is that?) don't want to have this conversation, but perhaps we hear with more than just our ears?
? Why would people not want to have that conversation?

Right now there is no evidence of what you speak.

When evidence arrives, I know I will change my perspective. I haven't experienced anything other than my own confirmation bias, when it comes to noticing differences. But if I'm wrong, I am happy to admit it and take in the new info. I'm sure most people agree.

Anything that can be experienced can be tested.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3875
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Sometimes Nobel winning scientist and leading theoretical Physicists don't even agree with each other. You can't argue the math behind the "anti-Pono" theme, but there's is a lot we don't know about how music affects the human body and psyche. I know you "science people" (WTF is that?) don't want to have this conversation, but perhaps we hear with more than just our ears? For all we know certain frequencies tickles our eyelids which in turn tickles the back your balls which open's your third eye? I'm making an outlandish metaphor to make a point. Quantum mechanics has recently raised a lot of interesting questions about our perception of reality. The book is far from closed. The universe is made of mathematical and musical language. It's obviously not just some inanimate "product" that's only existed in the last 100 + years on wax, vinyl, tape and digital formats. When we really connect with music it affects our whole being, not just your eardrums and certain and separate parts of the brain. In my subjective opinion the digital format as it has existed up to this point. does not bring that experience to as high a level immersion and pleasure as is possible in the reality of a live experience or in some of the other formats such as vinyl and tape (despite their own inaccuracies etc... ) As an experience it goes down a more cerebral way compared to reality, tape etc... Why? I don't know, but let's find out instead of clinging to the numbers.

-"When conflicts of principle arise, that's when major paradigm shifts happen." Theoretical Physicist Leonard Susskind
I get SO tired of folks trying to misuse the very active fields of inquiry we call 'quantum physics' as a fig leaf for illogical, fact-free speculations and suppositions, many already disproven, regarding the quite measurable and predictable world described by classical mechanics ('Newtonian physics' if one must).

That doesn't mean, by a stretch, that we already know everything we need to now about how the human brain and perceptual system processes sonic information -- but we improve that knowledge not by idle speculation uninformed by what is already known, but by careful disciplined observation, measurement, and experimentation, building on what is already known, even as we continually check and reinvestigate that understanding, a process of self-correction at the heart of the Scientific Method.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3876
Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer View Post
You must know that the most important part of the spectrum for unicorn calls is the ultrasonic (specifically, the 23-52khz band). 16/44 just does not cut it if you're doing unicorn pop.
Which is why unicorn hunters have adopted falconeering tactics to working with bats, I think.


heh
Old 25th April 2014
  #3877
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I get SO tired of folks trying to misuse the very active fields of inquiry we call 'quantum physics' as a fig leaf for illogical, fact-free speculations and suppositions, many already disproven, regarding the quite measurable and predictable world described by classical mechanics ('Newtonian physics' if one must).

That doesn't mean, by a stretch, that we already know everything we need to now about how the human brain and perceptual system processes sonic information -- but we improve that knowledge not by idle speculation uninformed by what is already known, but by careful disciplined observation, measurement, and experimentation, building on what is already known, even as we continually check and reinvestigate that understanding, a process of self-correction at the heart of the Scientific Method.
I've been checking put your post and man, you really need a new hobby other than this thread.

It's unfortunate that you can't see a connection between the Universe, ourselves and music and that you have to compartmentalize your "facts" outside of our shared experience of reality.

Please don't respond unless you really have because I'm seriously not interested in any kind of back and forth with you.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3878
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I get SO tired of folks trying to misuse the very active fields of inquiry we call 'quantum physics' as a fig leaf for illogical, fact-free speculations and suppositions, many already disproven, regarding the quite measurable and predictable world described by classical mechanics ('Newtonian physics' if one must)
Lol. Deepak Chopra is a champion of this.

@mellotronic: Even if your unsubstantiated theories were true, the missing information would surely be more hampered by the acoustic transference device, (ie: speakers/phones/earbuds), than the playback medium, no?
Old 25th April 2014
  #3879
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
No, but just by chance I found some old files I saved when I archived some master tapes years ago, I never listened to them since then, about 1998. They were done at 24/96. Also at 44.1/16 which I have listened to on CD ever since. I listened to them first, and then was able to set up a perfect ABX for myself, assuming my computer is decoding the higher bit files properly. The results were not quite what I thought they might be.
Hmm, no one is interested.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3880
Gear Addict
 

Just wondered. Do filmmakers and videographers argue about light that can't be seen by humans, or is this unique to sound reproduction?
Old 25th April 2014
  #3881
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Sure, I know nothing about Silicon Valley. I was just quoting the Pono publicity machine. The point is, they aren't music industry people. The music industry isn't on the board of Pono. Three out of five running the company are Tech. Two living in Silicon Valley.
Once again Chris it brings us right back to the "crux of the biscuit".Ya I quoted Frank Zappa. Funny though Frank had a real strong take on the whole music business thing. Ah but I digress.

The problem lies in what we have been talking about all along. The Pono people choose to exaggerate everything with colorful prose and misleading and possible false truths.

None of those guys on the Pono Team are Silicon Valley legends. Wow they work in tech in the valley. You do realize they are some very reputable Gear Slutz that do as well. Some who I would tend to trust their word and ability for tech analysis more so than those guys on Pono. Why , because no one is misrepresenting them as being greater than they are nor do I think they would allow it.

The Pono publicity machine is off the rails. It's into the world of ridiculous metaphors to validate its position. You yourself know that already with the underwater metaphor.. They have proven they are willing to misconstrue fact to make a point.

That sows serious seeds of mis belief. Oh and I am not saying it sounds bad. Just doubting the claims of sounding so much better.
Does it matter they are not music business people? Well in the sense that Pono felt they needed tech people to feel they would be taken more seriously . Again I see subterfuge.

Oh and by the way Elliot Roberts has big Music written all over his resume. He is straight hard core old school Music. So that kind throws a wrench in your tack of the music business not being involved. They are and the fact that 3 majors have supposedly made license agreements per Pono's own publicity machine! Pretty much puts a fork in the whole this is not the major industry in action.


Oh and just so you know. You do realize that ITunes was not able to take off without Steve Jobs making deals with the majors. In fact it was unprecedented at the time because online piracy was killing the industry and the majors were reacting with not wanting to go online and trying to sue every illegal download.

As much as people malign ITunes today? Fact is they all but saved the industry and made online sales viable. At a time when the only thing happening online was stealing.Napster being the one that let that cat out the bag.

Mind you I am not an anti industry person. It has it's place for better or worse.

But they ( industry Majors) are working in consort at least according to Pono. once again I wonder given their propensity to exaggerate facts, if not completely cast mis truths.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3882
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I've been checking put your post and man, you really need a new hobby other than this thread.

It's unfortunate that you can't see a connection between the Universe, ourselves and music and that you have to compartmentalize your "facts" outside of our shared experience of reality.

Please don't respond unless you really have because I'm seriously not interested in any kind of back and forth with you.
Hey, I like theblue1. We might not agree on much but he's a good guy, don't be judging him that way.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3883
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Hmm, no one is interested.
I wasn't sure what your point was or why you didn't say more. Can't read yer mind.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3884
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by walter88 View Post
Just wondered. Do filmmakers and videographers argue about light that can't be seen by humans, or is this unique to sound reproduction?
Yes, absolutely. Digital video is taking over filmmaking as well, and filmmakers are having comparable problems because film reacts to light differently than video does. Neither with video or audio is it strictly 'arguing about light that can't be seen by humans', that's argumentative deconstruction. But the phenomenon of 'the old thing gave us stuff this new thing is failing to deliver!' 'no, the new thing does literally everything the old thing did, perfectly!' is present in film too.

David Fincher is particularly noted for working well with the new digital tools, but the complaint is that everything has to look like that if it's video, to be good. That other styles of cinematography don't translate…

Film Crit Hulk Smash: HULK VS. THE TWILIGHT HOUR OF FILM | Badass Digest

Maybe it helps if it's framed as an 'aesthetic'? I don't think anyone went to Ridley Scott demanding, 'Stop putting smoke in everything and blowing out your lens with bright lights! It's not accurate or realistic!'.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3885
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by walter88 View Post
Just wondered. Do filmmakers and videographers argue about light that can't be seen by humans, or is this unique to sound reproduction?
I think it's unique to audiophiles. At least, I haven't experienced it in my corporate video work.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3886
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
but there's is a lot we don't know about how music affects the human body and psyche.
there is a difference between saying 'there is a lot we don't know' and saying that 'what we do know is wrong'. To say the latter, you need to provide evidence that is better than the evidence that established the scientific knowledge in the first place.

Quote:
but perhaps we hear with more than just our ears? For all we know certain frequencies tickles our eyelids which in turn tickles the back your balls which open's your third eye?
to the best of my knowledge, the people who have been tested for their 'hearing' perception were allowed to bring their eyelids, their balls and their third eyes into the testing space with them! They were not required to shave their arm hair either! heh Why do their balls help them "hear ultrasonics" at home, but not in the lab?

You have it exactly backwards. Proposing a mystical mechanism for something does not let you off the hook for demonstrating the very existence of the phenomenon in the first place. FIRST show that people can tell the difference, in any way, THEN look into what "might be causing it" No test has shown any different reaction to the presence or absence of ultrasonic content in music, not awareness, not preference, not statistics, not even electrical activity in the brain. Why do we need to invent theories to "explain" something that is clearly not happening?

Quote:
Quantum mechanics has recently raised a lot of interesting questions about our perception of reality.


Old 25th April 2014
  #3887
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Yes, absolutely. Digital video is taking over filmmaking as well, and filmmakers are having comparable problems because film reacts to light differently than video does.
Of course it does, and it's different.

Quote:
Neither with video or audio is it strictly 'arguing about light that can't be seen by humans', that's argumentative deconstruction. But the phenomenon of 'the old thing gave us stuff this new thing is failing to deliver!' 'no, the new thing does literally everything the old thing did, perfectly!' is present in film too.
People that use film do so because they like the look. Not because it is the ultimate most accurate medium.

People say they want a film look, but they know that means they want a lower frame rate and they want to distort the digital image to look a certain way. They don't claim it's a more accurate representation.

Quote:
David Fincher is particularly noted for working well with the new digital tools, but the complaint is that everything has to look like that if it's video, to be good. That other styles of cinematography don't translate…
Exactly what i said above.

Quote:
Maybe it helps if it's framed as an 'aesthetic'? I don't think anyone went to Ridley Scott demanding, 'Stop putting smoke in everything and blowing out your lens with bright lights! It's not accurate or realistic!'.
So audio in a nutshell... it's "we love tape and or vinyl because it contains ultrasonics and or is "analog" and/or it doesn't contain "stair steps" or other such BS.

In video... I want a film look and I am willing to shoot a certain way (narrow depth of field and lots of latitude) to ensure I can distort the image in post to look like film.. because I PREFER IT.

Film it's a preference, not magical thinking that somehow it's capturing "more" of the original image.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3889
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Let me repeat that while people talk about labels, anything recorded since 1974 reverts to the artist ownership after a period and in many cases the label never owned the master in the first place so many artists have a huge financial incentive to produce a better sounding product than their CD reissues.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3890
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Yes, absolutely. Digital video is taking over filmmaking as well, and filmmakers are having comparable problems because film reacts to light differently than video does. Neither with video or audio is it strictly 'arguing about light that can't be seen by humans', that's argumentative deconstruction.
You're right, the way I put it did sound argumentative. But I've wondered about this, whether in video there are capture and delivery formats that go slightly beyond the range of visible light or even further beyond and are claimed "higher res" because of it. If not why not? Sorry, but in my naive thinking I don't see the difference between something like that and the technical difference between 24/44.1 and 24/192, with all the possible caveats.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3891
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I've been checking put your post and man, you really need a new hobby other than this thread.

It's unfortunate that you can't see a connection between the Universe, ourselves and music and that you have to compartmentalize your "facts" outside of our shared experience of reality.

Please don't respond unless you really have because I'm seriously not interested in any kind of back and forth with you.
The latter is not going to be a problem. I assure you.

But I will say in parting that it's funny you should say it that way because I don't even see a distinction 'between' the universe, ourselves, and our music.

I'm deeply influenced by Taoism, Buddhism and many strains of eastern mysticism. I usually call myself an agnostic, because people understand that to mean that I'm not claiming any special knowledge of that which might be 'beyond' our universe, but I might also be described by some as a pagan, an animist or a pantheist based on my views.


That said, none of those views are inconsistent in any way with what I have learned about this temporal reality of ours from Science.

And with that, I say goodbye and good luck to you.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3892
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I think it's unique to audiophiles. At least, I haven't experienced it in my corporate video work.
with visual comparisons, you can put two things side-by-side and to a very real degree look at both of them simultaneously

for auditory comparisons, the best you can do is listen to one and then the other. This gives Placebo much more room to "work".


Quote:
Film it's a preference, not magical thinking that somehow it's capturing "more" of the original image.


"ultrasonics" is the ultimate catch-all for audio charlatanism
Old 25th April 2014
  #3893
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Hey, I like theblue1. We might not agree on much but he's a good guy, don't be judging him that way.


That's very kind of you to say, Chris!

But, nah, it's fine. He just doesn't understand me. Not to suggest he would like me any better if he did, of course.

And, of course, I know I can come off in a negative or judgmental fashion; that can be a problematic mix with my 'superficial charm' (as they say in the diagnostic manuals heh ).


I suspect a lot of these lengthy, ill-focused arguments would actually be a lot more fun -- and less aggravating for all -- if we were all sitting around in a tavern or coffee house in each other's physical presence, drinking beverages of our choice, and having the sort of free-ranging, open-ended discussions I strongly suspect a lot of us frequently enjoy with our 3D world pals.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3894
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Let me repeat that while people talk about labels, anything recorded since 1974 reverts to the artist ownership after a period and in many cases the label never owned the master in the first place so many artists have a huge financial incentive to produce a better sounding product than their CD reissues.
you obviously have a far more in-depth understanding of how the industry works than me. i have a question regarding artist ownership. is the time period of 35 years applicable if the master recordings were made during the contract period? my understanding is that record contracts usually stipulate that all recordings are transferred on a work-for-hire basis. This means that unlike a regular transfer of copyright, the record company's right to own the copyrighted material is not subject to termination after 35 years. if the band allows the record company to release its independently recorded material, then the record label has non-exclusive rights. can you clarify?

i found this. it 'explains' the confusion and manages to muddy the waters as well. plenty of lawyers making money out of arguing this one!
Old 25th April 2014
  #3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
They are and the fact that 3 majors have supposedly made license agreements per Pono's own publicity machine! Pretty much puts a fork in the whole this is not the major industry in action.
Sure, but the comments I was addressing weren't about 3 labels.
It just seems that when people run out of things to argue about sample rates, they turn on the music industry, and how the music industry is collectively responsible for Pomo. Adding, they just wish the music industry would completely collapse, destroyed. Later Paul explained his comments and I accepted his explanation. So it might be time to move on from a couple of comments made a few pages ago. I would maintain my point that you can't blame the music industry for Pono's 192khz marketing.
The question on my mind is more along the lines of why so many diverse artists are supporting Pono with testimonials?
Old 25th April 2014
  #3896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Sometimes Nobel winning scientist and leading theoretical Physicists don't even agree with each other. You can't argue the math behind the "anti-Pono" theme, but there's is a lot we don't know about how music affects the human body and psyche. I know you "science people" (WTF is that?) don't want to have this conversation, but perhaps we hear with more than just our ears? For all we know certain frequencies tickles our eyelids which in turn tickles the back your balls which open's your third eye? I'm making an outlandish metaphor to make a point. Quantum mechanics has recently raised a lot of interesting questions about our perception of reality. The book is far from closed. The universe is made of mathematical and musical language. It's obviously not just some inanimate "product" that's only existed in the last 100 + years on wax, vinyl, tape and digital formats. When we really connect with music it affects our whole being, not just your eardrums and certain and separate parts of the brain. In my subjective opinion the digital format as it has existed up to this point. does not bring that experience to as high a level immersion and pleasure as is possible in the reality of a live experience or in some of the other formats such as vinyl and tape (despite their own inaccuracies etc... ) As an experience it goes down a more cerebral way compared to reality, tape etc... Why? I don't know, but let's find out instead of clinging to the numbers.

-"When conflicts of principle arise, that's when major paradigm shifts happen." Theoretical Physicist Leonard Susskind
If we do perceive in any of the ways you suggested, a double blind test wouldn't stop those ways from working. So while we might not know if we are perceiving things beyond what we currently know, we can know for sure if it matters to what we experience via a double blind test. Which doesn't require a blindfold so it won't affect your eyelashes.

If you have to know what you are listening to in order to perceive a difference, it's confirmation bias.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3897
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
[...]

i found this. it 'explains' the confusion and manages to muddy the waters as well. plenty of lawyers making money out of arguing this one!
Whew! I read a thousand or two words and realized there was more to go so I'm saving this to my desktop.

A very interesting read.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3898
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Sure, but the comments I was addressing weren't about 3 labels.
It just seems that when people run out of things to argue about sample rates, they turn on the music industry, and how the music industry is collectively responsible for Pomo. Adding, they just wish the music industry would completely collapse, destroyed. Later Paul explained his comments and I accepted his explanation. So it might be time to move on from a couple of comments made a few pages ago. I would maintain my point that you can't blame the music industry for Pono's 192khz marketing.
The question on my mind is more along the lines of why so many diverse artists are supporting Pono with testimonials?
Ok. I will edit the rose colored glasses comment. It was just I was pointing out the fact that the music industry was more technically involved in this than you seem to be willing to acknowledge or perhaps realized.

I just feel like the whole Pono campaign is a possibly good idea, higher res audio delivery to the general public gone bad.

Due to Neil Young's previous and well documented hate of all things digital in audio. Adding to his amazing all of a sudden flip to digital is great as long as it is 192k with nothing in between being any good position.

With that the thing has turned to deceptive misleading and untruthful marketing. Hey maybe they are smoking something really good and really believe the BS they are spewing.
With no actual facts to back up the claims.

Add to that they have even gone as far as overstating and glorifying the resumes of the Silicon Valley people involved. Who none are legends in the Valley.

I think the most ironic thing I heard today is Bob Weir( Grateful Dead) has now started his own hi res AAC 320k download company.

I think they are because sales are lagging and they do want to make more money. Perhaps that's cynical, perhaps it's jaded. The engraved signature deal sure is purely a marketing thing to make more money and they all seem to be going for it.
Can't blame for wanting to make money.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3899
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Let me repeat that while people talk about labels, anything recorded since 1974 reverts to the artist ownership after a period and in many cases the label never owned the master in the first place so many artists have a huge financial incentive to produce a better sounding product than their CD reissues.
If wishes were horses. The last reissues I've gotten have been squished to death.

Is there some reason that anyone would squish 1960's bluegrass to Green Day dynamic range? Gods above.

It's not the Redbook that's the problem there. It can't be when you're only using the top half, so to speak.
Old 25th April 2014
  #3900
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by walter88 View Post
Just wondered. Do filmmakers and videographers argue about light that can't be seen by humans, or is this unique to sound reproduction?
the following is included in an in-depth article on 192/24:

The human eye sees a limited range of frequencies of light, aka, the visible spectrum. This is directly analogous to the audible spectrum of sound waves. Like the ear, the eye has sensory cells (rods and cones) that detect light in different but overlapping frequency bands.

The visible spectrum extends from about 400THz (deep red) to 850THz (deep violet). Perception falls off steeply at the edges. Beyond these approximate limits, the light power needed for the slightest perception can fry your retinas. Thus, this is a generous span even for young, healthy, genetically gifted individuals, analogous to the generous limits of the audible spectrum.

In our hypothetical Wide Spectrum Video craze, consider a fervent group of Spectrophiles who believe these limits aren't generous enough. They propose that video represent not only the visible spectrum, but also infrared and ultraviolet. Continuing the comparison, there's an even more hardcore [and proud of it!] faction that insists this expanded range is yet insufficient, and that video feels so much more natural when it also includes microwaves and some of the X-ray spectrum. To a Golden Eye, they insist, the difference is night and day!

Of course this is ludicrous.

No one can see X-rays (or infrared, or ultraviolet, or microwaves). It doesn't matter how much a person believes he can. Retinas simply don't have the sensory hardware.

Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump