Liste des Groupes | Revenir à col advocacy |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>rbowman wrote:>
>I remember audiophiles from back in the day. They could hook up an o-scope>
and prove their system was reproducing 22000 Hz signals flawlessly. I
suppose dogs appreciated it.
So the ones you met would actually *trust* oscilloscopes? Because the
true audiophile didnt like CDs because they could hear the gaps
between the samples. You could hook an oscilloscope up to the audio
outputs from your CD or DVD player and show that it was producing flawless
continuous waveforms, but that wasnt enough for them: their ears were
hearing things that no mere electrical signal could reproduce!
Heh. I personally battled that kind of ignorance, on many occasions.
They would claims 0's and 1's "missed something" that analog did not,
for example.
>
When I touted CD's excellent dynamic range, one ignoramus fought back
with "What good is CD's high dynamic range, when if the signal drops
3dB the number of bits used is halved from 16 to 8?" Err... Half of
2^16 is 2^15, not 2^8. He was too stupid to understand that he was
effectively asking "What good is high dynamic range, if you have poor
dynamic range"?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.