[Thad-E-Ginathom]

Things that emit things are not at all limited to emitting the human-sensible things.
 
Do TV screens (of various technologies) emit only the human visible part of the spectrum? I'd be surprised if that were the case. But people seem to be sensibly not-bothered about them. We have nobody selling us content, or machines to watch it on, that is supposedly better because it contains more UV or IR, and zero hot arguments about whether or not that makes a difference.

 

[KeithEmo]

  Things that emit things are not at all limited to emitting the human-sensible things.
 
Do TV screens (of various technologies) emit only the human visible part of the spectrum? I'd be surprised if that were the case. But people seem to be sensibly not-bothered about them. We have nobody selling us content, or machines to watch it on, that is supposedly better because it contains more UV or IR, and zero hot arguments about whether or not that makes a difference.

 
The standards that apply to video recording itself specify a "color gamut" - which is the range of colors that are covered. That range is slightly different for the different video color standards, and is typically more than we humans can see in certain "color directions" and slightly less for other colors. Most computer monitors and TV screens, in turn, are limited to accurately portraying a significant percentage of the visible color spectrum (usually 80% or so). Some fancy computer monitors are actually rated to deliver 100%, or even slightly over, of the color range officially covered by the video standard - which is still somewhat less than what humans can see in certain directions.
 
(The "graph" of color is usually portrayed as a warped triangle, with red, green, and blue at the three vertices. The graph of all colors is typically shown, with a triangle superimposed on top of it to show the range covered by a particular screen or video standard - or the range of colors most humans can typically see.)
 
 

 

[KeithEmo]

  Things that emit things are not at all limited to emitting the human-sensible things.
 
Do TV screens (of various technologies) emit only the human visible part of the spectrum? I'd be surprised if that were the case. But people seem to be sensibly not-bothered about them. We have nobody selling us content, or machines to watch it on, that is supposedly better because it contains more UV or IR, and zero hot arguments about whether or not that makes a difference.

 
Incidentally, one of the virtues of the new 4k TV standard other than resolution is that it supports a greater range of color resolution. (The normal HD TV standard actually doesn't support full resolution for all colors. For example, the green "color plane", to which our eyes are the most sensitive, is carried at full resolution; while the blue plane, to which we are relatively insensitive, is broadcast at lower resolution.) This has in fact been a "hot topic" in the video forums, as has a new standard called HDR, which supports greater dynamic range of both color and brightness than the basic 4k standard.
 
(Since everybody knows that the regular video standards don't support the full range of colors we can see, and that computer monitors often cover a wider range, graphic artists often choose whether to pay the significant increase in cost to get a "wide gamut" monitor based on what they're using it for... but there's not much debate about whether the difference is visible since everyone agrees that it is - and under what circumstances.)
 
 

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

Keith, thanks. I didn't know the answer. Nor have I progressed beyond CRT technology for TVs, which I rather suspect emits more than visible light?
 
I seem to remember that I shouldn't keep my CFL desk lamp (well, it was, it has an LED bulb in it now) closer than 12 inches to skin due to UV emission.
 
Honestly, I should put ??? after almost every word, because I am stumbling in the dark here.
 
There are probably better ways to have said that more is not always better, sometimes we get more, and know it is irrelevant... etc.
 
(The only thing I've wondered about debatable stuff on the AV side of things is when I hear people talking about "blacker blacks." Isn't black, ultimately, all pixels off? I imagine they are seeing greater contrast. Or a gold and blue dress. Or something...)

 

[goodyfresh]

But hearing is not like vision, at all.  So such comparisons are silly.  Our vision is FAR more precise than our hearing.  Under the right conditions, the human eye and visual cortex can fully perceive a light source emitting only a few photons per second.  Seriously.  And our ability to resolve different shades of color is far more precise than our ability to resolve audio frequencies.

 

[Don Hills]

  Keith, thanks. I didn't know the answer. Nor have I progressed beyond CRT technology for TVs, which I rather suspect emits more than visible light?
...

 
Standard CRT blue phosphors definitely emit near ultraviolet light, causing significant fluorescence in UV-fluorescing objects.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

  But hearing is not like vision, at all.  So such comparisons are silly.  Our vision is FAR more precise than our hearing.  Under the right conditions, the human eye and visual cortex can fully perceive a light source emitting only a few photons per second.  Seriously.  And our ability to resolve different shades of color is far more precise than our ability to resolve audio frequencies.

 
And, only the fact that "high resolution" has, therefore, been accepted in the words of video as a legitimate idea, has allowed it to be palmed off on the audio world.
 
Listening to music is supposed to relax the mind, not deaden it.

 

[OddE]

  Standard CRT blue phosphors definitely emit near ultraviolet light, causing significant fluorescence in UV-fluorescing objects.

 
-Very much so. One of my colleagues at work loves to tell about the 20" CRT he was issued in the late eighties or so, to assist in his CAD work. Cost more than a half-decent car at the time, and emitted enough UV to give you a sunburn in the winter months when your skin didn't get exposed to much of the stuff from the sun.
 
 

 

[arnyk]

   
I'm sorry - I seem to be missing something here - exactly what "claims" are you talking about ???
 

 
Since your posts typically only quote yourself, we must assume that everything in them is what you claim is true.
 
For example, your claims about the Dyna 70 that I debunked.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
Since your posts typically only quote yourself, we must assume that everything in them is what you claim is true.
 
For example, your claims about the Dyna 70 that I debunked.

 
My friend, you need to read more carefully.
 
I didn't make any claims AT ALL about the Stereo 70.
 
What I said was that I've read a lot of articles claiming that we shouldn't be able to tell the difference between "a high quality tube amp and a solid state amp of equivalent power - if neither is driven into overload" - and that the Stereo 70 was often cited as being "a good tube amplifier", and so was used as an example. I think we can both agree that the Stereo 70 is a "typical good consumer tube amp of that era". (My point being that, back then, people were claiming that the distortion specs "proved" that there was no audible difference between amplifiers, which we now agree isn't true; and that, right now, we have people claiming that frequency response specs can "prove" that higher sample rates "can't possibly" sound audibly different from 16/44k. I see that as a parallel demonstrating people's tendency to make claims, and then support them with the numbers that are handy, whether those numbers justify the claim or not.) 
 
Since I'm NOT agreeing with the claims in those articles, and I've never agreed with the claim that "all amplifiers sound the same", I see no reason to cite any particular articles claiming that (or even to look them up).

 

[arnyk]

   
My friend, you need to read more carefully.
 
I didn't make any claims AT ALL about the Stereo 70.
 
What I said was that I've read a lot of articles claiming that we shouldn't be able to tell the difference between "a high quality tube amp and a solid state amp of equivalent power - if neither is driven into overload" - and that the Stereo 70 was often cited as being "a good tube amplifier", and so was used as an example. I think we can both agree that the Stereo 70 is a "typical good consumer tube amp of that era". (My point being that, back then, people were claiming that the distortion specs "proved" that there was no audible difference between amplifiers, which we now agree isn't true; and that, right now, we have people claiming that frequency response specs can "prove" that higher sample rates "can't possibly" sound audibly different from 16/44k. I see that as a parallel demonstrating people's tendency to make claims, and then support them with the numbers that are handy, whether those numbers justify the claim or not.) 
 
Since I'm NOT agreeing with the claims in those articles, and I've never agreed with the claim that "all amplifiers sound the same", I see no reason to cite any particular articles claiming that (or even to look them up).

 
If your claims are not properly attributed to someone else, then sole authorship defaults to you, and the claim is therefore your own invention.

 

[jcx]

no one is claiming all amplifiers sound alike on distortion specs alone - frequency response is far more audible with limits fairly well established and in fact our sensitivity to frequency response variations very much smaller that most "subjectivist" control/match in listening
 
amplifier output impedance causes additional frequency response changes with varying Z load - like most dynamic drivers
 
while by itself you could just call the Carver Stereophile Challenge an anecdote there are lots of supporting Psychoacoustics results, Richard Clark's $10k challenge too
 
 
the Carver Stereophile Challenge conditions, results need explaining by people wanting to use tube/ss "known audible difference" as a point in a argument
 
Carver nulled his $600 SS amp against Stereophile's choice of "SOTA tube amp" and "idiosyncratic speakers" - largely with added output Z and FR trim of feedback - Stereophile's Golden Eared professional reviewers in their own room, their choice of music failed to distinguish the amps blind and level matched

 

[goodyfresh]

   
And, only the fact that "high resolution" has, therefore, been accepted in the words of video as a legitimate idea, has allowed it to be palmed off on the audio world.
 
Listening to music is supposed to relax the mind, not deaden it.

Yup.

I guess the point here is that high-res video has a point, but high-res audio doesn't.  Our eyes can clearly see a difference between images and video with 24-bit vs. 32-bit colors and brightness levels, for example, but the idea of being able to hear a difference between 24-bit and 32-bit audio is just absurd.

 

[OddE]

  (...) but the idea of being able to hear a difference between 24-bit and 32-bit audio is just absurd.

 
-Oh, that's easy. The full utilization of 24 bits of dynamic range will leave you deaf in an instant.
 
32 bits will leave you dead in an instant.
 
See? Easy peasy.

 

[goodyfresh]

   
-Oh, that's easy. The full utilization of 24 bits of dynamic range will leave you deaf in an instant.
 
32 bits will leave you dead in an instant.
 
See? Easy peasy.

144 dB and 192 dB of dynamic-range, respectively.  So yeah, pretty much what you said

 

Let's keep in mind, guys, that the vast majority of music has no more than 20dB of dynamic range.
 
That being said, bit-depth determines more than just the dynamic range of music.  Ever tried listening to an 8-bit music file?  If so, you should have been able to perceive that just because 8-bit can reproduce almost 50dB of dynamic range (more than enough for any and all music) does not mean it won't sound like crap.  That's because it also determines thingss like the level of the noise-floor relative to the main signal, amplitude of harmonic distortion, etc.