Do you perhaps realise that your logic here is starting to sound rather silly, marce? If people's eyes always get the colour wrong what's the point of presenting "correct" colour at all, for any reason? Close enough is always going to be good enough, just add a note that the colour has been measured as being correct, and then people will perfectly happily accept purple trees and brown skies, satisfied in the knowledge that what they're seeing has been certified - that seems to be where your reasoning is taking you ...
No my logic is correct it is you twisting things....
Read up on colour perception etc and on the previous argument regarding this and what I and MANY others told you regarding colour and our perception of it....
You are making stupid statements and comments regarding this like you do in all discussions...
Its like arguing with a child, when have I said your eyes get the colour wrong all the time...They don't that's why you cant use them there is too much processing between your eyes and your brain, your perception.
Where do purple trees come into it, brown skies.... You blather on about your super senses and how they are perfect and cant be fooled, yet the whole world of Graphic design, photography film etc. CALIBRATE there monitors properly so they are all working to the same standard of colour reproduction...
As usual THEY are all wrong and you and your super senses are right....
Read up on colour perception etc and on the previous argument regarding this and what I and MANY others told you regarding colour and our perception of it....
You are making stupid statements and comments regarding this like you do in all discussions...
Its like arguing with a child, when have I said your eyes get the colour wrong all the time...They don't that's why you cant use them there is too much processing between your eyes and your brain, your perception.
Where do purple trees come into it, brown skies.... You blather on about your super senses and how they are perfect and cant be fooled, yet the whole world of Graphic design, photography film etc. CALIBRATE there monitors properly so they are all working to the same standard of colour reproduction...
As usual THEY are all wrong and you and your super senses are right....
marce, why does the colour in Graphic design have to be right, if people's eyes always get it wrong?
I have not said your eyes always get it wrong, stop this stupidity, you got numerous links and info not only from me but many others...
I was leading up to the key point, that why there are colour standards, as you mentioned, is because two separate people need to agree that a certain colour is that colour - if they both prepare separate batches of images of a single object they need to match, any discrepancy will be obvious - meaning at least one version is wrong.
So, the point of calibrating is having an agreed standard of colour, which has to be passed around in some fashion so that these bloopers don't happen - hence, the measuring device.
Now, the key ingredient in all this was that a pair of eyes could look at one version of a specified colour, and immediately look at another version - ie., they could be compared, relatively easily - that's the heart of the matter ...
Getting back to the TV that's exactly what's happening - I'm looking at the colour of a certain object as presented on the screen, and immediately comparing that with an object in eyesight that is not on the screen, that has the corresponding colour - do they match, to the level where I can fine adjust it, and that is to a satisfactory sameness? If so, then for all intents and purposes the set is adequately calibrated.
So, the point of calibrating is having an agreed standard of colour, which has to be passed around in some fashion so that these bloopers don't happen - hence, the measuring device.
Now, the key ingredient in all this was that a pair of eyes could look at one version of a specified colour, and immediately look at another version - ie., they could be compared, relatively easily - that's the heart of the matter ...
Getting back to the TV that's exactly what's happening - I'm looking at the colour of a certain object as presented on the screen, and immediately comparing that with an object in eyesight that is not on the screen, that has the corresponding colour - do they match, to the level where I can fine adjust it, and that is to a satisfactory sameness? If so, then for all intents and purposes the set is adequately calibrated.
I already know I am stupid, so why rub it in? But where does this leave you?
You are in the habit of saying things like that about others. Not too long ago, I had to correct you on facts and theory in some other thread where you where also making derogatory remarks about other posters' intelligence. After having been thoroughly thrashed by knowledge, you never even had the courage to come back and respond.
All this would be fine if you ever came up with the slightest hint of insight, but you don't. Even from my low standpoint, there are no others stupider than you.
Get lost.
No because you don't know the temperature of the light falling on the object you are looking at.... and you don't know its base colour.
Yes, there are those extra subtleties that complicate matters, which is why I very specifically have used landscape elements for the finest gradations in comparison: I see a scene on TV which has grass, trees, sky, wooden posts, from a news report on a local channel under sunny skies - and I immediately relate that to what I see out the window, under those same light temperature conditions - I have found greenery an excellent test case, and did end up going many rounds of very finely adjusting to precisely match the qualities of the observed greens as my last step. Voila, facial tones were then spot on, I am especially pleased with the quality of skin colours ...
Please speak only for yourself. And also let me know your opinion after you have seen my dog.
Dream on. You've stated that it cannot work because of the wavelength of audio. You've also stated that it cannot work because R was neglected in my analysis. You've stated that the RF model cannot be applied to audio.
Everybody is allowed their own opinion, but not their own facts. Your previous assertions have fallen apart like a cheap suit.
Nice strawman, as well as an outright lie.
I have repeatedly stated that the models are equivalent, but the T-line provides insight into the temporal delay caused by the extreme mismatch at both ends of the cable typical of speakers.
You do not get to change boats midstream. You have been called out.
Now for some more misdirection on your part.
And some more lies.
Stating it multiple times does not make it true.
Now, again.
The t-line model provides insight into the "latency" caused by the extreme mismatch that has NEVER been demonstrated nor considered using bog simple LCR models. As a result, the variation in load impedance which is responsible for the frequency dependent delay is never truly considered.
Using the t-line model provides all an easy way to determine the most effective means of limiting that delay. That is, the sqr (L/C) of the cable must fall near the load impedance median. Once done, the delays shown by T-line theory will be sufficiently low as to be nowhere near audible.
As I said, I am very patient. It's been, what, a year since you first stated that t-line theory was not applicable because of wavelength. I find that a physicist stating that erroneous concept to be a bit of a shock. None of the physicists I work with would make such an error.
jn
Last edited:
Maybe its time to introduce Quantum to the discussion, as previously it has been pointed out the word has not been mentioned yet, and these bun fights always get better with a good old injection of Quantum theory, maybe we should ask a world expert on Q and signal transmission to step in....
John (silver rules) where is Jack when you need him....
John (silver rules) where is Jack when you need him....
The "ignore" button does wonders for reducing the amount of pointless blabber on your screen. Save your pixels and your energy for people who actually do things.
I missed the part about "cannot work." Can you point me to that?
Also, could you be specific about what exactly you mean by "latency" in this context? I generally think of it as constant delay following a stimulus (which is, of course, totally irrelevant here), but you seem to be using it in a different sense which I confess I do not understand.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.