overall 'best' mastering compressor?

[bduffy]

Veddy interesting...

[sounddesigner]

This is getting more interesting as it goes along, wondering how it will end.

[bduffy]

This is getting more interesting as it goes along, wondering how it will end.

Well, apparently we can all design GUI's now!

[RTaylor]

This is getting more interesting as it goes along, wondering how it will end.

Well, apparently we can all design GUI's now!

I think we could always do that... It does raise things to another level.

[bmanic]

Very OT, but it's a kind of a scretch to compare eye and ear sensitivity... I mean, what's the scale of comparison?

Simple, the scale is dB. It's just a simple logarithmic scale, it's not automatically always applied to sound only. You could measure the amount of salt in water with dB, or the amount of light in a room. The only criteria of course is to have a comparison, a reference.

In the book they compare the eyes sensitivity to light versus the ears sensitivity to sound and the ear has by far more range. You could also compare the tongues taste "range" (refenrece being threshold of "detection" of salt (like salt per ml of water) or one of the other four basics that the tongue can detect.

Hope this explains.

Cheers!
bManic

[deaf dunderkwac]

erm, I believe even my pysch 101 course had a decent explaination about the differences in acuity of the senses.
My 'digital fundamentals for television' reference book has two paragraphs about our visual mechanism (basically, it sucks and is easily fooled and color rendering is a hoot) and a chapter on our hearing mechanism. (exact opposite of our visual mechanism)

just to help add to this understanding

[Kingston]

Very OT, but it's a kind of a scretch to compare eye and ear sensitivity... I mean, what's the scale of comparison?

Simple, the scale is dB. It's just a simple logarithmic scale, it's not automatically always applied to sound only. You could measure the amount of salt in water with dB, or the amount of light in a room. The only criteria of course is to have a comparison, a reference.

In the book they compare the eyes sensitivity to light versus the ears sensitivity to sound and the ear has by far more range. You could also compare the tongues taste "range" (refenrece being threshold of "detection" of salt (like salt per ml of water) or one of the other four basics that the tongue can detect.

Hope this explains.

Cheers!
bManic

It not simple at all bmanic! It goes without saying the scale should be equal on both. BUT

What exactly is the reference of "ears exploding in jetstream" vs. the eye/vision equivalent? (just as an example)

I'm thinking it's impossible to get *anything* meaningful with such comparisons. And also it would seem incredibly stupid. I mean think about it:

scales,

sense of touch: a tick sits on earlobe to fatal wound by minigun

vision: darness in bottom cellar vs blinded by the sun and suffering for days

ears...


well you get the drift.

What would be the point of such comparisons even if "in dB"?

[SynAEsthetiq]

Kingston does make a point there...
... but to join the madness:

The Human ear can detect pressure differences that equal movement of airparticles in the order of magnitude of an atomradius, the eye needs a couple (100 or so) photons to react. But to make a comparison of bandwith (which i interpret as bandwith of data) the eye is by far superior to the ear. Think of the dimensions, one ear can only detect in the dimensions of frequency and amplitude (though your brain does interpret some locational information). The eye though has the same dimensions plus a very high 2-dimensional location-resolution (excuse my bad english), so that the actual data is many orders of magnitude greater. The sensitivity, which was discussed here actually, seems to be higher in the ear, if one is inclined to make such comparisons.

cheers,
Syn

[tahome]

the eye needs a couple (100 or so) photons to react.

Actually, under perfect conditions the eye can see a single photon.

--th

[mastered]

the eye needs a couple (100 or so) photons to react.

Actually, under perfect conditions the eye can see a single photon.

--th

Proof?

[tahome]

Yeah. I'm looking for the article where I've read this now. Will post an URL when I've found it.

--th

[tahome]

Found it: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q ... hoton.html
http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwan ... de102.html

--th

[SynAEsthetiq]

Yeah tahome, you're right. In fact each receptor in your eye can only detect a single photon at a time. I thoght we were talking about sensori stimuli, as for the sensitivity of the ear, one can actually hear the tiny air movements i described, because every "detector" in your ear does measure the same thing, therfore by statistical means the organ is actually able to detect things that "it physically could not". Thnx for the article anyway, didn't know the eye was that sensitive. Back to reading. =)

EDIT : In fact the ear can detect frequency and amplitude at those levels. By the laws of quantumelectrodynamics, no measurement is able to exactly detect frequency AND time of arrival of a single photon.

[mastered]

Uncertainty principle

[tahome]

That much is certain

--th