On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:01:11 -0500, dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.


I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.

Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when
it's an actual music clip.


Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own that
is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content.

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
mind?

You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip?

OK. Here it is revised:

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr.
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your
right to pull a nod and a wink to him.

If he replies to me in this fashion, rest assured I will.

d