"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net
George M. Middius wrote:


Recently you opined that Arnii Kroo**** might participate in Usenet
as a source of amusement. Herewith some contradictory evidence that
I, for one, find rather compelling.


I hate pedophilia. My enemies sensing this, have promoted this lie.


All in fun, you think? And the frequent accusations of scheming and
plotting -- that's all said with a big wink, right?

Who knows? Maybe he has some odd desire for amusement from
baiting people and watching them go into a frenzy.

There's nothing odd about this at all. Lots of people go to cock fights
and dog fights. Middius and his bunch are just my figurative dogs and
chickens.


Hah! Sick obsession with illegal activities such as dog fights, cock
fights and kiddie porn noted.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:29:17 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:57:08 -0500, Ron wrote:

Note that by definition, 'accuracy' is not a subjective attribute.
Reproduction is accurate if it is identical (or close to) the
original, regardless of how one precives it to be.

I think that you are missing the point. I think that "accuracy" is
indeed very subjective.

No, I wasn't missing a point, I was making one. I provided the
definition for 'accuracy'. Do read again. There is nothing in it
about listening or hearing.

After all, we don't listen to ocilliscope traces, we listen to music
and we each have our own hearing curves and
listening biases, based on sex and cultural training.

.... which is subjective and has nothing to do with accuracy.

Do try to understand that 'accuracy' pertains to comparison of the
original to the reproduced *physical sound* and does not apply to
what specific listeners are hearing or, indeed, to whether listeners
are present at all.

-- Ron


Therefore, how "accurate" we find reproduction is based less on an
"objective" standard and more on the "subjective" one. You and I can
listen to the same orchestra live, and then immediately listen to a
recording on the same system and still disagree about how "accurate"
the reproduction is. The difference might even be wider if we are from
different parts of the globe. I noticed this even between, say British
people and German people (in general of course).

This isn't to say that objective standards can't help, but to solely
rely on them is folly.