"Andy Cowley" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
time:-)

Any time Iain. :-)

Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
levels of audio perception often quite astounding.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)

Other posters have pointed out that the probable cause of hearing
damage is their own instruments, as evidenced by the lateral assymetry
of the damage in violinists. Instruments which produce higher
frequencies are most damaging. Although the trained perceptions
of a skilled musician can probably distinguish subtleties most
of us are unaware of, this is likely to be the result of 'post
processing', i.e. brain activity, rather than superior hearing.

Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess partly
as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their formal training
(this is not something rstricted solely to classical musicians)

The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
best ears. Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
would probably be the best.

Good point. I have been involved in some interesting experiments,
in aural perception with three groups of people, professional
musicians/studio/concert personnel, audiophiles, and laypersons.
It is no surprise to find that the first group fare the best.
There is often little to choose between the second two.

The problem with young people from rural areas, is they lack totally
the expertise of a skilled listener. A "fresh" ear is no substitute for
an experienced ear.

About a year ago, we did a pitch changing experiment where a solo
clarinet track was gradually increased in pitch while the rest of the
ensemble was held constant. It was interesting to watch the reaction
of the different groups. At 4% all of the musicians were uncomfortable,
while many of the others perceived little or nothing out of the ordinay.

Another interesting listening experiment was a composite music track which
started with a ticking clock for eight bars. Then the music started -
drums,
bass, piano, ac guitar. After two instrumental choruses the vocal begain,
and the clock was a faded out. When questioned about it afterwards,
many people did not even notice the clock disappear. Few,other
than musicians seem to perform a "vertical scan" while listening:-)

"Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"

Or because they are the only people who can afford them:-)

It is not difficult to build a 50W PP valve amplifier with FR 10 Hz
to 35kHz, and PBW 10 Hz to 50kHz with THD at 0.1% at full
power. I cannot see how such an amplifier "produces colouration
to suit normal hearing loss".

I use a Crown power amp usually for monitoring my work, but
prefer my own, home brew valve system at home.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...omesystem.html

All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
least as much about the listener as the source.

Yes indeed.

Cheers

Iain

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:21:55 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

"Andy Cowley" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
best ears. Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
would probably be the best.

Good point. I have been involved in some interesting experiments,
in aural perception with three groups of people, professional
musicians/studio/concert personnel, audiophiles, and laypersons.
It is no surprise to find that the first group fare the best.
There is often little to choose between the second two.

The problem with young people from rural areas, is they lack totally
the expertise of a skilled listener. A "fresh" ear is no substitute for
an experienced ear.

His point is not that it's a 'fresh' ear, but that it's one which can
literally *hear* lots of things that you and I cannot.

Not a matter of training but of youth, and lack of damage from urban
noise pollution. Being from a small town in a largely farming
community, I'm well aware of this disparity.

"Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"

Or because they are the only people who can afford them:-)

It is not difficult to build a 50W PP valve amplifier with FR 10 Hz
to 35kHz, and PBW 10 Hz to 50kHz with THD at 0.1% at full
power. I cannot see how such an amplifier "produces colouration
to suit normal hearing loss".

Agreed (although you have your FR and PBW figures switched, plus a PBW
of 10Hz is *very* unusual, and that 0.1% figure is only at 1kHz), but
the problem is that this is *not* the kind of amplifier favoured by
the 'tubies', since of course such an amp is entirely indistiguishable
from an equally good SS amp.

The real world difference is that the SS amp will cost about a quarter
as much to buy, and will maintain its 'as new' performance for about
twenty years with no gradual drop-off. With a tubed amp, you have to
consider just how bad the sound has to get before you renew the output
tubes every two or three years................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.



Wrong!
The two correct terms are
"Borg Perception"
and
"Music Perception"
You may pick and choose.
There *is* a difference.






--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

Do you ever listen to yourself, Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger?

Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all there is to it.
"Audio Perception", when used complete with pompous capitals, is merely
a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a job in
better-paid branch of electronics, to make themselves sound like
"experts". When Mr Churches uses the phrase modestly, without using the
screeching capitals, he means whether the recording sounds like the
original performance to those of innate musical perception, a
classification which clearly, by their own pronouncements, doesn't
include the self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for mechanical minds:
The discussion is about whether the reproduced music sounds like the
original performance. Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding tastes like
disassembled robot.

I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a fast car; I know
from experience that his conversation will be dull and irrelevant to
the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth I was often in the car on a
test track or the road with one or more of the engineers who designed
it. None of them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them talked
about the driving experience. That defines the difference between an
engineer and an "engineer" (1), don't you think?

Andre Jute

(1) Nah, I'm not making a case that all auto engineers are men of
elegant mind while all audio engineers are ignorant and ungracious
trailer park trash. The top audio engineers I know off the board are
men of elegant mind and expression and gracious generosity quite equal
to the top auto engineers I knew when my interests were different. But
I cannot pretend I was not shocked when an auto-engineer of some
distinction (well-spoken of by men I've known for decades, though
admittedly I didn't find any who invited him to their home), who posted
on RAT as "dangerdave", turned out to be immoral slime precisely as the
audio "engineers" who have wrecked RAT and RAO are immoral slime.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
their formal training (this is not something rstricted
solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

snip irrelevant BS

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
their formal training (this is not something rstricted
solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

snip irrelevant BS

Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the truth, so he
snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.

Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for themselves how relevant
my remarks were and a

**********
Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all there is to it.
"Audio Perception", when used complete with pompous capitals, is merely

a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a job in
better-paid branch of electronics, to make themselves sound like
"experts". When Mr Churches uses the phrase modestly, without using the

screeching capitals, he means whether the recording sounds like the
original performance to those of innate musical perception, a
classification which clearly, by their own pronouncements, doesn't
include the self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for mechanical minds:
The discussion is about whether the reproduced music sounds like the
original performance. Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The

proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding tastes like
disassembled robot.

I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a fast car; I know

from experience that his conversation will be dull and irrelevant to
the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth I was often in the car on a
test track or the road with one or more of the engineers who designed
it. None of them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them talked
about the driving experience. That defines the difference between an
engineer and an "engineer" (1), don't you think?

Andre Jute

(1) Nah, I'm not making a case that all auto engineers are men of
elegant mind while all audio engineers are ignorant and ungracious
trailer park trash. The top audio engineers I know off the board are
men of elegant mind and expression and gracious generosity quite equal
to the top auto engineers I knew when my interests were different. But
I cannot pretend I was not shocked when an auto-engineer of some
distinction (well-spoken of by men I've known for decades, though
admittedly I didn't find any who invited him to their home), who posted

on RAT as "dangerdave", turned out to be immoral slime precisely as the

audio "engineers" who have wrecked RAT and RAO are immoral slime.

***********

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in
message

Audio perception is a skill which most musicians
posess partly as a natural talent, and partly as the
result of their formal training (this is not
something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this
context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

snip irrelevant BS

Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the
truth, so he snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.

No, I'm just bored with your overwrought prose, Jute.

Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for
themselves how relevant my remarks were and a

**********
Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all
there is to it. "Audio Perception", when used complete
with pompous capitals, is merely
a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a
job in better-paid branch of electronics, to make
themselves sound like "experts".

Yup, total losers like Zwicker and Fastl.

When Mr Churches uses
the phrase modestly, without using the
screeching capitals, he means whether the recording
sounds like the original performance to those of innate
musical perception, a classification which clearly, by
their own pronouncements, doesn't include the
self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Agreed that most of RAO and RAT have no real interest in whether the
recording they are playing sounds like the origional perforamnce. The people
on RAT tend to care more about whether the recording sounds like its being
played on equipment with TOOBs.

Almost all of the people on RAO are too interested in arguing and insulting
for the sake of arguing and insulting to worry about things like music and
sound.

Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for
mechanical minds: The discussion is about whether the
reproduced music sounds like the original performance.

Agreed, except there is an open question as to which origional performance,
is being talked about.

Apparently in Jute's simplistic world, there is just one sound of a live
performance. IOW, as Jute walks around a concert hall, he hears identically
the same sound no matter where he is, whether the back row or right in front
of the conductor's lectern.


Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding
tastes like disassembled robot.

Merely a childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a
fast car; I know
from experience that his conversation will be dull and
irrelevant to the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth
I was often in the car on a test track or the road with
one or more of the engineers who designed it. None of
them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them
talked about the driving experience. That defines the
difference between an engineer and an "engineer" (1),
don't you think?

Yet another personal attack. This is obviously Jute's idea of audio
discussion in its highest form: False claims topped off with a few personal
attacks.

Yawn!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in
message

Audio perception is a skill which most musicians
posess partly as a natural talent, and partly as the
result of their formal training (this is not
something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this
context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

snip irrelevant BS

Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the
truth, so he snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.

No, I'm just bored with your overwrought prose, Jute.

Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for
themselves how relevant my remarks were and a

**********
Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all
there is to it. "Audio Perception", when used complete
with pompous capitals, is merely
a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a
job in better-paid branch of electronics, to make
themselves sound like "experts".

Yup, total losers like Zwicker and Fastl.

I don't know them. I know you, Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger. You
have zero credibility even with your own kind. You lie and you twist
and you cheat in order to "win" an argument that even McKelpie, your
loyal dog, knows you have lost.

When Mr Churches uses
the phrase modestly, without using the
screeching capitals, he means whether the recording
sounds like the original performance to those of innate
musical perception, a classification which clearly, by
their own pronouncements, doesn't include the
self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Agreed that most of RAO and RAT have no real interest in whether the
recording they are playing sounds like the origional perforamnce. The people
on RAT tend to care more about whether the recording sounds like its being
played on equipment with TOOBs.

You've been told a hundred times that on RAT solid state amps enjoy the
same level playing field as tubes. You're the one giving solid state a
bad name by your brutish bullying. These debating trade tricks cut no
ice. Do have anything at all to contribute, Krueger?

Almost all of the people on RAO are too interested in arguing and insulting
for the sake of arguing and insulting to worry about things like music and
sound.

That's just empty abuse of people who don't fall down and worship you.

Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for
mechanical minds: The discussion is about whether the
reproduced music sounds like the original performance.

Agreed, except there is an open question as to which origional performance,
is being talked about.

No, the question is no longer "open". The "engineers" had their turn
and ****ed up.

Nor is it a question of "which performance" but of "whose performance".
Guess who gave the performance. Here's a hint: not the techies. The
musicians gave the performance. They are qualified to judge the
recorded result.

Apparently in Jute's simplistic world, there is just one sound of a live
performance. IOW, as Jute walks around a concert hall, he hears identically
the same sound no matter where he is, whether the back row or right in front
of the conductor's lectern.

More debating trade crap trying to confuse us.

The best seats in most houses are half-a-dozen rows behind the
conductor. In any event, the musicians have decided what it is they
want the audience to hear. They are qualified to judge if the recording
and the replay apparatus delivers that vision.

Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding
tastes like disassembled robot.

Merely a childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

Okay, fine, let's see you make an argument to dismiss my three
statements. Just shouting that you dismiss it doesn't cut any ice.

You're missing the key point, Krueger, either because you're stupid or
because you're losing it in another of your kindergarten debating trade
tricks.

This is precisely the point of who should be in charge, the
mechanically minded techies with their THD or the cultured musicians.
Civilized people think music is about culture, not grubby bits.

I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a
fast car; I know
from experience that his conversation will be dull and
irrelevant to the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth
I was often in the car on a test track or the road with
one or more of the engineers who designed it. None of
them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them
talked about the driving experience. That defines the
difference between an engineer and an "engineer" (1),
don't you think?

Yet another personal attack.

Nope. Once more I'm demonstrating that your opinion isn't worth ****
because you have no culture. If you cannot grasp the analogy, what are
you doing on RAO and RAT and the other audio newsgroups? They are about
music, about culture, about joy, none of which you apparently possess.

This is obviously Jute's idea of audio
discussion in its highest form:

You're damn right it is a high form of audio discussion. We're talking
about recovering our music from incompetent wreckers like you, who
cannot even record his own church choir intelligibly. what can be more
important -- in your own control freak's very revealling choice of
word, "higher" -- than that?

False claims

Prove a single lie.

topped off with a few personal attacks.

When is a personal attack not a personal attack? When Arny "I spoke in
ignorance" Krueger makes it. He just in the same soundbite sentence
called me a liar and then accused me of arguing with personal attacks:

False claims topped off with a few personal attacks.

You're an idiot, Krueger, to display so much contempt for the
intelligence of better men than you. The difference is that we daily
demonstrate our superiority while you snip our argument and proof and
then claim there was none. You're not only incompetent and ignorant and
crude, you're such a transparent liar.

Yawn!

If you think music is boring, Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger, what
are you doing on RAO and RAT and the other audio conferences?

We don't despise you, Krueger, because you are ignorant or too poor to
buy real hi-fi; we've all been there. We despise you because you are a
bully and deceitful.

Unsigned out of contempt

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in
message

Audio perception is a skill which most musicians
posess partly as a natural talent, and partly as the
result of their formal training (this is not
something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this
context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

snip irrelevant BS

Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the
truth, so he snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.

No, I'm just bored with your overwrought prose, Jute.

Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for
themselves how relevant my remarks were and a

**********
Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all
there is to it. "Audio Perception", when used complete
with pompous capitals, is merely
a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a
job in better-paid branch of electronics, to make
themselves sound like "experts".

Yup, total losers like Zwicker and Fastl.

I don't know them.

You obviously didn't have the wits to google them, either.

I know you, Arny "I spoke in
ignorance" Krueger. You have zero credibility even with
your own kind. You lie and you twist and you cheat in
order to "win" an argument that even McKelpie, your loyal
dog, knows you have lost.

Wow, a personal attack from Jute. Whoda thunk?

When Mr Churches uses
the phrase modestly, without using the
screeching capitals, he means whether the recording
sounds like the original performance to those of innate
musical perception, a classification which clearly, by
their own pronouncements, doesn't include the
self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Agreed that most of RAO and RAT have no real interest in
whether the recording they are playing sounds like the
origional perforamnce. The people on RAT tend to care
more about whether the recording sounds like its being
played on equipment with TOOBs.

You've been told a hundred times that on RAT solid state
amps enjoy the same level playing field as tubes.

Meaning exactly what?

You're the one giving solid state a bad name by your brutish
bullying. These debating trade tricks cut no ice. Do have
anything at all to contribute, Krueger?

I didn't even mention SS did I?

Almost all of the people on RAO are too interested in
arguing and insulting for the sake of arguing and
insulting to worry about things like music and sound.

That's just empty abuse of people who don't fall down and
worship you.

LOL!

Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for
mechanical minds: The discussion is about whether the
reproduced music sounds like the original performance.

Agreed, except there is an open question as to which
origional performance, is being talked about.

No, the question is no longer "open". The "engineers" had
their turn and ****ed up.

Prove it.

Nor is it a question of "which performance" but of "whose
performance".

Wrong again, Jute. The performance sounds the same under identical
conditions, no matter who owns it.

Guess who gave the performance. Here's a
hint: not the techies.

Actually musos are a kind of technician, no?

The musicians gave the
performance. They are qualified to judge the recorded
result.

Fact of the matter is that musos hear their instruments and performances
from a unique perspective that nobody seated in the audience can duplicate
live.

Apparently in Jute's simplistic world, there is just one
sound of a live performance. IOW, as Jute walks around a
concert hall, he hears identically the same sound no
matter where he is, whether the back row or right in
front of the conductor's lectern.

More debating trade crap trying to confuse us.

Just the facts. Quit whining Jute and get down to the issues, if you can!

The best seats in most houses are half-a-dozen rows
behind the conductor. In any event, the musicians have
decided what it is they want the audience to hear.

How can they, when they can never hear it for themselves. If they are
playing, they are always fully engaged someplace else other than the seats
behind the conductor.

They are qualified to judge if the recording and the replay
apparatus delivers that vision.

How can they do this right if they never hear it that way?

Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding
tastes like disassembled robot.

Merely a childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

Okay, fine, let's see you make an argument to dismiss my
three statements. Just shouting that you dismiss it
doesn't cut any ice.

Been there, done that with ease.

You're missing the key point, Krueger, either because
you're stupid or because you're losing it in another of
your kindergarten debating trade tricks.

Merely another childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

This is precisely the point of who should be in charge,
the mechanically minded techies with their THD or the
cultured musicians.

Who says that no techie no where can possibly appreciate the beauty of
music?

Apparently Jute. :-(

Civilized people think music is about
culture, not grubby bits.

I'd like to think that some music can transcend mere culture.

I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a
fast car; I know
from experience that his conversation will be dull and
irrelevant to the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth
I was often in the car on a test track or the road with
one or more of the engineers who designed it. None of
them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them
talked about the driving experience. That defines the
difference between an engineer and an "engineer" (1),
don't you think?

Yet another personal attack.

Nope. Once more I'm demonstrating that your opinion isn't
worth **** because you have no culture.

Yet another personal attack.

If you cannot
grasp the analogy, what are you doing on RAO and RAT and
the other audio newsgroups?

I grasp that your so-called demonstration is a bald-faced personal attack,
Jute.

They are about music, about
culture, about joy, none of which you apparently possess.

Yet another childish personal attack from Jute.

This is obviously Jute's idea of audio
discussion in its highest form:

You're damn right it is a high form of audio discussion.


What, all these personal attacks of yours, Jute?

Surely you jest!

We're talking about recovering our music from incompetent
wreckers like you, who cannot even record his own church
choir intelligibly. what can be more important -- in your
own control freak's very revealling choice of word,
"higher" -- than that?

More childish personal attacks.

False claims

Prove a single lie.

Asked and answered.

topped off with a few personal attacks.

When is a personal attack not a personal attack? When
Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger makes it. He just in
the same soundbite sentence called me a liar and then
accused me of arguing with personal attacks:

Just the facts.

False claims topped off with a few personal attacks.

You're an idiot, Krueger, to display so much contempt for
the intelligence of better men than you.

Not a problem when I'm dealing with you Jute. You obviously have the
mentality of a spoilt child.

The difference
is that we daily demonstrate our superiority while you
snip our argument and proof and then claim there was
none. You're not only incompetent and ignorant and crude,
you're such a transparent liar.

More personal attacks.

Yawn!

If you think music is boring, Arny "I spoke in ignorance"
Krueger, what are you doing on RAO and RAT and the other
audio conferences?

Jute, its your stream of personal attacks that are boring me.

We don't despise you, Krueger, because you are ignorant
or too poor to buy real hi-fi; we've all been there. We
despise you because you are a bully and deceitful.

Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple personalities?

Unsigned out of contempt

...by Jute for Jute.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple personalities?


Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and Pukey.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple
personalities?

Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and
Pukey.

How would you know, Art? You live in Middius world where guys like you are
the usual thing.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple
personalities?

Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and
Pukey.

How would you know, Art? You live in Middius world where guys like you are
the usual thing.


Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman, Middius, Bambrough,
Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel, Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and
dozens more
don't like you.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:03:47 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple
personalities?

Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and
Pukey.

How would you know, Art? You live in Middius world where guys like you are
the usual thing.


Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman, Middius, Bambrough,
Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel, Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and
dozens more
don't like you.

Hang on, I only dislike him when we talk minidisc. The rest of the
time I just find him an odd little fellow.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman,
Middius, Bambrough, Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel,
Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and dozens more
don't like you.

Half of the people on that list haven't posted here in ages, or post so
infrequentely that it haldly matters. Some of them are just plain wrong.
Then there's the ones that are sockpuppets such as your sweet self. Parse
the list down to real people and you've got just a few soreheads.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman,
Middius, Bambrough, Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel,
Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and dozens more
don't like you.

Half of the people on that list haven't posted here in ages, or post so
infrequentely that it haldly matters. Some of them are just plain wrong.
Then there's the ones that are sockpuppets such as your sweet self. Parse
the list down to real people and you've got just a few soreheads.


Am I Middius' or JA's sockpuppet this week? I forget.
I lost my schedule.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman,
Middius, Bambrough, Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel,
Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and dozens more
don't like you.

Half of the people on that list haven't posted here in
ages, or post so infrequentely that it haldly matters.
Some of them are just plain wrong. Then there's the ones
that are sockpuppets such as your sweet self. Parse the
list down to real people and you've got just a few
soreheads.

Am I Middius' or JA's sockpuppet this week? I forget.
I lost my schedule.

Try a reasonable list of animators next time, Art.

Middius *is* a sockpuppet and JA's got his hands full just being JA. ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
by educational establishments that teach courses in
recording arts.

It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
in recording, not just musicians.


It comes from the first person singular
"audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
alternative seems to be "Aural perception"


Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
their formal training (this is not something rstricted
solely to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
by educational establishments that teach courses in
recording arts.

Then that is relevant to audio technical staff.

Recording arts - technicans

Musical arts - musicians

It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
in recording, not just musicians.

You've contradicted yourself again, Iain.

It comes from the first person singular
"audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
alternative seems to be "Aural perception"

Red herring, anybody?

Iain Churches wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
by educational establishments that teach courses in
recording arts.

It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
in recording, not just musicians.


It comes from the first person singular
"audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
alternative seems to be "Aural perception"


Iain

You're wasting your breath, Iain. Arny Krueger's obtuse attitude
towards these matters stem not from a desire for precision, a love of
music or any other reason than control of some tiny specialist corner
in which he can shine, or claim to shine, or pretend to shine. That is
why he wants entirely artificially to separate Audio Perception from
Musical Perception, so that he can control the smaller arena and claim
to be superior to those who create and perform the music. Krueger's
attempt to carve out a corner of superiority for himself, no matter how
false or artificial, arises from his fear and loathing of culture, and
his deepseated feelings of inferiority to those who are so obviously,
so abundantly more talented than he is (1). (Krueger is admitting the
same thing as another zero-kulturny's "audio is engineering, music is
art" sig, the implication of which is that the opinion of the dumbest
engineer should stand higher than that of the most accomplished
artist.)

It was Paul Johnson who first observed that the first target of the
enemies of society is always the plain everyday meaning of words,
because once they control the language, they can control thought, and
through though they control education, and through education they
control society. In the same way Arny Krueger, without doubt an arid
enemy of cultured society, wishes to control the language used in
recording as a trojan horse through which he may pretend to be superior
to those who generate joy, through superiority to control them, and
through control to reduce them to his own level of uselessness. Another
example is Krueger's ludicrous attempt by stretching the meaning of
words to beyond breaking point to make himself out a professional
recording engineer. (2)

Andre Jute

(1) There's a grand irony here. Arny Krueger is observably of such
rigid mentality that, were he to achieve his impossible dream of
becoming an artist, he would instantly break under the stress of that
uncertainty and doubt which dogs and drives every real creator.

(2) As I demonstrated in
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1
Krueger's claim to be a professional recording engineer is ludicrous:
if he can call himself a professional recording engineer, so can any
kid with recording studio toy. Others demonstrated on separate aspects
of Krueger's dumb wordplay that his claim is ludicrous.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
their formal training (this is not something rstricted
solely to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
by educational establishments that teach courses in
recording arts.

Then that is relevant to audio technical staff.

Recording arts - technicans

Musical arts - musicians

It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
in recording, not just musicians.

You've contradicted yourself again, Iain.

It comes from the first person singular
"audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
alternative seems to be "Aural perception"

Red herring, anybody?

Lovely. While I was writing my post below to explain Krueger's
motivation to Iain, Krueger himself jumped in to confirm every single
motivation I ascribed to his attempt artificially to separate technical
and musical sensibilities in recording:

Recording arts - technicans

Musical arts - musicians

And note that they are now in Krueger's mouth "recording *arts*" -- I
have no objection to the best professional recording engineers
describing what they do as an art, but Krueger is clearly neither a
professional recording engineer nor an artist; he is merely confirming
my analysis that he wants to be thought of an artist. Here is my
analysis (in reply to Iain's letter quoted above) which crossed with
Krueger's confirmation of every point I made:

********
Iain Churches wrote:
[snip, already quoted above]

You're wasting your breath, Iain. Arny Krueger's obtuse attitude
towards these matters stem not from a desire for precision, a love of
music or any other reason than control of some tiny specialist corner
in which he can shine, or claim to shine, or pretend to shine. That is
why he wants entirely artificially to separate Audio Perception from
Musical Perception, so that he can control the smaller arena and claim
to be superior to those who create and perform the music. Krueger's
attempt to carve out a corner of superiority for himself, no matter how
false or artificial, arises from his fear and loathing of culture, and
his deepseated feelings of inferiority to those who are so obviously,
so abundantly more talented than he is (1). (Krueger is admitting the
same thing as another zero-kulturny's "audio is engineering, music is
art" sig, the implication of which is that the opinion of the dumbest
engineer should stand higher than that of the most accomplished
artist.)

It was Paul Johnson who first observed that the first target of the
enemies of society is always the plain everyday meaning of words,
because once they control the language, they can control thought, and
through though they control education, and through education they
control society. In the same way Arny Krueger, without doubt an arid
enemy of cultured society, wishes to control the language used in
recording as a trojan horse through which he may pretend to be superior
to those who generate joy, through superiority to control them, and
through control to reduce them to his own level of uselessness. Another
example is Krueger's ludicrous attempt by stretching the meaning of
words to beyond breaking point to make himself out a professional
recording engineer. (2)

Andre Jute

(1) There's a grand irony here. Arny Krueger is observably of such
rigid mentality that, were he to achieve his impossible dream of
becoming an artist, he would instantly break under the stress of that
uncertainty and doubt which dogs and drives every real creator.

(2) As I demonstrated in
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1
Krueger's claim to be a professional recording engineer is ludicrous:
if he can call himself a professional recording engineer, so can any
kid with recording studio toy. Others demonstrated on separate aspects
of Krueger's dumb wordplay that his claim is ludicrous.

Mr. McCoy:

You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God
knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But
consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods.

Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four
decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon
her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman
Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her
precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare.
Altogether a glamorous lady.

Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only
read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could
not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He
neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language
other than Old Arabic, of course.

However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was
rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere
from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And
the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true
temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too
much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision.

So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and
observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless.
Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I
say it UTILITY.

You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you
fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at
very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Nah, Wiecky, you got the cat by the tail again with your thumb up its
ass. Everyone except a johnnycomelately like you knows that Mr Jute is
big on leeway for educated taste in cultural matters. The guys you want
to accuse of spurious precision are Krueger, Pinkerton and Stevenson.

Hope this helps you not be such a public fool in future.

Andrew McCoy

Useless Wiecky wrote:
Mr. McCoy:

You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God
knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But
consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods.

Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four
decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon
her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman
Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her
precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare.
Altogether a glamorous lady.

Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only
read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could
not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He
neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language
other than Old Arabic, of course.

However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was
rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere
from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And
the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true
temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too
much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision.

So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and
observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless.
Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I
say it UTILITY.

You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you
fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at
very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Recording arts - technicans

Musical arts - musicians


Scatalogical arts - Arnie



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
their formal training (this is not something rstricted
solely to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
by educational establishments that teach courses in
recording arts.

Then that is relevant to audio technical staff.

Recording arts - technicans

My dear Arny,

The object of the training is to educate musicians,
and also would-be producers what actually goes on
in studios and at recording sessions, and what is
expected of them during the process. The courses
are supervised by senior preducers, and recording
engineers. Some junior recording staff also take part.

The problem is that recording a large project is so expensive
that few potentially good but inexperienced players or
producers get the opportunity to take part.

As a result one sees the same session players, particularly
drummers, bass players, pianists and guitar players dashing
from studio to studio, and broadcast to broadcast.

I know of one particularly good Swedish drummer who has
five drum kits, dotted around the various studios of the
capital.

For those not quite so good or experienced, it is a Catch 22
situation - no experience without work, no work without
experience.

It comes from the first person singular
"audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
alternative seems to be "Aural perception"

Red herring, anybody?

Not at all, it's a direct quote from a college prospectus.


Iain

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...


Lovely. While I was writing my post below to explain Krueger's
motivation to Iain, Krueger himself jumped in to confirm every single
motivation I ascribed to his attempt artificially to separate technical
and musical sensibilities in recording:

Recording arts - technicans

Musical arts - musicians

And note that they are now in Krueger's mouth "recording *arts*" -- I
have no objection to the best professional recording engineers
describing what they do as an art, but Krueger is clearly neither a
professional recording engineer nor an artist; he is merely confirming
my analysis that he wants to be thought of an artist.

Andre Jute


Andre. I am always interested in what Arny has to say
about testing procedures, but when he talks about recording -
I don't take him too seriously.Perhaps he he is just
trying to be obtuse for the sake of it.

But I am sure, despite all this, he is kind to his Mum:-)

Regards to all.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


But I am sure, despite all this, he is kind to his Mum:-)

not if she was a subjectivist



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access