| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote in message
... In , Surf wrote : go away bwian. everyone hates you. Surfer or exorcist ? ya think that took care of it? |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes, the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no? Somewhere away from me, natural gas flows through a pipeline to a huge power station, driving turbines which turn massive generators, producing electricty. The electricity is transmitted at 400,000 volts across the country over a network of lines; it comes to my regional electrity distributor, which steps it down to 200,000 volts for transmission over its own network. It's stepped down still further by regional transformers and substantions, arriving at my house at 240 volts through a thick 100-amp cable. Once in my house, it's distributed on 30-amp ring mains, connecting to outlet sockets. From an outher socket, its connected to my hi-fi system. And all this is pretty-near instantaneous. But if I am to believe the adverts, I can improve the transmission of electricty from the generating station to my amplifier, by repacing the supplied two-metre mains cable with a hi-fi mains cable, costing a mere £25 .... I don't need to replace the 20 or 30 metres of cable in my ring main, nor the underground cable from my house to the substation, or anything ... Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi electricity to audiophiles ... :-) Tim |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Martin schrieb:
wrote in message ups.com... And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes, the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no? Somewhere away from me, natural gas flows through a pipeline to a huge po= wer station, driving turbines which turn massive generators, producing electricty. The electricity is transmitted at 400,000 volts across the country over a network of lines; it comes to my regional electrity distributor, which steps it down to 200,000 volts for transmission over its own network. It= 's stepped down still further by regional transformers and substantions, arriving at my house at 240 volts through a thick 100-amp cable. Once in my house, it's distributed on 30-amp ring mains, connecting to outlet sockets. From an outher socket, its connected to my hi-fi system. And all this is pretty-near instantaneous. But if I am to believe the adverts, I can improve the transmission of electricty from the generating station to my amplifier, by repacing the supplied two-metre mains cable with a hi-fi mains cable, costing a mere = =A325 ... I don't need to replace the 20 or 30 metres of cable in my ring main, nor the underground cable from my house to the substation, or anything ... Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi electricity to audiophiles ... :-) Tim Yes, the sound in the mains cable! This is for a big laugh, no? One day, some enterpriser may have special sound power generators and wires for the audiophile house. Yes, "hi-fi electricity"! Soon another laugh in the Stereophile! |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Surf schrieb:
wrote You make fun of my English. I see you are not a nice person. I will remember. uh-oh - a threat. how do you know he makes fun of your English? Maybe you understand English better than you pretend. Is this your new RAO persona? To remember the bad person is not to threat. Just to remember not to be fool when bad person pretend to make nice. She writes to me nonsense, not to others. She mocks my attempts to English. I pretend my English is better. What is this "persona"? |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't really know what your instrument sounds like. This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly distorted version of the music he makes. This is true but it doesn't change that the musician has a sophisticated expectation of what the instrument should sound like. And that doesn't change the fact that the musician has a distorted view of the sound of music compared to a typical listener. The original question had to do with whether a musician really knows what *any* instrument sounds like whether or not the musician is playing it at the time. It's absurd to say instrumentalists knows *less* about the sound of their instrument (because of distortion) because they play. My comment was 100% responsive to that question. By reviewing it without actually responding to my comment Stephen, we see you using debating trade tactics to avoid conceeding the point. You're just leading the discussion around in a circle. Musicians develop an "outside ear." Meaning exactly what? The learned ability to relate the sound they hear inside their heads to the sound as it is in the room. IME this is often defective and overblown in the musican's own mind. For an unlearned way to do this, next time you sing a hymn, lift the hymnbook with one hand while cupping the other hand behind your ear to collect the reflected sound of your voice. Seems like a very impovrished way to do this. It's an acoustically defective way to accomplish the task. For example, the cupping of the ear creates a resonant cavity that distorts the quality of the sound quite a bit. What I do is compare recordings of my voice to recordings of other people's voices made under similar circumstances, and compare that to how I hear my own voice. The recording procedures were arrived at by trying to get natural reproduction of music. Nevertheless, I have few illusions that the information I arrive at by these improved technical means is much more than a gross approximation. Procedures like this are very insensitive and reliable compared to say, ABX. But they are hugely accurate and diagnostic compared to traditional procedures. Musicans also seem to develop enlarged egos of a kind, particularly related to their hearing. What with the lifetime of hard-earned experience. IME its often a lifetime of deceiving themselves. For example, I've worked with a lot of musicans who strongly prefer to work in rooms that blur their work and thus conceal their technical errors. Their addiction to these rooms has, right before my eyes, degenerated into personal power plays to preserve dysfunctional performance spaces at the expense of the stated function of the rooms. Clearly not all musicans are like this. I've also seen other musicans gravitate toward rooms that are more neutral and readily adaptable for a broad range of functions. There seems to be some kind of "big fish in a small pond" effect with some people. Musicans that work together in larger groups can be pretty agressive about striving to produce and identify high performance. And its not necessarily their fault. The infrastructure they work in is not always that good. IME a lot of middle-aged musicans seem to have quite a bit of hearing damage. I was sitting next to a vocalist friend a week or two back, and she told me that she couldn't hear a guitar that was obviously being played pretty robustly. She blamed the sound system. I could hear it quite well and quite clearly. This is a typical anecdote? Not necessarily completely representative, but not atypical. If we look at history, musicans who are baby boomers have had exceptional opportunities to damage their ears with their own music making. While musicians aren't immune to hearing damage, this doesn't necessarily undo their discernment. After all, the question is one of listening, not hearing. Well Stephen it seems like possibly your own egocentrism has kept from experiencing the learning experiences that might inform you about the limitations of your own hearing abilities. Listening for flaws in audio reproduction involves what are usually far smaller differences than are involved in listening for flaws in music making. I often see musicans who confuse the two. A little ABXing or something like it can make it all pretty clear. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: IME musicans seem to tend to be wary of listening to recordings of their playing. If it's a good recording, they don't need to, as it matches the intent. This statement can be interpreted to mean that all good recordings identically match the intent of the musican. If that's what you mean Stephen, you obviously can't hear the forest for the trees. Maybe they don't want to hear your recordings. That's often a fact. Again Stephen you seem to be trying to talk your way out of the box you might be in. This was not intended to be a discussion of whether or not they want to hear themselves play. The question is "why". The answer is pretty obvious to me. The recordings do a pretty fair job of reproducing what happened during the performance. The musicans lack the self-confidence it takes to actually listen to what they have done. In short, they know that they were pretty crappy, and they don't want to be reminded of it, or the reasons why. Fact of the matter is that performers don't get a very good idea of how the performance went. The better ones freely admit that they are very preoccupied during the performance, which frankly is what we listeners hope. We want them to be preoccupied with providing their best possible performance. That doesn't leave a lot left over to perceive the performance as listeners do. However, there's a macro view of the performance that is very important By technical means, it is possible for a performer to escape the limitations of the necessary preoccupation with being a performer, and also be a perceptive listener. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
Signal wrote: I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on rec.audio.pro recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-) I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that he was a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he is to be commended for actually making recordings, an activity that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite his writings on the subject. :-) I was simply reacting to the narrow, distorted view of what makes a professional recordist that Atkinson was spewing on RAP. Others took exception to his posturing, as well. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Martin wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: A professional instrumentalist or vocalist knows VERY well the sound of his/her music making, as well as that if others. Our ability to succeed in the business depends on it. I think musicans would like to believe that. While their success obviously depends on the quality of their playing, that doesn't mean that they know exactly what they sound like from the perspective of people in the audience. When I recorded my daughter's sax quartet (two seasoned pros, two starting out) they were very pleased to listen to the playback. They could hear aspects of their performance in the recordings that they missed when playing. This seems like a good thing. Incidentally, the quality of the playback speaker was quite limited - I think I actually used a little Fender practise guitar amp, simply because it was self-contained, light, and easy to carry. When you are listening to music as opposed to sound, it doesn't take a perfectionist playback system to get the job done. So it wasn't the quality thatwas the advabtage, i assume it was a matter of concentration - it's hard for musicians to hear everything about the performance while they are playing in it. That's my point. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... George M. Middius schrieb: Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains: You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If you were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive rejection of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is too wrapped up in this. Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that Arnii Krooger has some connection to human-style science? He's a religious zealot, pure and simple. He has co-opted a few notions and phrases from the world of science, then twisted and malformed them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his pseudo-scientific claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all based on a few shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous investigation. It boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some individuals were unable to distinguish some amps under some conditions." Calling that science is like calling a pancake that resembles an image of "Virgin Mary" a miracle. If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real science, you have to laugh. Compare it with the so-called "intelligent design" dogma, and you get a lot of parallels. What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys, who like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from your work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them there was no magic, that their lives might be worse? This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental illness is so entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept of enjoying life. Haven't you heard The Tape? What is this "The Tape"? It's the real Arny Krueger, not the sanitized version he managed to contrive for Stereophile. Actually, the inverse is true. The Stereophile debate exposed the real me, not the falsified version that Atkinson and his minions including Middius tried to contrive. I'm not involving Atkinson gratuitously here. He said here that wanted to be involved in the production and dissemination of the contents of "the tape". There's no independent verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior to the debate, and no more evidence since. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:01:39 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
IME its often a lifetime of deceiving themselves. For example, I've worked with a lot of musicans who strongly prefer to work in rooms that blur their work and thus conceal their technical errors. Their addiction to these rooms has, right before my eyes, degenerated into personal power plays to preserve dysfunctional performance spaces at the expense of the stated function of the rooms. Clearly not all musicans are like this. I've also seen other musicans gravitate toward rooms that are more neutral and readily adaptable for a broad range of functions. There seems to be some kind of "big fish in a small pond" effect with some people. Musicans that work together in larger groups can be pretty agressive about striving to produce and identify high performance. One would think from this that Arnold was something more than someone who records his church choir, organist and maybe a few youth groups. And its not necessarily their fault. The infrastructure they work in is not always that good. I guess some rooms in the church are better than others. And then there's the part of of the "infrastructure" that must be maddening at times - the recording engineer. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil said: I guess some rooms in the church are better than others. And then there's the part of of the "infrastructure" that must be maddening at times - the recording engineer. For the pittance Arnii charges, he's entitled to spend half the hour reading the NAMBLA journal. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:18:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: There's no independent verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior to the debate, and no more evidence since. Actually, you yourself admitted that it exists, if not in tape form. The proof's right there in Google. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , dave weil wrote :
On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:18:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There's no independent verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior to the debate, and no more evidence since. Actually, you yourself admitted that it exists, if not in tape form. The proof's right there in Google. I guess that the original is still under your pillow, eh Dave ? ;-) |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil said: There's no independent verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior to the debate, and no more evidence since. Good, Arnii. You didn't destroy any quoted text and you used your spelchekkur. Would you like feces with that? ;-) Actually, you yourself admitted that it exists, if not in tape form. The proof's right there in Google. Thanks Mr. Wiel for admitting you don't know how to use Goggle, in the snow. If I had a dollar for every lie you, tell its like the burden of siccicnecce would be easier. Come back when you can squat a few fact's. LOL! ;-( |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: IME musicans seem to tend to be wary of listening to recordings of their playing. If it's a good recording, they don't need to, as it matches the intent. This statement can be interpreted to mean that all good recordings identically match the intent of the musican. From the musician's view, yes, except for that pesky 'all' you've got there. If that's what you mean Stephen, you obviously can't hear the forest for the trees. No, just suggesting one possible reason a musician might not need to hear a recording. Maybe they don't want to hear your recordings. That's often a fact. Again Stephen you seem to be trying to talk your way out of the box you might be in. This was not intended to be a discussion of whether or not they want to hear themselves play. The question is "why". The answer is pretty obvious to me. The recordings do a pretty fair job of reproducing what happened during the performance. The musicans lack the self-confidence it takes to actually listen to what they have done. In short, they know that they were pretty crappy, and they don't want to be reminded of it, or the reasons why. Then there's the smaller group of confident professionals who know what they've done and have found recordings confirm their intent was realized. Fact of the matter is that performers don't get a very good idea of how the performance went. The better ones freely admit that they are very preoccupied during the performance, which frankly is what we listeners hope. We want them to be preoccupied with providing their best possible performance. That doesn't leave a lot left over to perceive the performance as listeners do. Not in the sense of enjoying the performance, no. However, performers sometimes enter a zone of hyper awareness of their performance. Hearing a recording can then be a shock because the performer is no longer in that zone. And, insecurity aside, hearing the recording can produce anxiety because the musician no longer has the power to change the performance. However, there's a macro view of the performance that is very important By technical means, it is possible for a performer to escape the limitations of the necessary preoccupation with being a performer, and also be a perceptive listener. Musicians trained from an early age can be relatively unconscious of their technique. Learning to listen can be tough for these types. Stephen |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Good Lord! Did your QuoteFix blow a fuse? MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message ... You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't really know what your instrument sounds like. This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly distorted version of the music he makes. This is true but it doesn't change that the musician has a sophisticated expectation of what the instrument should sound like. And that doesn't change the fact that the musician has a distorted view of the sound of music compared to a typical listener. The original question had to do with whether a musician really knows what *any* instrument sounds like whether or not the musician is playing it at the time. It's absurd to say instrumentalists knows *less* about the sound of their instrument (because of distortion) because they play. My comment was 100% responsive to that question. By reviewing it without actually responding to my comment Stephen, we see you using debating trade tactics to avoid conceeding the point. You're just leading the discussion around in a circle. "This is true" was intended as a response to your comment. Perhaps you missed it (go up four paragraphs). Far from conceding the point, I accepted it but suggested that its practical meaning is not what you imply it is. Musicians develop an "outside ear." Meaning exactly what? The learned ability to relate the sound they hear inside their heads to the sound as it is in the room. IME this is often defective and overblown in the musican's own mind. You don't have any E of the musician's own mind, but that aside, as a learned ability, it will be present in different degrees in different musicians. For an unlearned way to do this, next time you sing a hymn, lift the hymnbook with one hand while cupping the other hand behind your ear to collect the reflected sound of your voice. Seems like a very impovrished way to do this. So what? Doesn't it sound different? It's more like the room than like inside your head. It's an acoustically defective way to accomplish the task. For example, the cupping of the ear creates a resonant cavity that distorts the quality of the sound quite a bit. You'll find that one can vary the cupping to find an acceptable degree, perhaps by imagining your hand as an extension of your ear. What I do is compare recordings of my voice to recordings of other people's voices made under similar circumstances, and compare that to how I hear my own voice. The recording procedures were arrived at by trying to get natural reproduction of music. Once you've acquired this sense of what your voice sounds like, you no longer need new recordings to confirm this sense, yes? Atypical anecdote: I met a pianist who complained she was over-relying on her tape recorder in that she wasn't listening to her performance as she played because she was going to listen to the tape later. Nevertheless, I have few illusions that the information I arrive at by these improved technical means is much more than a gross approximation. Procedures like this are very insensitive and reliable compared to say, ABX. But they are hugely accurate and diagnostic compared to traditional procedures. And have nothing to do with how a musician would relate to a recording of his own performance. Musicans also seem to develop enlarged egos of a kind, particularly related to their hearing. What with the lifetime of hard-earned experience. IME its often a lifetime of deceiving themselves. For example, I've worked with a lot of musicans who strongly prefer to work in rooms that blur their work and thus conceal their technical errors. Their addiction to these rooms has, right before my eyes, degenerated into personal power plays to preserve dysfunctional performance spaces at the expense of the stated function of the rooms. Translate please. Perhaps the musicians like the sound of the reverberant space and have a performing style that utilizes a strong sense of projection ("play mistakes softly, please"). If the space is a church, these preferences have to be balanced against the need for speech to be easily understandable. To put it another way, classical pianists often dislike extremely close recordings because these minimize the room. It's not uncommon to see references to Pianist X's live sound in comparison to his recorded sound. Clearly not all musicans are like this. I've also seen other musicans gravitate toward rooms that are more neutral and readily adaptable for a broad range of functions. There seems to be some kind of "big fish in a small pond" effect with some people. Musicans that work together in larger groups can be pretty agressive about striving to produce and identify high performance. And its not necessarily their fault. The infrastructure they work in is not always that good. I imagine there would be controversy in building a symphony hall, especially if some constituents really want a multi-use facility. IME a lot of middle-aged musicans seem to have quite a bit of hearing damage. I was sitting next to a vocalist friend a week or two back, and she told me that she couldn't hear a guitar that was obviously being played pretty robustly. She blamed the sound system. I could hear it quite well and quite clearly. This is a typical anecdote? Not necessarily completely representative, but not atypical. If we look at history, musicans who are baby boomers have had exceptional opportunities to damage their ears with their own music making. Some retain sharper listening ability, as I said. A recent newspaper article reported that some apparent old age hearing deterioration is due to loss of listening skills rather than on changes in the physical mechanism. While musicians aren't immune to hearing damage, this doesn't necessarily undo their discernment. After all, the question is one of listening, not hearing. Well Stephen it seems like possibly your own egocentrism has kept from experiencing the learning experiences that might inform you about the limitations of your own hearing abilities. Doesn't matter: all I have to do is pay attention to the audience, right? Listening for flaws in audio reproduction involves what are usually far smaller differences than are involved in listening for flaws in music making. I often see musicans who confuse the two. A little ABXing or something like it can make it all pretty clear. Not only smaller, but different. One doesn't need ABX to overcome that misapprehension. Stephen |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Tim Martin" wrote: Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi electricity to audiophiles ... :-) http://www.avrev.com/equip/audiophileaps1050/ |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Tim Martin" wrote: Mmmm ... maybe I should start an electricty company, selling hi-fi electricity to audiophiles ... :-) http://www.avrev.com/equip/audiophileaps1050/ This thing is either: a) a band-aid for very poorly designed equipment or b) a useless waste of resources for properly designed equipment In either case, the purchaser is a fool.  ( |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality takes a holiday in the Hive. It's the real Arny Krueger, not the sanitized version he managed to contrive for Stereophile. Actually, the inverse is true. The Stereophile debate exposed the real me, not the falsified version that Atkinson and his minions including Middius tried to contrive. For the record, I am not anybody's minion. At least not until the pay goes up. As for you and your falsies, Arnii, you're not fooling anybody with a brain™. Ir anybody with a set of ears, for that matter. "Stop dumping the ****ing garbage on my lawn!" That was you. You were nasty and whiny, just like you are on RAO. As Margaret observed, you do deserve a little credit for proving that you can don a facade of seeming normalcy when the occasion arises. However, I've heard you bitching and whining in a candid moment, so I (and others) know that you're really the disgusting piece of work we see on RAO. involving Atkinson gratuitously here. He said here that wanted to be involved in the production and dissemination of the contents of "the tape". Of course, this is a lie. A Kroo-lie that you've repeated several times. There's no proof of this ridiculous Kroo-klaim, and JA has denied it publicly several times. But you know better than reality, right Arnii? ;-) There's no independent verifiable evidence that "the tape" actually existed prior to the debate, and no more evidence since. Denial ain't just a river, etc. You are such a doodoo-head. Why don't you do away with yourself already and put an end to your suffering? |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote
To remember the bad person is not to threat. Just to remember not to be fool when bad person pretend to make nice. She writes to me nonsense, not to others. She mocks my attempts to English. I pretend my English is better. What is this "persona"? How do you know it's nonsense? It looks like your English. Do you assume that English that is like yours is nonsense? What is your native language? Can you not translate "persona" to it? I think your native language is English. I think you try to have a little fun weeth us, no? Or maybe eet eez very hot in Arkansas and you come down wees dee fever, yes? |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Surf said to Thing: How do you know it's nonsense? It looks like your English. Do you assume that English that is like yours is nonsense? What is your native language? Can you not translate "persona" to it? I think your native language is English. I think you try to have a little fun weeth us, no? Or maybe eet eez very hot in Arkansas and you come down wees dee fever, yes? Doesn't dickie/toony/Little **** come from Polish stock? His internal monologue probably has a Slavic inflection. "Is bad for you mocking my English. What English not nonsense? Please to say what is 'persona'. Have very slow computer in Old Country, cannot use good translation dictionaries. Excuse please." |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Middius" launchs a MIRV tipped ICBM of bull****: For the record, I am not anybody's minion. Okay, "George", you can be Atkinson's mongrel, yapping away, instead of a mere minion. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote: Margaret von B. schrieb: Are you post do be joke too? An entertainment be do Borgs are surely, not do be serious are serious. Are be do a laugh no? Do be have good day are! Margaret You make fun of my English. I see you are not a nice person. I will remember. It's pretty well known around here that when you nail certain people, their only remaining alternative is to make fun of how you write. You certainly are guilty of that. Guess you haven't figured out that some people do it just to make fun of you. Oh well. Scott Wheeler |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Signal wrote: I note the **** was ripped out of [Arny Krueger] on rec.audio.pro recently, when [he] claimed to be "experienced"... ;-) I was surprised by Mr. Krueger's statement on r.a.p. that he was a professional audio/recording engineer. But I do feel he is to be commended for actually making recordings, an activity that has so far managed to evade Howard Ferstler, despite his writings on the subject. :-) I was simply reacting to the narrow, distorted view of what makes a professional recordist that Atkinson was spewing on RAP. Others took exception to his posturing, as well. Talk about posturing. Did you or did you not claim to be a "professional audio/ recording engineer?" Scott Wheeler |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Big **** tries another recipe for Kroopaganda. It's pretty well known around here that when you nail certain people, their only remaining alternative is to make fun of how you write. I'm sorry, Arnii, but no matter what "debating trade" dodge you try, you still sound like the paranoid whacko we already know you are. Further testing is deemed unnecessary to clarify whether you're curable; it's now axiomatic that Kroofulness is permanent and ineradicable. For the benefit of anybody who is not familiar with the Krooborg, he complains often about Normals mocking his mangling of human language. It's his only dodge, since he can't do logic, can't work a search engine, and can't understand science. Apparently, Maggie things Pardon? Did you eat another turd? |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
George "Betty Boop" Middius a écrit :
For the record, I am not anybody's minion. At least not until the pay goes up. What an error George !!!! What a misunderstanding !!! ....Everybody knows that you are a *whore* but this was not Krueger's point. :-D |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Denial ain't just a river, etc. Hey George, wanna' be in the clover? In the style of Lassie and Rover? If you'd like to turn a trick Let Boonie dip his wick... Talk about screwin' yourself over... Hammingaway |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote EddieM wrote: The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different. This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on audibility of different components they had better do their testing db if they wish it to be taken seriously by science. Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science. Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation. The problem I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor sequester the listener's from his own prejudices. That is, when comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the two components of equal class sound different from one another. I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you? I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things. Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity. That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind. And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I don't know. What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ? Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research. Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things. Scott Wheeler |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote EddieM wrote in message The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different. Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity. What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ? Nothing, depending on the situation. The problem with sighted listening is that when the differences are small, it can be very unreliable. How does one would know that the small differences detected by audiophiles are unreliable ? |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joseph Oberlander wrote George Middius wrote: In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's perfectly Normal. The problem is that they then refuse to admit and/or adjust for the fact that their emotions are involved. They suddenly ACT like objective experts when they state their opinion. Even stating it like "I think the whole experience was better taking all audio and visual factors into consideration, with brand X." Proof reading are free these days. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
EddieM wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote EddieM wrote in message The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different. Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity. What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ? Nothing, depending on the situation. The problem with sighted listening is that when the differences are small, it can be very unreliable. How does one would know that the small differences detected by audiophiles are unreliable ? One way to do so is blind testing. |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote EddieM wrote: Arny Krueger wrote EddieM wrote in message The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different. Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity. What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ? Nothing, depending on the situation. The problem with sighted listening is that when the differences are small, it can be very unreliable. How does one would know that the small differences detected by audiophiles are unreliable ? One way to do so is blind testing. You mean if you do some blind testing down there in your basement, you would know that the small differences detected by audiophiles are unreliable ? |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote Well, I guess it's a toss-up between GM and RM to take the credit for making them hide and scream.............. Oh boy! Duck! Incoming!!! :-) |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
EddieM wrote: wrote EddieM wrote: The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically, sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different. This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on audibility of different components they had better do their testing db if they wish it to be taken seriously by science. Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science. No. Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation. That's where they begin to blow it. The problem I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor sequester the listener's from his own prejudices. Hold on here. What DB tests did *I* propose and for what purpose? That is, when comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the two components of equal class sound different from one another. I do like to do SB comparisons but I like to combine them with sighted evaluations. IME the results are usually the same. When the results are in conflict I go back and do them again. More often than not different results are reconciled in a second round of comparisons. In the rare instance that there is no reconciliation I generally go with the sighted evaluation. That is because that is how I listen normally. I make no claims that my methods are scientifically valid or that they are any better than other methods. I do claim that they work for me though. I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you? I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things. *If* you are up to the task of doing them well enough they probably will. There in lies a BIG problem. Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity. That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind. And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I don't know. No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it. What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ? Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research. Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things. "They" being whom? Audiophiles? Audiophiles do not *have* to do any such thing. They make no claims of scientific varification of their experiences. Objectivists OTOH actually do if they are to be taken seriously in their claims. So far they have yet to meet the rigors demanded by science. Ironic isn't it? Scott Wheeler |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Carl Valle" said:
I also like the way some of my gear smells. Whatever rocks your boat... Oh, the smell of burning KT88s in the morning.... ;-) -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal said: [snip 'borg spew] By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-) Confucius say: When feeding trolls, be wary of frosty flying cat feces. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Vinyl is Still the Best Listening Medium? | Pro Audio | |||
| Sub Amps - a Follow up Question | Tech | |||
| enhancing early reflections? | Pro Audio | |||
| James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that." | Audio Opinions | |||
| Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
