On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:45:32 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:11:40 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Yep, why waste time *listening* to a bit of kit when you could just
stick a meter on it....??
Indeed. A doctor with a stethoscope beats a MRI scan every time.



Why look at (with your eyes?!) a picture when you can digitally analyse
it? Why go for a walk when there's perfectly good GIS profile of your
route? Why listen to music when ... :-)

But the measurements aren't a substitute for listening - they are
designed to make sure your equipment is not going to mar your
pleasure.

It strikes me that measurement fixation *does* affect listening. For
some, a measured anomaly would take away some of the listening pleasure
even if it was inaudible.


Would it take you that way? Not me, that is for sure. ANd by now I
have a very good idea of what is audible and what is not. Add to that
the fact that it is trivially easy these days to make equipment with
errors many orders of magnitude below audibility, and the situation is
really pretty relaxed.

A bit like making sure the glass on the front of your
picture is nice and clear... Of course there are those who like
cloudy glass with a coloured tint, but not those who want to see the
whole of the picture.

d

Some people like their glass 'distorted' so they can see the bigger
picture.

No, you never see the bigger picture through distorted glass. You
always see less - no choice there, I'm afraid. And of course you have
not the slightest chance of seeing the details.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com