"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On 22 Jan 2004 14:19:01 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

In article , Laurence Payne wrote:
On 22 Jan 2004 09:00:40 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

So the difference tone itself does not exist - just the two original
tones. You hear the difference because of the mathematical identity
above - no process creates a separate signal.

It's quite loud, for something that doesn't exist :-)

As it demonstrably DOES exist, it must be the theory that is lacking -
or is inapplicable to this situation.

I do accept that the theory may be lacking or inapplicable. However in
that regard it has also to be accepted that a theory which says that
PERCEPTION of a beat at a given frequency means that the frequency EXISTS
may also be lacking or inapplicable.

Nope, it's just superposition theory, it works just fine, you guys are
right, I was wrong.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On 22 Jan 2004 14:19:01 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

I do accept that the theory may be lacking or inapplicable. However in
that regard it has also to be accepted that a theory which says that
PERCEPTION of a beat at a given frequency means that the frequency EXISTS
may also be lacking or inapplicable.

If you create tones corresponding to the overtones of a low note, the
brain will sometimes "hear" the low note. OK. this is a perception
thing. That low note won't show on any sort of readout or display.

But the beat frequency between two close tones, or the harmonics of
tones aren't invented by the brain. They're clearly and grossly
visible - as in the waveform I posted.

Come on, Stuart P., you've gone very quiet? :-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:06:29 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

Come on, Stuart P., you've gone very quiet? :-)

OK, your apology beat me by a minute :-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:04:47 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:06:29 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

Come on, Stuart P., you've gone very quiet? :-)

OK, your apology beat me by a minute :-)

Who's Stuart P? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:04:47 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:06:29 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

Come on, Stuart P., you've gone very quiet? :-)

OK, your apology beat me by a minute :-)

Who's Stuart P? :-)

Remember school class roll call? The answers 'Here Sir' ;-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:10:30 +0000 (UTC),
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

Who's Stuart P? :-)

It's a nonlinear distortion :-_)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:03:05 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I can't imagine how sad you have to be, to listen to half a dozen
*different* albums *every* day......................

Variety is the spice of life...

Yeah, but do you need half a dozen brand new spices *every* day?

****, he's claiming to listen to five hours of *new* music *every*
day. When does he find time to listen to music he actually *likes*?

*different*, not necessarily *new*

No, the original point was about the mass storage requirement for a
year of listening, hence it's all *new*, not existing stuff already
stored. The original replier claimed that he listened to 2,000 *new*
albums every year. I think he's bull****ting, or in the music
business, or dangerously obsessive......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:40:46 +0000 (UTC),
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:03:05 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I can't imagine how sad you have to be, to listen to half a dozen
*different* albums *every* day......................

Variety is the spice of life...

Yeah, but do you need half a dozen brand new spices *every* day?

****, he's claiming to listen to five hours of *new* music *every*
day. When does he find time to listen to music he actually *likes*?

*different*, not necessarily *new*

No, the original point was about the mass storage requirement for a
year of listening, hence it's all *new*, not existing stuff already
stored. The original replier claimed that he listened to 2,000 *new*
albums every year. I think he's bull****ting, or in the music
business, or dangerously obsessive......................

I don't know whether I'm the "original replier" or not; however, I do
probably listen to 2000 discs-worth of previously unheard performances
every year, and I definitely don't fall into the first two categories,
or see why being obsessive is necessarily dangerous :-)

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

No, the original point was about the mass storage requirement for a
year of listening, hence it's all *new*, not existing stuff already
stored. The original replier claimed that he listened to 2,000 *new*
albums every year. I think he's bull****ting, or in the music
business, or dangerously obsessive......................

That was me...

On 17-Jan-04 the following was posted:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You can get at least 200 CDs onto a 120GB hard disk if you insist on
computer storage, and I don't know *anyone* who listens to more than
200 different discs in an average year.

What?? I have the stereo on for at least 8 hours a day, that has to be
around 8-10 albums a day minimum. Those days when I'm not at home I'm on
the road and have music on in the car. It's safe to say rarely a day
goes
by when I don't listen to at least 8 albums worth of music.

8 * (say) 300 days = 2400 albums/year as a minimum

You said DIFFERENT (not NEW) and I mentioned neither NEW nor DIFFERENT,
merely '2400 albums/year'

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:44:03 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

No, the original point was about the mass storage requirement for a
year of listening, hence it's all *new*, not existing stuff already
stored. The original replier claimed that he listened to 2,000 *new*
albums every year. I think he's bull****ting, or in the music
business, or dangerously obsessive......................

That was me...

So, which is it? :-)

On 17-Jan-04 the following was posted:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You can get at least 200 CDs onto a 120GB hard disk if you insist on
computer storage, and I don't know *anyone* who listens to more than
200 different discs in an average year.

What?? I have the stereo on for at least 8 hours a day, that has to be
around 8-10 albums a day minimum. Those days when I'm not at home I'm on
the road and have music on in the car. It's safe to say rarely a day goes
by when I don't listen to at least 8 albums worth of music.

8 * (say) 300 days = 2400 albums/year as a minimum

You said DIFFERENT (not NEW) and I mentioned neither NEW nor DIFFERENT,
merely '2400 albums/year'

Since the context is mass storage, you clearly implied that you listen
to 2400 *different* albums every year. If you're listening to a
different selection of the same 2-300 albums (say) at various times,
then you're just weaselling, and a 120GB hard disk would be adequate
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering