Glenn Booth commented in
:

: http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t...ubediy&m=64541
: (scroll down slightly past the initial whitespace to find the image
:
: I used to collect 'brain cripplers' like that one - they can really make
: you doubt your beliefs. I still have a few. Take a look at
: http://www.qtlg.demon.co.uk/Optical.exe for an example. Run the file,
: look closely at the centre of the animation for 30 seconds, then look at
: your hand. Odd, no?

Yeah; I'd seen that one before somewhere. It occurs to me that this sort of
thing (and particularly the "movement" in the prior example) must be related
to the visual "hallucination" effects that LSD can produce - but I digress!

: I also have a bunch of interesting 'auditory illusion' software, but
: unfortunately the files are copyright of the Open University, so I can't
: make them public. The tritone paradox is one that can be found on a
: bunch of websites. I'll try to dig out public references to some of the
: others when I get time.

Found Deutch's tritone illusion ... I used this example
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/nest/imager/con...ons/TT/tt.html
but as you say, there seem to be a bunch of sites with it.

Interesting to indeed be able to switch, as with the Necker's cube, and hear
a reversal of which is higher, after a while, with a sort of de-focusing ...

I couldn't get the Shepard's Tones applet to produce any sound, however.
(Possibly a browser configuration; my first visit caused a crash, but I did
have about 25 tabs open, in Mozilla on a PC of minimum spec!
Another example I found used .au format which I hadn't set up for ...
I'll try again later )

Interesting also the comment at the bottom of that page that "British
subjects reliably resolved the ambiguity in one direction while Californian
subjects reliably resolved it in the other!"

In a similiar vein, the CDs on this page look interesting, also by Deutch:
http://www.philomel.com/ [Musicians especially should be interested!]

There are downloadable files linked from the two "What's on ... " links,
including the tritone illusion, and further notes on the download pages.

Thanks for the note; I'd not known of this, or the other auditory illusions.
If you find other examples that would be interesting too.

RdM

Kurt Hamster wrote:

This is remarkably civil isnt it?

It all depends on why one buys hifi does it not?

The level of your hifi (and mine too probably) will never get close to
absolute accuracy so why 'tilt at windmills'?

I dunno. I've got a good source (not the best but still more than good
enough to show up my speakers, and I'll eventually have my Quad405 back
online in a much enhanced state, which will be nice. I have Radford
speakers, albeit in need of a little TLC. I can reasonably expect to
play back 48kHz/16bit audio in about as perfect a way as possible
without actually buying a set of ESLs...

[house wall perpendicularity]
Which is a preference rather than an absolute requirement. If you don't
get a plumbline out you will never no for sure. Personally my
obsessiveness doesn't extend to it.

No need for a plumbline. I am building a fitted TV stand. Doing such a
thing soon teaches you how annoyingly 'wrong' things can be...

"as good"? What difference would it make in real terms anyway?

I'd know. Like all perfectionists, I find that infuriating.

Fortunately, my perfectionism is constrained by my budget ;-)

Glenn Booth wrote:



I've been threatening to build a valve amp for ages, and I still intend
to - that doesn't mean I have a valve preference, just that I want to
build a valve amp (call it sentimental - I was building SS amp kits as a
kid, and missed the 'real age of valves'). I remain pretty keen on my
Audiolab, and I'm convinced that the 'killer upgrade' for me will be
speakers.



out of curiosity Glenn, what speakers are you using at the moment?

I'm pretty happy with my amp, and the next big upgrade for me would be a
better pair of speakers and listening environment!

Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote



After all, no one wants to be told their £1000 amp probably sounds just
like a £300 amp when driving speakers within both amps limits!

I can't tell the difference between ss amps, if that helps?


that's the whole point, isn't it?
'wire with gain'





Which is why I like valves - you can change 'their contribution to the
overall sound quality cocktail' simple by changing the valves, if you want.


fair enough. Kinda like using tone controls, isn't it?


No, it is not only open to non-engineers who use non-engineering terms
when expressing an opinion or preference. I have mentioned this before,
every one has their own opinions and preferences, of which there is no
right or wrong.


OK, that's good - how about then if these opinions and preferences are
expressed in 'non-engineering' terms, as mentioned above??

I don't have a problem with that, as should be the case with everyone
else. After all, you are expressing opinions and preferences, and not
technical details.



I leave it up to you Mr Chan - I prefer vinyl because I think it's
*better* and I prefer/use valves because I think they are *better*, if
that's out of order in the group just say the word and I'll haul arse....


It depends on what you mean by 'better'. If 'better' means 'I like it
more' than it would be your preference and no one can argue with that.



If you choose to interpret 'better' in a constructive way then there is room
for future dialogue.


If you (or anyone else) choose to interpret 'better' as
a scientific claim you then get to choose hoe to address any dispute with
those (perceived) claims.

I don't interpret 'better' as a scientific claim. 'Better' in this case
is highly subjective and should be whatever the end user is happy with.

On the other hand, 'high fidelity' would be a scientific claim ...

If you care (or respect) the person you are
taliking to you can still create potential for future dialogue. If you choos
not to do so, you must expect that dialogue to end at some point.

I don't think I have belittled anyone here in this NG.


Of course, if you define 'better' as "offering a more ruler flat frequency
response over a larger frequency range than digital and SS" than the NG
techies will surely jump on that remark ...



That's the whole point - who TF has *ever* made any such claim? There are
those (spot the 'tact' here) who *choose* to interpret the word better as
fake, scientific claims for the purposes of showing off and exercising their
'debating skills' to make up for a boring day or summat.

You snipped out my smiley ... the last definition of 'better' was an
attempt at scientific stereotyping ...


What is especially laughable is the suggestion that a 'ruler flat' FR graph
means *anything* at all in the real world. I could give you the phone number
of a valve amp designer who will laugh his arse off if you start arguing
'ruler flat' anything!!!

I would have to disagree here (and the technical posters can correct me
if I am wrong). Having a flat frequency response means no frequency
component is attenuated or amplified disproportionaly to othe frequency
components, which means that the ouptut waveform is just a larger
version of the input waveform. If the FR graph isn't ruler flat, then
certain frequencies would be exagerrated during playback.

Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote


no matter how much of a sewer it is turning this group into. A word,
incidentally, that he's quick to use to describe other ngs which still
bear the scars of his passing.

If you were refering to r.a.o, I believe that NG pretty much self
combusted due to the other posters.

Oh, and Pinky was just a poor little, innocent bystander again, was he??

Well, I don't have the time to go through the Google archives of r.a.o
to read all of his posts over the years so I'll let that one pass.


(One of us had to walk away and, as no-one seemed to see Pinky's
contributions to the unending river of ****e, I thought it would have to
be me, especially as his new 'opponents' are *miles* better qualified to
deal with him than I am... ;-)

'new opponents'? The only new poster I have noticed recently has been Iain
C.

Well one of us is 'selectively' blind because I can see Iain Churches, Andy
Evans and Mike Gilmour are starting to exhibit signs that they are fed up of
Pinky's behaviour in this group.

Ah, I was equating 'new opponents' to 'new posters', and not long
established posters.

Up 'til now it's been pretty much me and
Kurt who wouldn't take it up the chuff from Pinky and his, er, 'coherts' as
he likes to say.

He doesn't have 'coherts'. There was a post a while back where he said
he didn't want any 'worshippers' (in response to Dave XXXX's sig)

Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote

And you seem to have failed to notice that any such stated preferences
are routinely twisted into false 'superiority claims' by about 2.5 people
here who are desperately trying to marginalise aspects of the modern
audio scene (in the UK...) that they don't like.

Well, sometimes the preferences are not admited, but rather stated as
superiority or false technical statements, which in when the tech brigade
posts the corrections.


Excuse me?

When has this happened? Do you think you could actually point to such a
"false technical statement" or have you just got caught up with all the
********??

Well, I don't have a specific recollection on this NG, but there was
definitely a case on r.a.h.e when a poster or two showed a lack of
understanding of sampling theory (i.e. stairsteps versus analogue's
inifinite resolution).


Yes, your vinyl and valve preference is noted. No one can dispute or
rebuke preferences, because one man's meat is another man's poison.


Is my regular and frequent use of 'digital' also noted? Let's see if we can
straighten you out Tat, it would be a start.

yes, you have stated lots of times that you play CDs regularly as well,
but you have stated that you prefer vinyl to CD.

(Want to run the 'bigot' line again, in my case....??? ;-)


Nah, unless you try to ram your vinyl/valve preferences down everyone's
throat ...

Have you *never* seen me post 'valves are not for everyone'...???

(Before your time?)


I can't remember if you did, but a search through the archives should
bring it up.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:14:57 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
Of course you hear nuances on vinyl that you won't hear on CD - or
rather you would hear on CD if you ran it through a compressor the way
it has been for the vinyl version. But what do you say to the artist
and producer who have striven to make their sound as perfect as they
can on CD? We are still here in the land of the subjective "prefer"
masquerading as the objective "better", you see.

Don,

Please do not give the impression to people that music has to be compressed
for disc cutting, This definately not the case, especially in the case of
classical
music which rarely needs any treatment whatseover, perhaps a dB or two of
peak limiting but no more.

Were it not the case, then we wouldn't have people claiming that they
can hear low-level detail on vinyl that they can't hear on a CD of the
same performance, now would we?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:14:57 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:
Please do not give the impression to people that music has to be
compressed
for disc cutting, This definately not the case, especially in the case of
classical
music which rarely needs any treatment whatseover, perhaps a dB or two of
peak limiting but no more.

Were it not the case, then we wouldn't have people claiming that they
can hear low-level detail on vinyl that they can't hear on a CD of the
same performance, now would we?

If they say then can, then we must assume they can. One cannot cannot get
inside aonther listener's head, as it were.

But please do not use compression as an explanation.


Iain

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
(huge snip)

I have Radford speakers, albeit in need of a little TLC. I can reasonably
expect to play back 48kHz/16bit audio in about as perfect a way as possible
without actually buying a set of ESLs...

Radford speakers? Brilliant!
Are these the ones on black steel stands with the monobloc power
amp built in at the bottom. These were made for the BBC, and the
amp had to go with the speakers, as they were 24 ohms impedance.


Iain

"Ross Matheson" wrote in message
...

It's nice to be acknowledged when one has tiptoed into a near 300 post
thread, feeling impelled to make a comment, but not wishing to offend ...


Ross. You are a gentleman and a scholar. But why tiptoe?

Iain