For those without scopes reports of building experiments will be aural. That's
a fact of life.
Not really. It is a choice that you (and some others) make.

I think both statements are true.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

It is completely reasonable for people to ask for advice and information.
However it is, in turn, completely reasonable for those who are invited to
assist to point out what may be required in order for progress to be made.

That's quite fair.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

When we ask you to do the real *listening* tests, it is not in
expectation that you will come back here with some wonderful new
scientific principle that we were unaware of, but in the hope that you
can move your understanding on a bit. Patronising? I hope you don't
see it that way.

Hello Don - Yes - that does make things clearer. No, as you say, that isn't
patronising. It is, as you say, helpful. I apologise if I seem to have
misconstrued this (and to Jim as well, who always makes helpful points).

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

1) this ng is for those who measure with equipment and who measure with their
ears

1. Most emphatically no. Listen any way you like, and post whatever opinions
you like, but if you announce the discovery of some effect that the rest of us
believe to be impossible - be prepared to defend
it, not moan about being challenged. (DP)

Well, this ng most emphatically IS for people who measure how they like. You
are quite right to say "If you want us to believe a statement, supply
measurements and proof" No problem. But I believe I was saying from the start
"I have made an observation which I believe I hear and I have no idea why, plus
I don't have measuring equipment so I'm not in a position to measure it. Has
anybody else observed such a thing". If you want to say "I don't believe you"
that's fine. In purely scientific terms the burden of proof lies with the
person making an assertion - fair enough. This doesn't make a statement like "I
have always found girls with first names ending in the letter a to be more
passionate" entirely uninteresting.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

4) to simultaneously ask for scientific methods and make fundamental mistakes
in measuring the intelligence of others is hypoctitical.

4. Is it not fair to call somebody who wilfully fails to follow a method he
knows to be the only one that yields a true result unintelligent?

"willfully fails to measure" - is this the same as "does not have measuring
equipment"?
"the only method" - you have yourself said that in audio we both measure and
listen
"someone who wilfully fails to measure is unintelligent". Correct me if I
appear to be wrong here, but I thought that the most widely accepted methods
for measuring intelligence were intelligence tests. I'd just include a
statement from one of the most compulsive measurers on the ng which is about as
hypocritical as you are likely to find:
"Character assassination seems to be the only debating tool you tubie vinylite
bigots have left"

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

In article ,
Andy Evans wrote:
Since we know in advance that there are those on the ng wthout measuring
equipment, to imply that they should not have made a statement without
measured data would be effectively to gag them. They have as much right
to make observations as the next man, so I would regard gagging ng
members as wholly unacceptable, even elitist.

Err, no one can 'gag' anyone on this newsgroup.

However, you don't need any particularly specialised equipment to do
comparison testing at its most basic level. All that's needed really is
not to have sight of what the combination is you're testing. After all, if
the 'improvement' really is there, it will disappear after the 'tweak' is
reversed, and re-appear when it's reinstated.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Tat Chan
wrote:



Actually, CD uses a form of the Reed Solomon code. Though the Hamming
code would provide error correction as well.



Not sure of all the details, but yes IIRC it is a form of cross interleaved
RS code. I think this is a 'block' code equivalent to a hamming code.

I haven't done this in a while, but IIRC the Reed Solomon code is a type of BCH
code, which itself is a cyclic code.


However the channel bit stream is encoded on a number of levels between the
sample data and the disc.


did you mean 'cross interleaved code' when you said 'encoded on a number of
levels between the sample data and the disc'?

Slainte,

Jim

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:

Rob wrote:



Rob, getting the 'data off the disk' in a reliable manner is the only
thing that matters in this context. If the output stream of 1s and 0s
from an undamped and damped transport is exactly the same, then the
damping doesn't make a difference.


Slight quibble. The above assumes we can then convey the bitstream to the
DAC with no unintended spurious effects. The most well-publicised version
of this is 'jitter' in various forms.

Yes, I thought the OP (Andy) was asking if there was a difference in using the
same transport in a damped and undamped mode, so I assume the same DAC was being
used. So, depending on how well the DAC handles jitter, there may or may not be
an audible difference even if the bitstream from the damped and undamped
transports differ slightly.



In principle this should not be a problem. In practice it probably is not a
problem for most systems/disc. But it *might* be a problem in some cases
where the player/disc/DAC arrangement is unusually poor for some reason.


or if the DAC doesn't handle jitter well ...

On 08 Nov 2004 10:14:54 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

4) to simultaneously ask for scientific methods and make fundamental mistakes
in measuring the intelligence of others is hypoctitical.

4. Is it not fair to call somebody who wilfully fails to follow a method he
knows to be the only one that yields a true result unintelligent?

"willfully fails to measure" - is this the same as "does not have measuring
equipment"?
"the only method" - you have yourself said that in audio we both measure and
listen
"someone who wilfully fails to measure is unintelligent". Correct me if I
appear to be wrong here, but I thought that the most widely accepted methods
for measuring intelligence were intelligence tests. I'd just include a
statement from one of the most compulsive measurers on the ng which is about as
hypocritical as you are likely to find:
"Character assassination seems to be the only debating tool you tubie vinylite
bigots have left"

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

I'm not talking about measuring, Andy - I'm talking about listening.
Hi fi is all about listening, just as audio - the designing and
building end - is all about measuring AND listening. But I'm talking
about listening in an environment where tester bias is not a factor.
This is a field in which you have experience and expertise beyond that
of most of the group. Yet you persist in making what must for,
somebody in your field, be schoolboy howlers.

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

On 08 Nov 2004 10:06:52 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

1) this ng is for those who measure with equipment and who measure with their
ears

1. Most emphatically no. Listen any way you like, and post whatever opinions
you like, but if you announce the discovery of some effect that the rest of us
believe to be impossible - be prepared to defend
it, not moan about being challenged. (DP)

Well, this ng most emphatically IS for people who measure how they like. You
are quite right to say "If you want us to believe a statement, supply
measurements and proof" No problem. But I believe I was saying from the start
"I have made an observation which I believe I hear and I have no idea why, plus
I don't have measuring equipment so I'm not in a position to measure it. Has
anybody else observed such a thing". If you want to say "I don't believe you"
that's fine. In purely scientific terms the burden of proof lies with the
person making an assertion - fair enough. This doesn't make a statement like "I
have always found girls with first names ending in the letter a to be more
passionate" entirely uninteresting.


I think the question here is what constitutes a measurement. If you
have hung a scope on an output, you have made a measurement. If you
have made a double blind, level matched test between two items, and
found a significant (chi squared) difference, then you have made a
measurement every bit as valid as the first.

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