Jim Lesurf wrote:

Given that you have said you have an 'IQ' of 130, and seem to have
some technical background, pardon me for asking, but: Do you
understand the scientific method? If so, do you understand the flaws
in the 'test methods' you have described and why they essentially
render what you report worthless as evidence? The problem is that
these flaws mean that we have no way from what you say to determine
if your 'results' mean what you believe or not.

Of course I understand the scientific background. However, numbers and
measurements only tell half the story.

I remember a few years back at the Bristol hi-fi show looking at all the
specs and measurements on the Tag McLaren Audio stand. The figures
certainly looked impressive enough. But - when they put some music on,
it sounded awful.

Yet a system 3 rooms up that cost a fraction the price (Sonneteer)
sounded fantastic.

You can make all the measurements you like, but that doesn't answer the
question "does it sound good?".

It's too easy, especially for us techies, to get caught up in technical
specs and feeping creaturitis. And when that happens, one starts to
overlook the real reason we went out and spent £4,500 on a hi-fi in the
first place - because we love music.

And while Pinkerton-baiting can be entertaining, putting on a CD of your
favourite music, dimming the lights and just enjoying it is far better.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Glenn Richards wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Given that you have said you have an 'IQ' of 130, and seem to have
some technical background, pardon me for asking, but: Do you
understand the scientific method? If so, do you understand the flaws
in the 'test methods' you have described and why they essentially
render what you report worthless as evidence? The problem is that
these flaws mean that we have no way from what you say to determine
if your 'results' mean what you believe or not.


Of course I understand the scientific background. However, numbers and
measurements only tell half the story.

Actually they tell 0.5245 of the story :-)

But, Jim's phrase was "The scientific method", the fact you have not
read that as a well known trio of words and replaced the last one with
background makes me suspect you don't understand or know there is such a
thing.

--
Nick

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

So you've suddenly developed a telepathic connection to my ears,
and you know what I'm hearing now, do you?
No, but I know what you're *not* hearing.

No, you know what *you* wouldn't hear under the same conditions.

Serious question - approximately how old are you? To the nearest 5 years.

The reason I ask... last time I tested the top end of my hearing I could
hear up to about 22kHz. When I was about 15 I could hear up to somewhere
in the region of 25kHz. So it may simply be that if you're of "more mature
years" you will indeed be unable to hear differences, as you may not be
able to hear anything above around 16kHz.



Glenn, a lot of people claim extraordinary hearing on usenet :-) Now
wouldn't it be better if you were to publish your latest and certified
audiogram on one of the binaries that we could check. I assume you've
already experienced proper hearing tests conducted in a special 'quiet'
room? If so you will be aware that some parts of the test are conducted at
extremely low sound levels. I know of one pretentious individual who claimed
his hearing was well above average only to be humbled by a test that showed
he was actually marginally below average. Many professionals take regular
mandatory hearing tests, sometimes biannually if they are over a certain
age. Bar room talk doesn't hack it I'm afraid.

Mike

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:34:31 +0100, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote:


"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

So you've suddenly developed a telepathic connection to my ears,
and you know what I'm hearing now, do you?
No, but I know what you're *not* hearing.

No, you know what *you* wouldn't hear under the same conditions.

Serious question - approximately how old are you? To the nearest 5 years.

Me? 53, to the nearest 5 years. However, it's not *my* hearing that is
at issue here, it's yours.

The reason I ask... last time I tested the top end of my hearing I could
hear up to about 22kHz. When I was about 15 I could hear up to somewhere
in the region of 25kHz. So it may simply be that if you're of "more mature
years" you will indeed be unable to hear differences, as you may not be
able to hear anything above around 16kHz.

Indeed, so you *claim* amid your many unlikely claims, but it's not
*my* hearing that's at issue here.

Glenn, a lot of people claim extraordinary hearing on usenet :-) Now
wouldn't it be better if you were to publish your latest and certified
audiogram on one of the binaries that we could check. I assume you've
already experienced proper hearing tests conducted in a special 'quiet'
room? If so you will be aware that some parts of the test are conducted at
extremely low sound levels. I know of one pretentious individual who claimed
his hearing was well above average only to be humbled by a test that showed
he was actually marginally below average. Many professionals take regular
mandatory hearing tests, sometimes biannually if they are over a certain
age. Bar room talk doesn't hack it I'm afraid.

Glenn's continued personal attacks and his consistent refusal to put
his own 'exceptional' hearing to the test, do give one something of a
clue as to the reality of the situation, don't they? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Hi,

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...


Have you ever set up a server as domain controller? Do you know how to
configure DHCP? Do you know one end of a subnet mask from the other? Or the
difference between a Class C and a /25?

That's not exactly advanced server configuration. In fact, most
Samba implementations can become domain controllers by
simply removing a '#' to uncomment a line in the
example smb.conf, and configuring DHCP goes into the
'trivial' category.

I'm not trivialising what you do, but those aren't difficult examples.

(Ok, maybe Usenet on the wrong end of 6 bottles of Bud on an empty stomach
isn't the best idea, but it sure is fun!)

I recommend Barolo on an empty stomach. It's a higher class of
heartburn :-)

Regards,

Glenn.

Hi,

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Yes I do know the difference. Here is a server project I'm currently
involved in. Look at the specs, and you will see it is nothing like a
PC. Your "servers" are just PCs.

http://www.codexdigital.com/

Format: 4096x2048p
Colourspace: 14-bit Bayer 2:1:1
Frame Rate: 23.98 - 36 fps (4K option only)

Lord! Who's using that? I've only seen 14 bit Bayer
in telecine and rich post production houses. I take
it this is not a consumer device ;-)

Regards,

Glenn.

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 20:28:51 +0100, "Glenn Booth"
wrote:

Hi,

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Yes I do know the difference. Here is a server project I'm currently
involved in. Look at the specs, and you will see it is nothing like a
PC. Your "servers" are just PCs.

http://www.codexdigital.com/

Format: 4096x2048p
Colourspace: 14-bit Bayer 2:1:1
Frame Rate: 23.98 - 36 fps (4K option only)

Lord! Who's using that? I've only seen 14 bit Bayer
in telecine and rich post production houses. I take
it this is not a consumer device ;-)

Regards,

Glenn.

Oh no. Strictly pro - the price hasn't been decided yet, but you will
need a mortgage.

The cameras that can take advantage of performance like this are just
starting to appear. Currently the only option is compression to tape -
hardly making the best use of the format. They will be used in the
studio, second unit and very heavily in post.

Nice, innit?

d

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

Hi,

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...

We can rule out the "psychological" factor, because I was expecting a
difference when switching from bi-wired to bi-amped, and heard none. Yet I
quite clearly heard a difference (as did my friend who was in the room with
me) between single and bi-wired.

I can't offer any explanation, but expectation bias doesn't only work
as you suggest. As non-objective humans, we have subconcious
bias that can affect us both ways - hearing things we don't expect,
and not hearing things we do expect. Simply because you thought
you might hear something and yet didn't does not exclude bias as
a factor.

Personally, I find it most frustrating when I can't hear something
that I *know* has changed - nothing to blame but my hearing
in those cases.

Regards,

Glenn.

Hi,

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Nice, innit?

Nice? I'll have three. Have them washed and sent around at once.
You can have the wife and kids as collateral.

Regards,

Glenn.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Serious question - approximately how old are you? To the nearest 5
years.
Me? 53, to the nearest 5 years. However, it's not *my* hearing that
is at issue here, it's yours.

Nothing wrong with my hearing. I'm actually trying to get some cold data
here.

If you're in your 50s, you'll probably find your upper limit of hearing
has dropped to around 12-15kHz. Which means you genuinely may not be
able to hear differences that do indeed exist - because those
differences may well exist in this frequency range.

The reason I ask... last time I tested the top end of my hearing
I could hear up to about 22kHz. When I was about 15 I could hear
up to somewhere in the region of 25kHz. So it may simply be that
if you're of "more mature years" you will indeed be unable to
hear differences, as you may not be able to hear anything above
around 16kHz.
Indeed, so you *claim* amid your many unlikely claims, but it's not
*my* hearing that's at issue here.

As I've said before, I have nothing to gain by making false claims about
my hearing. I haven't worked in the audio industry for several years,
and have nothing to gain or lose. Whether you choose to believe the
figures I'm quoting or not is up to you, but those were the results of
the hearing tests I did.

And it really makes no odds to me if you claim not to be able to hear a
difference between single or bi-wiring, or between different types of
interconnect. The fact is, I *can* hear a difference. You obviously
can't, well, good for you, go and spend the 30 quid a decent
interconnect would have cost you on a couple of CDs instead.

Glenn's continued personal attacks and his consistent refusal to put
his own 'exceptional' hearing to the test, do give one something of a
clue as to the reality of the situation, don't they? :-)

As I recall it was you that started with the personal attacks. And in
this thread I've given you a taste of your own medicine - and clearly
you don't like it.

I haven't refused to take part in anything, I've merely stated that I do
not wish to take part in your silly games to prove what I already know.
The so-called "prize money" wouldn't compensate for the inconvenience of
taking a day off work, lost earnings etc, and although it would be
somewhat satisfying to prove you wrong, there's a time and a place to
act like a 5-year-old. And guess what - this isn't it.

I'm also led to believe that someone already has taken your "test",
proved you wrong, and you in turn declared the test invalid on a
technicality and refused to pay up...

But I still haven't ruled out doing this test at some point - especially
considering I've done single-blind tests before and the person listening
determined 100% correctly which cable was in use.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation