"APR" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
. ..


You can make use of this in studio work too. When you get to
V7 of a mix, and are convinced that V2 is the one, you can play
then back to the client V7 first, and then V2 +2dB. He usually
responds, "Yes you are right, that's the one!"

Iain, I wouldn't have thought of you as a person to use this form of
psychoacoustic deception ;-)


You *know* when a mix is right, and at 0300 hrs, it's time to
assert that knowledge:-)

On an automated console you can keep the elements of the mix.
Coming back the next morning, and comparing the two takes, re-
enforces the fact that the decision was a correct one. The client
says "I knew I could depend on your good judgement" and takes
you to lunch:-)

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:



You *know* when a mix is right, and at 0300 hrs, it's time to assert
that knowledge:-)

Having worked as a professional astrophysicist, I know just what you mean.
8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article .com,


Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically
measuable.

Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly
where there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people
contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother.

I would like to observe that I believe it isn't a trivial matter for
ordinary people to make accurate and meaningful 'scientifice
measurements'

I agree - although:

1) It will depend on the circumstances and what specific 'measurements'
we are talking about


Of course...



2) I was not necessarily talking about 'measurements'.



OK, right or wrong, I was linking "scientifically measu[r]able." and "Well,
I think people should at least *try* to do this," (both above)....???

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real
or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be
instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles*
and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical
types' here to find out what point such a person is making without
expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points
without the frustration you mention.

The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable
evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say.
This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of
having
no assessable information.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters. I know from offlist conversations in the past that a number of
posters gave up here because they didn't feel free to comment on anything
much without being 'put right' all the time or being pulled up for the
wording &c. of their posts.

The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information - much
of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or exaggerated,
either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep communications open,
otherwise that point is lost. Topics in this group are 'cyclic' - perhaps it
isn't always possible or even necessary to get a clear understanding by all
parties, first time round...??



Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.


Quite. Some will be, other will not be - goes with the territory...

Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing
to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to
decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. Jim

I really think you are in complete denial over all this, Jim. Here,
once again are your exact words. Again the same thing. You ask for (I
used the word demand previously, but ask is OK) evidence BEYOND what is
provided. What is usually provided (if we ignore deliberate hype) is
the usual comparative listening results, which some, though not all,
have gone to great pains to make as objective as possible. Best of a
bad job, maybe, but that's overwhelmingly how the industry works -
comparative listening. Since this is how information about products is
usually assessed, then you - as you have said yourself - are asking for
more than the majority of people are able or willing to provide, thus
putting them potentially into a zone of discomfort. Now I have no
problem with this if, as I have said many times, your attitude is "If
you can't provide any details, then fine - I was just asking". But your
attitude is NOT this. What you then do is invoke "others" (your exact
word above, so let's not have any stuff about being misrepresented) and
collectively accuse the person of communicating in a way that is not
"worth taking seriously" (your exact words). If you don't think that
telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive,
then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't
change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue
as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who
object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is
genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening
data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

If you don't think that
telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive,
then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't
change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue
as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who
object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is
genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening
data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business.

Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what they
are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with
respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you seriously**
or **I cannot take that seriously**

Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what
they
are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with

respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you
seriously**
or **I cannot take that seriously**

I thought of exactly that theoretical distinction and pondered it for a
while, but in practice I don't think it makes much difference. "What
you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent.

Let's be a bit more obvious - let's turn it round then. Let me say to
Jim
"Alas, Jim, once again you continue to misunderstand me, and I leave it
to others to decide whether your persistent requests for scientific
evidence - where it is inappropriate or cannot be provided - are worth
taking seriously or not"

How does this sound to you -
a) dismissive
b) friendly

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"APR" wrote in message
...


I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue
for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide
something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to
cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad
experience, and are use to working with facts.


Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real
or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be
instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles*
and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical
types' here to find out what point such a person is making without
expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points
without the frustration you mention.

The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable
evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say.
This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having
no assessable information.


Actually that is *your* problem not *the* problem. The person making
the claim has no problem here.




Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.


Yes, and since most audiophiles are busy enjoying their systems rather
than gathering evidence those who demand evidence to support claims are
SOL.

Scott

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ?
Graham


I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what people
say or do.

And yet on more than one occasion you have attributed to me things I
neither said nor meant. Those reading recent postings may have seen
a number of exampless where I point out where you do this.


This is the typical out for passive aggressive behavior. When people
are called on it they typically say it was the other person's
misinterpretation.



I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as the
sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide was
hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn on
people without expecting some comeback.

But I can hope that you might read and understand what I wrote, and deal
with that - rather than other ideas which you invent and attribute to me
but which I did not say, nor mean.


You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the
consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people with
grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue stuff of
"I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't see what all
the fuss is about".

Therein perhaps lays the key to the problem you have in not understanding
what I write. :-)


Do you find that a lot of people have this problem with what you write
;-) Ever consider the possibility that at least some the fault is
yours?




BTW I have also never asked for "proof". That is not at all the same thing
as evidence. Do you not understand the distinction? But once again it shows
an example of you inventing something and using using quotation marks to
make it seem as if it was something I said or meant.


I think you missunderstood what he meant by those quotation marks. What
comes around goes around. Don't you agree?


Scott

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no
assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what
they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may
be, but of having no assessable information.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters.

The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend
entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex,
depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you
will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional
magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that
they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In
effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a
hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths
which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down
and enjoy the music.

The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information -
much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or
exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep
communications open, otherwise that point is lost.

The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have
no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the
specific case.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html