On 18 Sep 2006 05:33:34 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

Has the missus told you she needs to spring clean the living room? DP

Hello Don - trust an islander to notice a fishing rod in two
microseconds......


Hardly used a rod as a lad. A hand line with a huge lead weight and
half a dozen hooks worked brilliantly for herring and halibut from the
boat. The rod I did use was a ten foot bamboo pole with the line tied
on at the end. That was all it took from the little jetty below the
house. Ten minutes with that would see me returning to the house with
half a dozen plaice for dinner.

Missus left 15 years ago. I'm waiting for somebody to show me how to
work the Hoover.

Sure, but first you have to find it.

d

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

andy wrote:

Wally wrote:
How do you measure "sounds better"?

You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know
that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer
Kat-E-Chunks?

These are subjective judgements. You might prefer Coke. I might prefer Pepsi. By
your resoning though I should prefer Coke and I'm an idiot not to understand
that..

Graham

Andy Evans wrote:

Hasn't functioned since the 60s. May be of use to somebody.

Don't you mean coarse fishing ?

Graham

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

Valve users do so because the sounds they
hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound.

Were you present when the original sound was made?

Is there just one "original sound"

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Valve users do so because the sounds they
hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound.

Were you present when the original sound was made?

Is there just one "original sound"

I presume it must be a belief that they know best that does it ! I'll bet most
of them aren't professional audio practicioners. It's almost unkown to come
across a valve amp in a studio monitor setup.

I also wouldn't mind betting that very few of them are that familiar with the
very instruments whose recordings they listen to.

Referring back to my original post......

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack

specific measurements as a basis [18].
Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]
Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]
Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Now scientifically define 'better' !

Graham

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 18 Sep 2006 05:33:34 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

Has the missus told you she needs to spring clean the living room? DP

Hello Don - trust an islander to notice a fishing rod in two
microseconds......


Hardly used a rod as a lad. A hand line with a huge lead weight and
half a dozen hooks worked brilliantly for herring and halibut from the
boat. The rod I did use was a ten foot bamboo pole with the line tied
on at the end. That was all it took from the little jetty below the
house. Ten minutes with that would see me returning to the house with
half a dozen plaice for dinner.

Missus left 15 years ago. I'm waiting for somebody to show me how to
work the Hoover.

Sure, but first you have to find it.


To find it he'll need to know what one looks like and Googling images won't
help! (Try it!!)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Valve users do so because the sounds they
hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound.

Were you present when the original sound was made?

Is there just one "original sound"

I presume it must be a belief that they know best that does it ! I'll bet most
of them aren't professional audio practicioners. It's almost unkown to come
across a valve amp in a studio monitor setup.

I also wouldn't mind betting that very few of them are that familiar with the
very instruments whose recordings they listen to.

Referring back to my original post......

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack

specific measurements as a basis [18].
Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]
Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]
Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Now scientifically define 'better' !


For me this is easy. I assume that the artists who made the records
knew what they wanted to present to me as a listening experience. I
use equipment that makes as good a job of that as is possible.

d

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

Eeyore wrote:
andy wrote:
Wally wrote:
How do you measure "sounds better"?
You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know
that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer
Kat-E-Chunks?
These are subjective judgements. You might prefer Coke. I might prefer Pepsi. By
your resoning though I should prefer Coke and I'm an idiot not to understand
that..

It is not my reasoning and I cannot follow your logic. The people that
ran this type of advert had the data to support it to appease the ASA
although I cannot recall seeing this type of advert for a few years.

Seriously though, there are no problems measuring preference and it is
done a lot by marketing people. I can even recall seeing some work on
loudspeaker preferences from Harman I think but a quick google has not
thrown it up.

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andy Evans" wrote

Valve users do so because the sounds they
hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound.

Were you present when the original sound was made?

Is there just one "original sound"

I presume it must be a belief that they know best that does it ! I'll bet most
of them aren't professional audio practicioners. It's almost unkown to come
across a valve amp in a studio monitor setup.

I also wouldn't mind betting that very few of them are that familiar with the
very instruments whose recordings they listen to.

Referring back to my original post......

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack

specific measurements as a basis [18].
Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]
Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]
Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Now scientifically define 'better' !


For me this is easy. I assume that the artists who made the records
knew what they wanted to present to me as a listening experience.

This is indeed normally the case.


I use equipment that makes as good a job of that as is possible.

Likewise.

I have no objection to those who wish to use the known technical failings of old
technology to 'enhance' their listening expereince as they see ( hear ) it but it's a
big mistake for them to confuse this with fidelity.

Graham

andy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
andy wrote:
Wally wrote:
How do you measure "sounds better"?
You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know
that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer
Kat-E-Chunks?
These are subjective judgements. You might prefer Coke. I might prefer Pepsi. By
your resoning though I should prefer Coke and I'm an idiot not to understand
that..

It is not my reasoning and I cannot follow your logic.

It seemed as obvious as I could make it !


The people that
ran this type of advert had the data to support it to appease the ASA
although I cannot recall seeing this type of advert for a few years.

Seriously though, there are no problems measuring preference and it is
done a lot by marketing people. I can even recall seeing some work on
loudspeaker preferences from Harman I think but a quick google has not
thrown it up.

Preferences are everywhere. To confuse them with fidelity or accuracy on a purely
subjective basis is wholly false though.

Graham