Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get such a laugh at
the idiots on Usenet and their complete misapplication and
misinerpretation of psychoacoustics. The idea that human hearing is
wrong while technical measurements are right when it comes to this
hobby is a prime example of that misapplication.

What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the ear's 'memory' is
and how easily it is fooled by other factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made up facts. Yep
you guys do pretty much all sound the same. As usual the point went
right over your head.



Scott

wrote in message
ups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article

.com,
wrote:
I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get
such a laugh at the idiots on Usenet and their complete
misapplication and misinerpretation of psychoacoustics.
The idea that human hearing is wrong while technical
measurements are right when it comes to this hobby is a
prime example of that misapplication.

What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the
ear's 'memory' is and how easily it is fooled by other
factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made
up facts.

Not at all. It's not our fault that you appear to be so poorly informed,
Scott.

Have you ever read this book or anything similar?

E. Zwicker and H. Fastl, Psychoacoustics Facts and Models, Springer Verlag,
1990.

In article . com,
wrote:
What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the ear's 'memory' is
and how easily it is fooled by other factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made up facts.

Made up is it? You really know so very little.

Yep you guys do pretty much all sound the same. As usual the point went
right over your head.

Still waiting for you to make any point that is sense.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

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