What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Malcolm wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

Ah right. Blame the test method !

Nitwit !

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749



Thank you for that - clicked it, allowed 'Active X' to install itself
and listened to about 5 seconds of crap (Commodores - Still it said)!

Hideous.

You actually expect to like every single record a radio station plays?



OK, in the interests of fair play and evenhandedness, I clicked again
and just heard:

Whitney Howard
Leona Lewis
Percy Sledge

(???)

Does that mean you've never heard of them?


Whitney Houston I have (don't know where 'Howard' came from), the others -
no....



In what way was my original assessment anything other than bang on the
money?

I didn't realise you had such narrow tastes in music.


You will struggle to find anyone with broader tastes in *music* than mine,
but I draw the line at that sort of dreck; no wonder you (and those like
you) are so fond of CDs - you listen to the rubbish that only came out on
CD!

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

I didn't realise you had such narrow tastes in music.

Seemed pretty obvious to me actually !

I dare say he'd hate it if his heartbeat increased even a little bit. I'm
sure
he likes nicely sterile music. Nothing that might make the blood flow a
little
faster.



Bothers me (not really) when I see this sort of remark - too silly for
words.

What is 'sterile music'??

What music makes the blood flow faster?? (Whitney Houston?)

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

In article , Malcolm
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:27:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[snip]

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate
them reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.

Two sweeping and unspecific assertions, albeit rather dog-eared and
worn ones... :-)

Perhaps you can now:

1) Take one or two specific examples of such tests on audio items
or systems, and give the details of what "fundamental flaws"
thise particular tests had which allow you to dismiss their
results. E.g. take one of the well known and published tests
on amplifier comparisons, run so that decisions were on sound
alone and in a manner allowing statistical analysis, etc.

2) Give a testable reason for why that can then be extended
to allowing a sweeping dismissal of *all* tests where those
involved were unable to tell one item/system from another
when they only had the sounds to go on.

3) Explain also in specific terms why some tests *have* shown
people being able to distinguish one item from others when those
tests have been run in much the same way as the ones you
dismiss with the above sweeping assertions.


I've lost count of the number of times people have claimed that tests which
showed that those involved could not distinguish one item from another must
have "fundamental flaws". But this claim does not seem to be backed up with
any explanation which can be tested, or which accords with the assessable
evidence we have. The last time I asked someone about this all I got was
essentially a list of quotes, assertions, and claims by others who
said/wrote similar assertions, but no actual evidence, nor any proposal of
a test which could be used to see if their belief stood up or not.

You may recall that the scientific method is based upon assessement of
the evidence, and that any suggestion of a "flaw" needs to be specific,
shown to apply to the specific test, and that an alternative test then
needs to be done *so that a decision is based on evidence*. Not simply
on sweeping assertions that dismiss results you may dislike. Nor on
quoting 'experts' making similar sweeping assertions.


Slainte,

Jim

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

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing
'golden
oldie' style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749

Thank you for that - clicked it, allowed 'Active X' to install itself
and listened to about 5 seconds of crap (Commodores - Still it said)!

Hideous.

Like your speakers ! ;~)

You are truly not of this period of time are you ? Your ages isn't 106
by
any chance is it ?

No, but I'm getting the impression yours is quite young...??

A sprightly 53.

??

You do surprise me!

In what way ?


Current favourite band, probably The Sisters of Mercy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sisters_of_Mercy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy-JcKlIq38

Streuth! That explains a *lot*.....

'Rock and roll' has a lot more energy, life and vibrancy than 'classical' ever
will. Besides, don't you tire of hearing a zillion mildly different
performances of the same old music that's been going around for centuries ?

When was the last decent symphony written ? 50 years ago ?

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

I didn't realise you had such narrow tastes in music.

Seemed pretty obvious to me actually !

I dare say he'd hate it if his heartbeat increased even a little bit. I'm
sure he likes nicely sterile music. Nothing that might make the blood flow
a
little faster.

Bothers me (not really) when I see this sort of remark - too silly for
words.

What is 'sterile music'??

The stuff that *doesn't* send tingles down your spine. I will happily accept
that *some* orchestral music may do that when played just right.

Have you really never had that tingle run down your spine ? It's AWESOME.


What music makes the blood flow faster?? (Whitney Houston?)

If you need to ask ..... !!! Phew ! You're not REALLY into MUSIC are you ? I
imagine it's some kind of academic interest for you. It probably doesn't move
your soul at all.

And NO (NOT Whitney Houston) as it happens.

Now go listen to some Sisters and abandon your preconceptions.

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Keith G wrote:

You will struggle to find anyone with broader tastes in *music* than mine

Care to give us an overview ?

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

I didn't realise you had such narrow tastes in music.

Seemed pretty obvious to me actually !

I dare say he'd hate it if his heartbeat increased even a little bit. I'm
sure he likes nicely sterile music. Nothing that might make the blood flow
a
little faster.

Bothers me (not really) when I see this sort of remark - too silly for
words.

What is 'sterile music'??

The stuff that *doesn't* send tingles down your spine. I will happily accept
that *some* orchestral music may do that when played just right.

Have you really never had that tingle run down your spine ? It's AWESOME.

Oh yes!.. a few times at the Proms this year;))....

--
Tony Sayer

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

You will struggle to find anyone with broader tastes in *music* than mine

Care to give us an overview ?


Well, I quite like Tuvan Throat Singing - this is on my Show N tell:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Guess%20Who.mp3


And there's a bit of 'sterile' for you (posted for other purposes) while
you're the

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Tartiniana.mp3


Tell you what, you want 'energy, life and vibrancy'? OK, cut to the chase
and start he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keS5...eature=related


(Scared the **** out of me first time I saw it - they could/would have those
Sisters Of Mercy poofs for breakfast! Not dissimilar in some ways, I guess -
but with *real musicianship* thrown in as a bonus... :-)

Then work your way down the list 'til you hit this lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfFr...eature=related


When it will be time to stop......

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing
'golden
oldie' style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749

Thank you for that - clicked it, allowed 'Active X' to install
itself
and listened to about 5 seconds of crap (Commodores - Still it
said)!

Hideous.

Like your speakers ! ;~)

You are truly not of this period of time are you ? Your ages isn't
106
by
any chance is it ?

No, but I'm getting the impression yours is quite young...??

A sprightly 53.

??

You do surprise me!

In what way ?



Never mind.....



Current favourite band, probably The Sisters of Mercy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sisters_of_Mercy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy-JcKlIq38

Streuth! That explains a *lot*.....

'Rock and roll' has a lot more energy, life and vibrancy than 'classical'
ever
will. Besides, don't you tire of hearing a zillion mildly different
performances of the same old music that's been going around for centuries
?


Nope. Never....



When was the last decent symphony written ? 50 years ago ?


Pass....