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

In article , Laurence Payne
NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:41:57 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Usually, conclusions follow evidence, not pre-assume it! :-)

Isn't the basis of scientific method to suspect a conclusion then design
experiments to disprove it?

It is usual to 'challenge' a *hypothesis* by trying to carry out
experiments whose results might either turn out to agree with, or conflict
with, that hypothesis. A 'conclusion' is what you would draw from the
evidence you already have at a given point. You may then use this to
construct a hypothesis, which can then be tested.


If experiments fail to demolish the conclusion, it stands until
successfully challanged.

s/conclusion/hypothesis

Afraid my classics aren't much cop, but someone who knows about dead
languages can probably deduce this from the 'hypo' and 'thesis' parts of
the word. :-)

So a given experiment might show that a set of test subjects could not tell
which amp was being used when some music was played to them in a given set
of condition. That is the conclusion drawn from the experiment.

One possible hypothesis is that this is because no-one could, as any
differences caused by changing amp are inaudible. An alternative hypothesis
would be that the choice of musical items affects this, so some other items
*would* allow a distinction. You could then design an experiment to test if
these hypotheses stood up to further test, as well as seeing if they are
consistent with any other evidence from other work. A common method is
to take two 'competing' hypotheses and run an experiment whose outcome
can be expected to conflict with one if it supports the other.

It was in the above sense that I commented that the conclusions should
*follow* the evidence. :-)

Of course, we can put forward all kinds of hypotheses, but then have to
see if they tie in with all the relevant evidence we have, are consistent
with other related ideas which have survived testing, etc, etc. Simply
dismissing evidence you don't like and insisting that your own ideas
must be right and the evidence will appear one day would not be 'science'
but a form of faith.

You can suspect that give ideas which seem reliable now may turn out
to need changing later. But you only discard them for good reason, not
for reasons of faith or wishful thinking.

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...
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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...??

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

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 Houston
Leona Lewis
Percy Sledge

(???)

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

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

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.

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

It's SO passe people going to see Led Zeppelin playing at Docklands. I was there
in the 70s. Good band all the same it has to be said. And saw Floyd in 1969 at
Hyde Park.

Graham

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

Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" 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.

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 Houston
Leona Lewis
Percy Sledge

(???)

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

Is it really THAT bad ?

Have you listened to Radio One recently ?

Graham


p.s. I listen to Classic FM too.

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

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?

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.

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

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

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

"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.

Graham

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

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.

Malcolm

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:

(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!



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*.....

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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" 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.

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 Houston
Leona Lewis
Percy Sledge

(???)

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

Is it really THAT bad ?


No, it's worse - not only is it utter *****e* but I just clicked again and
saw the same track title go by - it's *looped ****e*!!



Have you listened to Radio One recently ?


Don't be so damn silly!


Graham


p.s. I listen to Classic FM too.


Bully for you....

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....

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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.


That's a few million people just breathed a massive, collective sigh of
relief then....



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.


Go see my other replies and abandon yours....

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

tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore 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;))....

Yes, I can imagine that.

What really rocks my boat is when I get that effect at my local music pub. It's
'wicked' having such an excellent source of music so nearby. I can particularly
recall an excellent Pink Floyd tribute band having that effect on me. Bands who
play U2's music also tend to get the blood flowing nicely.

Needless to say I'm 'involved' with the venue in question. I look after the
technical concerns and occasionally still mix some bands too.

http://www.thehorn.co.uk/

Graham

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:
"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.....

I'd be genuinely intrested to hear what you think.



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....

So you're happy with the same old stuff being recycled (ad nauseam) ?


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

Pass....

Surely you can do better than that !

Come on ! Live a little !

Graham

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

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

Now go listen to some Sisters and abandon your preconceptions.

Go see my other replies and abandon yours....

Errrr.. so you're the one who won't accept new musical ideas ?

As I suspected, you're stuck in some kind of 'time warp' where only one style of
music is seen as 'acceptable'.

Islamists would be proud of you. They're great believers in (musical) orthodoxy
too. To the extent of even banning it entirely lest it cause one to feel
anything !

Graham

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.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

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.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....

Graham

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

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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!

Err, Percy Sledge's best known song - When a Man Meets a Woman - is from
the mid '60s, rather before CDs.

Whitney Houston also started her recording career before CD - although
didn't achieve overnight success.

That just leaves Leona Lewis.

Did you have a life before you retired?

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

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

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:
"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.....

I'd be genuinely intrested to hear what you think.



OK then, you post like a 'geekboy groupie' - I thought you were in your
early 20s!




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....

So you're happy with the same old stuff being recycled (ad nauseam) ?


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

Pass....

Surely you can do better than that !



No, I can't - I know Vaughan Williams' relatively modern Symphonies and like
them, I'm not sure much of the modern stuff like that from the likes of
Britten and Birtwhistle really can be classed as 'symphonic' despite some of
it being very large-scale!



Come on ! Live a little !


What? Like listen to pop music on the radio and watch 'tribute bands' in
pubs?

I don't think so, muchacho....

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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

Now go listen to some Sisters and abandon your preconceptions.

Go see my other replies and abandon yours....

Errrr.. so you're the one who won't accept new musical ideas ?

As I suspected, you're stuck in some kind of 'time warp' where only one
style of
music is seen as 'acceptable'.


I notice your failure to respond to the links I posted - the 'time warp'
some of the stuff I like lives in includes *today*. Try these clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxM0b2CYlzQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTAz-CFMgY4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n-LJ...eature=related


Might be more your sort of thing (it's my latest CD) note the
*musicianship*, once again...

(All been posted here before - if you yapped less and read more, you might
have seen some of it....)

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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!

Err, Percy Sledge's best known song - When a Man Meets a Woman - is from
the mid '60s, rather before CDs.

Whitney Houston also started her recording career before CD - although
didn't achieve overnight success.

That just leaves Leona Lewis.

Did you have a life before you retired?



If your idea of 'life' is listening to crap like that on the radio, then I
guess I didn't....

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

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:02:37 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what
make it is before you can hear any difference?

And I take it you're avoiding acknowledging any flaws in listening
tests and thus consider them foolproof. Fine by me, carry on in your
your fantasy world.

Malcolm

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

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:22:03 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

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.

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....

Graham

How about this one
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWN:IT&ih=003

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34ayet

"Description

Hi End Fibre Optical TOS link cable. 5 metre length with Gold plated
connectors for superior contact connection."

Bill

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

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm
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.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

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

Musicians are no different from ordinary mortals in knowing what
sounds as close as possible to the original - despite what those in
awe of them may think.

No, many are different:

a) They tend to have good auditive memory. Ordinary mortals tend to be
more visual/kinetic etc

b) With the aid of this memory they can store the sounds they hear on
a daily basis into long term memory - ordinary mortals would have more
of a short term memory for things like oboes, bassoons etc.

c) They are highly trained to differentiate pitch, loudness and tone.
The average age of starting a musical career is 7 years old, so by the
time such musicians leave conservatoire they have been playing music
on a daily basis for 14 years. This is really radically different from
ordinary mortals/.

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

'Rock and roll' has a lot more energy, life and vibrancy than 'classical' ever will.

Energy - Shostakovich, Liszt, Vivaldi
Life - what classical music doesn't have life
Vibrancy - Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Bizet, Verdi, Berlioz etc.


Besides, don't you tire of hearing a zillion mildly different
performances of the same old music that's been going around for
centuries ?

I tire of hearing a zillion different girl bands singing "baby baby"
and a zillion rock bands with fuzz guitar, loud drums and lyrics that
could be written by robots.

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

Symphony No. 15 in A major (Opus 141), Dmitri Shostakovich's last, was
written in a little over a month during the summer of 1971 in Repino

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

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:26:50 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm 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.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

Very true! There's absolutely no problem when such tests show a
reliable reproducible difference between A and B. One can then have a
certain amount of confidence that A and B do indeed differ.

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that
A and B are the same. That's a logical fallacy. If/when the
tests fail to show a difference between A and B, one still
doesn't know if A and B are the same or not - which seems to
me to make the test a bit of a waste of time!

In the cases where such tests do reliably distinguish between
A and B, the differences are liable to be so obvious as the make
the test rather superfluous anyway.

Malcolm

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

Bill Taylor wrote:

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

I take it you have to see a new interconnect plugged in and know what make
it is before you can hear any difference?

The more GOLD the better presumably ? Alchemy and all that .....


How about this one
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWN:IT&ih=003

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34ayet

"Description

Hi End Fibre Optical TOS link cable. 5 metre length with Gold plated
connectors for superior contact connection."

Wonderful. Fraud and deception truly abound in audio.

Graham

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

In article , Malcolm
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:26:50 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:27:48 -0600, Malcolm 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.

They do when there's meaningful differences :-)

Very true! There's absolutely no problem when such tests show a
reliable reproducible difference between A and B. One can then have a
certain amount of confidence that A and B do indeed differ.

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that A and B
are the same. That's a logical fallacy.

Indeed. That is why the conclusion would not be that they are "the same".
Only that the evidence from the test indicated them to be audibly
indistinguishable when compared.

However if they have different brand names, cost different amounts, etc,
they clearly are not "the same" so far as a potential user/buyer are
concerned. A listening comparison test isn't intended to deal with those
points, nor to see if they are "the same". Just to give evidence to
indicate if there are any audible differences which might affect a choice.

So the "flaw" seems to be that you wish to draw inappropriate conclusions
from a test intended for another purpose. This isn't a "flaw" in the test,
but in your inappropriate use of the results. The "logical fallacy" is in
the way you present an inappropriate conclusion and bypass the appropriate
one. :-)

If someone perfers one brand name to another, or wants to buy expensive kit
to show off or feel good, or have neat looking gear, that is nothing to do
with such a test.

However, if we test and compare two items or systems and find that the
listeners can't distinguish the sound using one from using the other, then
we have evidence that they need not take assumptions that they "sound
different" seriously when commenting on the items or systems. *Unless* some
other appropriately run test shows other results in the form of evidence
that can be assessed.

Thus if the above is the "fundamental flaw" you were referring to, then I
am afraid it is in your understanding, not in the tests. :-)

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...
 

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

The problem is that many (most?) such tests fail to reliably
distinguish between A and B. One cannot, in that case, say that
A and B are the same. That's a logical fallacy. If/when the
tests fail to show a difference between A and B, one still
doesn't know if A and B are the same or not - which seems to
me to make the test a bit of a waste of time!


So in other words you pre-judge the outcome by asserting that there *is* an
audible difference between A & B. Then, if the test fails to support this
assertion you dismiss the test as flawed.

Hmmm...

David.

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

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:23:13 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

So in other words you pre-judge the outcome by asserting that there *is* an
audible difference between A & B. Then, if the test fails to support this
assertion you dismiss the test as flawed.

It's religion. As there IS a God, any test that fails to prove him is
flawed. Or so they say.