Audio, hi-fi and car audio - Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

Audio Banter (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/)

- - Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night) (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/7441-gadget-show-audio-test-uk.html)

"Pete Wilcox" wrote
The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire human race is below
average intelligence...

This is only true if you define "average" as "median", or
something close to it.

Most people mean "mean" by "average".

So the above-quoted statement has "issues with correctness".

But never mind.

Martin

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

"N_Cook"

Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

** What the listeners heard was a combination of what sound was on the
recording, plus what the room added, plus any alterations made by the
speakers. Any resemblance to the live version would be purely accidental.

Rule #1 of a " live v. recorded " comparison is to remove all trace of room
acoustics from the recording so when it is played back ONLY the listening
room acoustics are involved - just as it is with all live sound.

This can ONLY be achieved by making the recording in an anechoic room or
similar non-reverberant environment. Also, the microphone used must have
ruler flat response and NO proximity effect - which counts out the vast
majority of professional studio microphones, straight off.

Rule #2 is keep it simple, ie record a single, small sized instrument or a
voice - not a whole band.

Upon playback, via a sufficiently good speaker, such a recording will sound
like the speaker has become the original instrument or voice. Quite
startling if you have not head it done before.

However, if you compare this with a NEW live version, it will not sound the
SAME - as no singer or musician can produce the IDENTICAL result twice.

So, the whole darn idea is fundamentally flawed !!!!

But wait - there is another, cleverer way to play the game:

Play a recorded voice or instrument through a good quality speaker while IT
is sitting in an anechoic room and record THAT - then this becomes your
reference speaker with reference sound accurately recorded.

The exact same speaker can be moved to another place ( your listening room )
and the sound it produces from the same recordings will of course be
EXACTLY the same - plus you have a precise, anechoic recording of how it
sounds.

If the anechoic recording is played back via a " perfect speaker " the
resulting sound should be indistinguishable from the reference speaker
playing the original recordings in the same room.

I only know of one occasion when such a test was done ( in the USA) - the
result reported was that the majority of hi-fi speakers tested sounded
nothing like the reference while a few rather expensive models sounded quite
close.

Why not have every hi-fi shop set up such a simple comparison test for
buyers to experience ?

....... Phil

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pete Wilcox" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.60.0805272118540.27281@squire
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Arny Krueger wrote:

Simply setting up a test this stupid is like flunking an
IQ test, let alone advertising that you screwed up in
such an obvious way on TV.
The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire
human race is below average intelligence...

ducks and runs...

I became acutely aware of that when I served in the U.S. Army. Many people
in the middle class are blithely unaware of the fact that almost everybody
they encounter has an IQ 100. I sure was.

The type of people you encounter in the US military depends on the
work you are assigned, and whether there is a war going on. The dumbest
soldiers I encountered were in supply, the motor pool and a few infantry
types who thought anyone who wasn't on the battlefield 90% of their TIS
wasn't military.

I was a Broadcast Engineer for AFRTS, worked on the WeatherVision
system at Ft. Rucker, and installed some sound systems. I tested out of
the three year electronics school at Ft. Monmoth and was awarded my MOS
while in basic. I was told that almost no one passed that MOS test,
even five years after completing the course. I received the highest
score on record for my MOS at Ft Knox.

The people I worked with were no different than in any other
technical job. It was the unhappy people doing mostly menial military
jobs that didn't seem very bright, but some of them were just bored to
death. If you got to know them you discovered that some were well read,
and some were taking one or more military correspondence courses, or
going to night classes at a nearby college. Others would have been
losers, no matter what they did, and a few were in the military to keep
from going to prison.

If you served during W.W.II or Korea, they took a lot of people they
wouldn't have, in peace time. They needed people who could shoot, and
who could be quickly trained to take care of themselves on a
battlefield. In a lot of cases, they were strong, but not well educated
farm boys. People who couldn't afford college, and spent most of their
lives doing hot and heavy labor on the family farm. They wouldn't have
scored high on an IQ test, but in no way were they stupid. They just
never got the chance to get much of an education. OTOH, they were the
guys you wanted at your back when the **** hit the fan and the fighting
meant life or death.

You see more deadbeats in peace time, because there is no fighting to
send them to. It's very easy to transfer someone to the infantry, and a
war zone if they cause too many problems. Almost everyone soldier has
infantry as they primary or secondary MOS. Very few have 'NA' for a
secondary MOS on their DD-214.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message m
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pete Wilcox" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.60.0805272118540.27281@squire
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Arny Krueger wrote:

Simply setting up a test this stupid is like flunking
an IQ test, let alone advertising that you screwed up
in such an obvious way on TV.
The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire
human race is below average intelligence...

ducks and runs...

I became acutely aware of that when I served in the U.S.
Army. Many people in the middle class are blithely
unaware of the fact that almost everybody they encounter
has an IQ 100. I sure was.

The type of people you encounter in the US military
depends on the work you are assigned, and whether there
is a war going on. The dumbest soldiers I encountered
were in supply, the motor pool and a few infantry types
who thought anyone who wasn't on the battlefield 90% of
their TIS wasn't military.

Yes, that is what I saw. BTW, I served while there was a war going on.

I was a Broadcast Engineer for AFRTS, worked on the
WeatherVision system at Ft. Rucker, and installed some
sound systems. I tested out of the three year
electronics school at Ft. Monmoth and was awarded my MOS
while in basic. I was told that almost no one passed
that MOS test, even five years after completing the
course. I received the highest score on record for my
MOS at Ft Knox.

Never was offered the opportunity to test out of anything.

Aced Hawk Radar school, and got the highest proficiency rating in the Army
for my MOS while I served, the first time they tested me for anything like
that. They never got a second chance! ;-)

The people I worked with were no different than in any
other technical job. It was the unhappy people doing
mostly menial military jobs that didn't seem very bright,
but some of them were just bored to death. If you got to
know them you discovered that some were well read, and
some were taking one or more military correspondence
courses, or going to night classes at a nearby college.

Again pretty well mirrors what I saw.

The Army had a number of beneficial effects on me, because when I returned
to University after serving, I became an ace student there as well.

Others would have been losers, no matter what they did,
and a few were in the military to keep from going to
prison.

That was an amazingly large part of my basic training platoon - guys who the
judge told: "Jail or Army" Lucky us!

If you served during W.W.II or Korea, they took a lot
of people they wouldn't have, in peace time. They needed
people who could shoot, and who could be quickly trained
to take care of themselves on a battlefield. In a lot of
cases, they were strong, but not well educated farm boys.

Ditto for Vietnam.

People who couldn't afford college, and spent most of
their lives doing hot and heavy labor on the family farm.
They wouldn't have scored high on an IQ test, but in no
way were they stupid. They just never got the chance to
get much of an education. OTOH, they were the guys you
wanted at your back when the **** hit the fan and the
fighting meant life or death.

I avoided those kinds of situations.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
message m
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pete Wilcox" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.60.0805272118540.27281@squire
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Arny Krueger wrote:

Simply setting up a test this stupid is like flunking
an IQ test, let alone advertising that you screwed up
in such an obvious way on TV.
The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire
human race is below average intelligence...

ducks and runs...

I became acutely aware of that when I served in the U.S.
Army. Many people in the middle class are blithely
unaware of the fact that almost everybody they encounter
has an IQ 100. I sure was.

The type of people you encounter in the US military
depends on the work you are assigned, and whether there
is a war going on. The dumbest soldiers I encountered
were in supply, the motor pool and a few infantry types
who thought anyone who wasn't on the battlefield 90% of
their TIS wasn't military.

Yes, that is what I saw. BTW, I served while there was a war going on.

I was a Broadcast Engineer for AFRTS, worked on the
WeatherVision system at Ft. Rucker, and installed some
sound systems. I tested out of the three year
electronics school at Ft. Monmoth and was awarded my MOS
while in basic. I was told that almost no one passed
that MOS test, even five years after completing the
course. I received the highest score on record for my
MOS at Ft Knox.

Never was offered the opportunity to test out of anything.

They thought they couldn't lose, or they wouldn't have offered me the
chance. Of course, ever soldier who ever changed a fuse in something
electronic thought he was an expert in the '70s. :)

Aced Hawk Radar school, and got the highest proficiency rating in the Army
for my MOS while I served, the first time they tested me for anything like
that. They never got a second chance! ;-)

I forgot to mention I was loaned to the RADAR techs when they were
shorthanded. By the end of the day they were trying to get me
permanently transferred from the WeatherVision system.

They were phasing out my MOS to civilian contractors when it was time
to 're-enlist'. I had a VERY interesting talk with the re-enlist office
about two weeks before I was to leave. In fact, when I had to clear his
office all he did was turn quite pale, say "You're NOT going to
re-enlist, are you soldier" tell me to enjoy life as a civilian and sign
my papers. :) I also turned down an electronics civil service job a
year earlier. I would have had to spend the next 20 years at Ft Rucker,
Al. if I had signed.

The people I worked with were no different than in any
other technical job. It was the unhappy people doing
mostly menial military jobs that didn't seem very bright,
but some of them were just bored to death. If you got to
know them you discovered that some were well read, and
some were taking one or more military correspondence
courses, or going to night classes at a nearby college.

Again pretty well mirrors what I saw.

The Army had a number of beneficial effects on me, because when I returned
to University after serving, I became an ace student there as well.

Others would have been losers, no matter what they did,
and a few were in the military to keep from going to
prison.

That was an amazingly large part of my basic training platoon - guys who the
judge told: "Jail or Army" Lucky us!

If you served during W.W.II or Korea, they took a lot
of people they wouldn't have, in peace time. They needed
people who could shoot, and who could be quickly trained
to take care of themselves on a battlefield. In a lot of
cases, they were strong, but not well educated farm boys.

Ditto for Vietnam.

People who couldn't afford college, and spent most of
their lives doing hot and heavy labor on the family farm.
They wouldn't have scored high on an IQ test, but in no
way were they stupid. They just never got the chance to
get much of an education. OTOH, they were the guys you
wanted at your back when the **** hit the fan and the
fighting meant life or death.

I avoided those kinds of situations.

I ended up in Alaska, walking over two miles to and from work at -40
or colder, and in the dark. SOme of the guys who saw combat wanted f to
go back. They told me they preferred to be shot at, than a slow death by
freezing.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to play.
After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his mouth and
the clarinet solo continued. In this case, no one perceived audibly
the seque from live to recorded performance, even though we could see
after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous applause.

The clarinet is one of the worst examples of a sound that is unique
when acoustic. It's bland, very middle register and contains few
distinguishing features. A drum kit or as said by one poster a piano
are much more distinctive when acoustic and un-recorded - you need
complex overtones and subtle harmonics as well as some percussive
element to show attack.

Quite a few years ago I went to an "Evening with Quad" in a church hall
somewhere. The fairly elderly presenter gave an interesting and instructive
talk, and at one point went into the wings and returned with a tenor sax on
which he played some very good jazz. After a minute or so a couple of stage
hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an ESL63, which they
slowly raised in front of him until he and the sax were isolated from the
audience. They then slowly took it away; the presenter stopped playing
after another minute or so, acknowledged the applause and explained that the
object of the exercise was to demonstrate that the film was absolutely
acoustically transparent, which was why there was no difference whatsoever
in the sound. Cue oohs and aahs from the audience, and more applause.
Well, most of them, anyway. I and a few others sat looking puzzled. To me,
it was as if he had been playing in a room, and someone had shut the door
then opened it again. OK, that's an exaggeration, but to me there was a
very noticeable difference. When I got home I took the film covers off my
own ESL63s (the metal protection covers had already been removed once my
daughter was old enough to be trusted not to poke sharp metal objects
through the cloth, and that made a huge difference) and on a variety of
sources confirmed to my own satisfaction that I preferred the sound
"without".

I did try going the whole hog by removing the "socks" - very little audible
difference, but (a) they looked hideous in a listening room which doubled as
a living room and (b) every fly in Surrey immediately developed Kamikaze
tendencies. Anyone remember those strange frightening blue devices that
butchers used to hang on their walls to attract then zap bluebottles...?

The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from DC
to light, and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub, but
the examples he gave were frankly ridiculous and bore no relation to my own
experience - but that's a whole 'nuther story. I concluded that he was a
"Quaddie", the anditote to the "Linnies" who were just becoming famous.

Geoff MacK

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pete Wilcox" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.60.0805272118540.27281@squire
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Arny Krueger wrote:

Simply setting up a test this stupid is like flunking an
IQ test, let alone advertising that you screwed up in
such an obvious way on TV.
The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire
human race is below average intelligence...

ducks and runs...

I became acutely aware of that when I served in the U.S. Army. Many
people
in the middle class are blithely unaware of the fact that almost
everybody
they encounter has an IQ 100. I sure was.

The type of people you encounter in the US military depends on the
work you are assigned, and whether there is a war going on. The dumbest
soldiers I encountered were in supply, the motor pool and a few infantry
types who thought anyone who wasn't on the battlefield 90% of their TIS
wasn't military.

As I recall, Richard Feynman was rejected by the US Army after failing an IQ
test. He did not reach the minimum entry levels on anything. Don't know the
US nomenclature at the time, but it boiled down to "too dumb" even for a
grunt In due course he won the Nobel Prize for Physics, among other things
in a spectacular and often extremely funny career.

Geoff MacK

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 18:48:52 +0100, Geoff Mackenzie wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pete Wilcox" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.60.0805272118540.27281@squire
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Arny Krueger wrote:

Simply setting up a test this stupid is like flunking an IQ test,
let alone advertising that you screwed up in such an obvious way on
TV.
The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire human race is
below average intelligence...

ducks and runs...

I became acutely aware of that when I served in the U.S. Army. Many
people
in the middle class are blithely unaware of the fact that almost
everybody
they encounter has an IQ 100. I sure was.

The type of people you encounter in the US military depends on the
work you are assigned, and whether there is a war going on. The
dumbest soldiers I encountered were in supply, the motor pool and a few
infantry types who thought anyone who wasn't on the battlefield 90% of
their TIS wasn't military.

As I recall, Richard Feynman was rejected by the US Army after failing
an IQ test. He did not reach the minimum entry levels on anything.
Don't know the US nomenclature at the time, but it boiled down to "too
dumb" even for a grunt In due course he won the Nobel Prize for Physics,
among other things in a spectacular and often extremely funny career.

The easiest way to flunk a multiple-guess test is to know the material
*better* than the author of the test. You spend so much time trying to
guess which wrong answer the author thinks is right that you don't
finish. It's even worse than total ignorance, where you could give
random answers and score about 1/n, where n is the number of alternatives
per question. For most people, it's only a problem on narrow, single-
subject tests, but I can imagine Feynman getting bogged down in a
standard IQ test.