Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

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?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features


They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00


--
General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/repairs.htm

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
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?

I've no idea. The website doesn't seem to want to say anything about that.
What an absolutely crap website it is! Mind you it is from Ch5.

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features


They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable
pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between
the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00


So, Could they?

David.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

In article ,
N_Cook wrote:
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?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...ction=Features

Doesn't seem to say anything about the actual test.

I've been involved in several of these sort of tests over the years, and
the the standard for the closest approach to the original happened with
equipment made in the '50s. The microphone was a BBC design - the PGS,
made by STC as the 4038, and the speaker a Quad ESL. We used a male voice
recorded digitally, and played back to the speaker which was behind a
gauze along with the chap whose voice we used. The lighting was arranged
so you couldn't see through the gauze. It fooled the majority of the
listening panel - made up of allsorts, not just sound pros or Hi-Fi types.
No moving coil speaker that we tried got close to fooling anyone.

It's much more difficult to do with two sources together like guitar and
vocal as the ear will tend to position them - so stereo would be needed
and impossible to do with more than one listener at a time. We also used
solo sax with much the same results - but solo piano was guessed right by
the majority.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

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

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote in message
...
In article ,
N_Cook wrote:
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?


http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features

Doesn't seem to say anything about the actual test.

I've been involved in several of these sort of tests over the years, and
the the standard for the closest approach to the original happened with
equipment made in the '50s. The microphone was a BBC design - the PGS,
made by STC as the 4038, and the speaker a Quad ESL. We used a male voice
recorded digitally, and played back to the speaker which was behind a
gauze along with the chap whose voice we used. The lighting was arranged
so you couldn't see through the gauze. It fooled the majority of the
listening panel - made up of allsorts, not just sound pros or Hi-Fi types.
No moving coil speaker that we tried got close to fooling anyone.

It's much more difficult to do with two sources together like guitar and
vocal as the ear will tend to position them - so stereo would be needed
and impossible to do with more than one listener at a time. We also used
solo sax with much the same results - but solo piano was guessed right by
the majority.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

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


I've no idea if its still there but that was the set-up at BBC / Kingswood
Warren research labs, Surrey for blind testing/comparison of audio. In the
situation I was aware of determining what the minimum sampling rate for
audio ADC / DAC was that a human could tell as degraded.

The ch5 test was quite well done I thought. I did notice the Suzi one had
the headband of the blindfold over her ears though. A large theatre stage
set-up so no close-field effects, and pairs of speakers for stereo imaging.
It would have been nice , having gone to all that bother, to get a few more
people off the street to give their opinions also.



--
General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/repairs.htm

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
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?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features

I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
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.

Iain



They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable
pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between
the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00

So what was the result?

Iain

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

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.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
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.

Presumably by a naive audience. The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test. A much more severe test
would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his
product...

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

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

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
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.

Presumably by a naive audience. The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test. A much more severe test
would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his
product...

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

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


And a claque or two in the audience , no doubt.

--
General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/repairs.htm

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
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.

Presumably by a naive audience.

AES European convention. Amsterdam IIRC.
You can't get less naive than that.

The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test.

Get away!You don't say! Do you think
John Bowers didn't know that? :-)

But this interesting personal interlude made a very
good introduction to an impressive demonstration
of some very good loudspeakers.

A much more severe test
would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his
product...

Yes a speech test with music studio monitors would have been
novel to say the least. There would probably have been a rush
for the canteen - for the last remaining slices of Dutch apple cake.

Since the 1980s. B+W monitors have been the loudspeaker
of choice of major classical labels. John Bowers certainly
knew what he was doing.


Iain

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Presumably by a naive audience.

AES European convention. Amsterdam IIRC.
You can't get less naive than that.

The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test.

Get away!You don't say! Do you think
John Bowers didn't know that? :-)

So as I said the audience was naive if they gave him a round of applause
rather than a wry chuckle. Of course I forgot you only move in 'polite'
circles. ;-)

But this interesting personal interlude made a very
good introduction to an impressive demonstration
of some very good loudspeakers.

Not denying they make good speakers. But a demonstration using something
more taxing have been even more impressive.

A much more severe test would be if he'd simply been talking. But then
that wouldn't have sold his product...

Yes a speech test with music studio monitors would have been
novel to say the least. There would probably have been a rush
for the canteen - for the last remaining slices of Dutch apple cake.

I take it by your reference to 'studio monitors' that you think speech
reproduction unimportant? And a solo clarinet hardly is a test of any of
the other parameters you'd need for those anyway.

Since the 1980s. B+W monitors have been the loudspeaker
of choice of major classical labels. John Bowers certainly
knew what he was doing.

I think you're exaggerating again.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

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

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Presumably by a naive audience.

AES European convention. Amsterdam IIRC.
You can't get less naive than that.

The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test.

Get away!You don't say! Do you think
John Bowers didn't know that? :-)

So as I said the audience was naive if they gave him a round of applause
rather than a wry chuckle. Of course I forgot you only move in 'polite'
circles. ;-)

Yes. I take it you are not a member of the AES:-))

But this interesting personal interlude made a very
good introduction to an impressive demonstration
of some very good loudspeakers.

Not denying they make good speakers. But a demonstration using something
more taxing have been even more impressive.

You miss the point. Most manufacturers start their
demonstration off with an introductory talk about
design philosophy etc. John just came on the stage
with a clarinet. This was an innovative way to start
what turned out to be a very good demonstration
which many people still remember and talk about.

A much more severe test would be if he'd simply been talking. But then
that wouldn't have sold his product...

Yes a speech test with music studio monitors would have been
novel to say the least. There would probably have been a rush
for the canteen - for the last remaining slices of Dutch apple cake.

I take it by your reference to 'studio monitors' that you think speech
reproduction unimportant?

No of course not. But the speakers were there to demonstrate
large format orchestral recordings with large dynamic, and that
is what people wanted to hear.

And a solo clarinet hardly is a test of any of
the other parameters you'd need for those anyway.

As I said, you missed the point. This was John's way of
introducing himself and his company's products. He got a
very interestig demonstration off to a good start.

Since the 1980s. B+W monitors have been the loudspeaker
of choice of major classical labels. John Bowers certainly
knew what he was doing.

I think you're exaggerating again.

So you don't think he knew what he was doing?

He led a company which in a short space of time became
one of the most highly regarded speaker manufacturers.


Iain

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Yeah, seen that one ages ago.

It was quite interesting. It was that long ago now, that
I can't remember whether they concluded that the expensive
speakers were best. ISTR they did.


Martin

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"N_Cook" wrote in message


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?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features

This is one of those tests that is only interesting if a no differences
result is obtained using sensitive listeners. Any of a million likely
screw-ups, many obvious and some subtle, will give a positive result for
differences.

But there's no way that this particular test can have anything but positive
results, as what the listeners heard via the electronic path contained
doubled doses of room acoustics.

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.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

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...

Cheers,
Pete.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"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.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

In article Pine.GSO.4.60.0805272118540.27281@squire, Pete Wilcox
scribeth thus

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...

As little as that eh?...
--
Tony Sayer

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Jamie" t
wrote in message
Pete Wilcox wrote:


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...

Cheers,
Pete.

Yes, and most of those are from the US with the "Leave
no child behind act" that we must suffer with now.

I was just talking to a electrical instructor in a trade
school where they were called to a meeting to talk about
the 40+ sensors that had failing grades preventing them
from graduating. After the school's superintendent got
done, they all gave the failing students 60's to allow
graduation.
what kind of stupidity is that?

I remember a Properties of Structural Materials class I took, where I was
the top student of about 25. But I only received a semester grade of 3.6 on
a 4.3 scale. I talked to my advisor about this, and he said to remember that
sometimes the instructor is grading himself.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Pete Wilcox wrote:


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...

Cheers,
Pete.

Yes, and most of those are from the US with the "Leave no child behind
act" that we must suffer with now.

I was just talking to a electrical instructor in a trade school where
they were called to a meeting to talk about the 40+ sensors that had
failing grades preventing them from graduating.
After the school's superintendent got done, they all gave the failing
students 60's to allow graduation.

what kind of stupidity is that?

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008, tony sayer wrote:

In article Pine.GSO.4.60.0805272118540.27281@squire, Pete Wilcox
scribeth thus

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

As little as that eh?...

At least!!!

Cheers,
Pete.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jamie" t
wrote in message

Pete Wilcox wrote:


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...

Cheers,
Pete.


Yes, and most of those are from the US with the "Leave
no child behind act" that we must suffer with now.

I was just talking to a electrical instructor in a trade
school where they were called to a meeting to talk about
the 40+ sensors that had failing grades preventing them
from graduating. After the school's superintendent got
done, they all gave the failing students 60's to allow
graduation.
what kind of stupidity is that?


I remember a Properties of Structural Materials class I took, where I was
the top student of about 25. But I only received a semester grade of 3.6 on
a 4.3 scale. I talked to my advisor about this, and he said to remember that
sometimes the instructor is grading himself.


Hmm, I thought I canceled that message due a miss placed word "Sensor",
should be "Senior".
Oh well.
Well, I feel sorry for the students that really do work at it and
deserved what the work force should be accepting out there over what is
being pushed out on the public..

It may not be evident at the moment, but I see a major down fall in
our near future..

It may work out in the end sense they're those that still believe in
education (very few) how ever, they could be the models of our future
where we now have to many (Dumb)chiefs and not enough indians. More
indians are also favorable in a society of Mouse and Men.!

It seems that in some societies (no ranks stated here) feel that we
own them something with out offering any thing in return.

-----------------------------
These are the opinions of an old fart (or near it any ways) not to be
taken seriously for any reason other than improving humanity.


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

Median
 

"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

Median
 

On 5/27/08 2:22 PM, in article ,
"Fleetie" wrote:

"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


Learn to post a correctly structured response to a post, including the
Subject.

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

Median
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Don Bowey wrote:

On 5/27/08 2:22 PM, in article ,
"Fleetie" wrote:

"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


Learn to post a correctly structured response to a post, including the
Subject.

Seemed reasonably well structured to me. Bottom-posted, end everythink.
Anyway, lighten up guys, it was just a joke! This is a good-humoured
group for the most part, and you've got to expect the odd tongue-in-cheek
post, especially from me!

Cheers,
Pete.

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.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Geoff Mackenzie"


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.

** Completely at odds with the facts of his life story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education

He was a full time student, attended the MIT and finally received a PhD from
Princeton in 1942 at age 24.

Then he was invited to join the Manhattan Project.

He scored 123, on a standard IQ test, in his early teens.


....... Phil

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Geoff Mackenzie"


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,


** The ESL63 dust cover is not " cling film " - it is actually the same
extremely thin, Mylar film the diaphrgnms are made from.


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.


** Demonstrates the power of suggestion the eyes have over the ears of over
those with weak minds.


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".


** Removing the grille and/or the sock increases the level of frequencies
above 10kHz - so the sound gets a tad brighter - which gives the illusion
of " more detial ".

Fools nearly everyone into thinking it is therefore " better ".


The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from
DC to light,

** OK, so gross exaggeration and total bull**** are your stock in trade -
Mr. Mackenzie.


and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub,


** Yawn...

Did he produce his army IQ test for you to pour scorn on too ?

Wot a ******......


...... Phil

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Geoff Mackenzie wrote:

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.


I don't recall taking an IQ test before entering the Army, or
afterwards.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Jamie wrote:

Yes, and most of those are from the US with the "Leave no child behind
act" that we must suffer with now.

I was just talking to a electrical instructor in a trade school where
they were called to a meeting to talk about the 40+ sensors that had
failing grades preventing them from graduating.
After the school's superintendent got done, they all gave the failing
students 60's to allow graduation.

what kind of stupidity is that?

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"


WTH are you babbling about, now: "the 40+ sensors that had failing
grades" ?


I have never heard of anyone scoring 70 or lower being allowed to the
next grade, or to graduate. If 60 was the level at your school, it
explains a lot. It had nothing to do with people pushing you down the
stairs. Or did it?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Geoff Mackenzie"


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.

** Completely at odds with the facts of his life story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education

He was a full time student, attended the MIT and finally received a PhD
from Princeton in 1942 at age 24.

Then he was invited to join the Manhattan Project.

He scored 123, on a standard IQ test, in his early teens.


...... Phil

Well, I was quoting from the blurb on the dust jacket of one of his
books.....

Geoff MacK

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Geoff Mackenzie"
"Phil Allison"
"Geoff Mackenzie"


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.

** Completely at odds with the facts of his life story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education

He was a full time student, attended the MIT and finally received a PhD
from Princeton in 1942 at age 24.

Then he was invited to join the Manhattan Project.

He scored 123, on a standard IQ test, in his early teens.


...... Phil

Well, I was quoting from the blurb on the dust jacket of one of his
books.....


** That is not what you posted nor is it true.

**** off, idiot.


...... Phil

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an
ESL63,


** The ESL63 dust cover is not " cling film " - it is actually the same
extremely thin, Mylar film the diaphrgnms are made from.

***Accepted. Couldn't at the time remember the correct name, but "cling
film" was a fair approximation of the product which most people understood.


** Demonstrates the power of suggestion the eyes have over the ears of
over those with weak minds.

***The power of suggestion is of course extremely well known and documented.
It certainly does not apply only to those of "weak minds" - how do you
define that, by the way?




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".


** Removing the grille and/or the sock increases the level of frequencies
above 10kHz - so the sound gets a tad brighter - which gives the illusion
of " more detial ".

Fools nearly everyone into thinking it is therefore " better ".

***Personally I like to hear all the information available, so if the
protective covers mask anything over 10kHz then off they come.




The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from
DC to light,

** OK, so gross exaggeration and total bull**** are your stock in
trade - Mr. Mackenzie.

***Quite possibly. Earnt me quite a decent living over the years, though.
Less offensive than personal abuse too.

and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub,


** Yawn...

***Meaning?

Did he produce his army IQ test for you to pour scorn on too ?

***Totally different thread; anyway, I was stating facts, not pouring
scorn.

Wot a ******......

***Thought you'd revert to type eventually!

Geoff MacK

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Geoff Mackenzie ****ING MORON "


** Demonstrates the power of suggestion the eyes have over the ears of
over those with weak minds.

***The power of suggestion is of course extremely well known and
documented.

** Yawn .........


It certainly does not apply only to those of "weak minds"

** Does apply perfectly in your case - ****head.



** Removing the grille and/or the sock increases the level of frequencies
above 10kHz - so the sound gets a tad brighter - which gives the
illusion of " more detail ".

Fools nearly everyone into thinking it is therefore " better ".

***Personally I like to hear all the information available,

** Yawn ...........

So the dopey pommy ****wit has no ****ing idea what flat response means.



** OK, so gross exaggeration and total bull**** are your stock in
trade - Mr. Mackenzie.

***Quite possibly.


** Blow me down - a glimmer of honesty.



Did he produce his army IQ test for you to pour scorn on too ?

***Totally different thread;


** Same asinine fallacies being trotted out by the same POS ****wit.

Go drop dead - you pathetic, trolling MORON.




....... Phil