Frequency response of the ear
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


Now kindly consider any future posts of mine directed to all the
cringing lurkers here but, not to you - you are *excused* henceforth....


FWIW Keith, I don't know if you regard me as a 'cringing lurker' or not,
but
I don't particularly want your opinions "directed" to me, so count me out.
I gave up trying to discuss various things with you because of the kind
of behaviour you have shown in threads like this. I do sometimes scan
your postings but have decided I'd be wasting my time to respond.


This post is so ridiculous (on a number of levels) I'm suspicious that it's
a forgery..??

(But if it's not, I'd just say keep it simple Jimbo and use your killfile -
no?)

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


Now kindly consider any future posts of mine directed to all the
cringing lurkers here but, not to you - you are *excused*
henceforth....


FWIW Keith, I don't know if you regard me as a 'cringing lurker' or
not, but I don't particularly want your opinions "directed" to me, so
count me out. I gave up trying to discuss various things with you
because of the kind of behaviour you have shown in threads like this.
I do sometimes scan your postings but have decided I'd be wasting my
time to respond.


This post is so ridiculous (on a number of levels) I'm suspicious that
it's a forgery..??

(But if it's not, I'd just say keep it simple Jimbo and use your
killfile - no?)

I'll respond just this once to comment as follows:

Don't see a reason to killfile you. I don't find what you write 'offensive'
or annoying. Just that my view of much of it is as I previously stated.

I did hesitate to make the comments as I suspected you would simply
instantly reject them (as you seem to have done by labelling them
"ridiculous") and/or respond in an apparently patronising manner (e.g. the
"Jimbo"). This is part of the pattern of your behaviour that has made me
lose interest in discussing audio with you.

However after some hesitation I decided to make my previous posting
because, yes, I do wish it were otherwise. If occasions arise that make me
think so, I will respond. Similarly, if you ask a question that I might be
able to answer or help with in a way you'd find useful on some audio point,
I will still be happy to do so. Just that I don't really feel there is any
more point in debating your personal opinions on audio with you.

I am not saying I dislike you or find you nasty, nor that I object to you
expressing your opinions. Not trying to 'win an argument' or call you
names. Just that my view is as I previously stated. You make your choices
and I make mine.

OK, my 2p on this has now run out. I'll let you get back to arguing with
others who are keen to do so... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Frequency response of the ear
 

On 2009-04-23, Arny Krueger wrote:
If Keith you are saying that you can't hear the readily audible noise and
distortion that is inherent in things you seem to fancy like SET amplifiers
and LPs, then I have no problem believing that to be true.

The only time I listened to a (4 W) SET amplifier it was driving a pair
of 'speakers which had a sensitivity of just 84 dB SPL at 1 m for 1 W.
To my ears the system was distorting badly and, as it happened, I was
able to verify that it was indeed clipping (albeit soft clipping).

But the owner would have none of this and described the sound as highly
lifelike. I backed off, of course. Although the system sounded bad to
me, if the owner was enjoying it then who was I to say what he should
or should not enjoy.

It seems to me that human sensitivity to distortion can be very variable.
I seem to be somewhat sensitive. Others are clearly not.

I think that sensitivity can be developed by training but I have come
to the conclsion that I would never take any such training. It could
only lead to less satisfaction with audio kit and never more.

--
John Phillips

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
John Phillips wrote:
The only time I listened to a (4 W) SET amplifier it was driving a pair
of 'speakers which had a sensitivity of just 84 dB SPL at 1 m for 1 W.
To my ears the system was distorting badly and, as it happened, I was
able to verify that it was indeed clipping (albeit soft clipping).

But the owner would have none of this and described the sound as highly
lifelike. I backed off, of course. Although the system sounded bad to
me, if the owner was enjoying it then who was I to say what he should
or should not enjoy.

It seems to me that human sensitivity to distortion can be very variable.
I seem to be somewhat sensitive. Others are clearly not.

I think that sensitivity can be developed by training but I have come
to the conclsion that I would never take any such training. It could
only lead to less satisfaction with audio kit and never more.

We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion - the
time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds like, that
is. Try playing those back from vinyl...

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
John Phillips wrote:
The only time I listened to a (4 W) SET amplifier it was driving a pair
of 'speakers which had a sensitivity of just 84 dB SPL at 1 m for 1 W.
To my ears the system was distorting badly and, as it happened, I was
able to verify that it was indeed clipping (albeit soft clipping).

But the owner would have none of this and described the sound as highly
lifelike. I backed off, of course. Although the system sounded bad to
me, if the owner was enjoying it then who was I to say what he should
or should not enjoy.

It seems to me that human sensitivity to distortion can be very variable.
I seem to be somewhat sensitive. Others are clearly not.

I think that sensitivity can be developed by training but I have come
to the conclsion that I would never take any such training. It could
only lead to less satisfaction with audio kit and never more.

We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion - the
time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds like, that
is. Try playing those back from vinyl...


What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

**** stir mode off;
--
Tony Sayer

Frequency response of the ear
 

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:00:04 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
John Phillips wrote:
The only time I listened to a (4 W) SET amplifier it was driving a pair
of 'speakers which had a sensitivity of just 84 dB SPL at 1 m for 1 W.
To my ears the system was distorting badly and, as it happened, I was
able to verify that it was indeed clipping (albeit soft clipping).

But the owner would have none of this and described the sound as highly
lifelike. I backed off, of course. Although the system sounded bad to
me, if the owner was enjoying it then who was I to say what he should
or should not enjoy.

It seems to me that human sensitivity to distortion can be very variable.
I seem to be somewhat sensitive. Others are clearly not.

I think that sensitivity can be developed by training but I have come
to the conclsion that I would never take any such training. It could
only lead to less satisfaction with audio kit and never more.

We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion - the
time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds like, that
is. Try playing those back from vinyl...


What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

You can't hear them at all on DAB, unless you are prepared to hang
around for a minute or two.

d

Frequency response of the ear
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:00:04 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
John Phillips wrote:
The only time I listened to a (4 W) SET amplifier it was driving a pair
of 'speakers which had a sensitivity of just 84 dB SPL at 1 m for 1 W.
To my ears the system was distorting badly and, as it happened, I was
able to verify that it was indeed clipping (albeit soft clipping).
But the owner would have none of this and described the sound as highly
lifelike. I backed off, of course. Although the system sounded bad to
me, if the owner was enjoying it then who was I to say what he should
or should not enjoy.
It seems to me that human sensitivity to distortion can be very variable.
I seem to be somewhat sensitive. Others are clearly not.
I think that sensitivity can be developed by training but I have come
to the conclsion that I would never take any such training. It could
only lead to less satisfaction with audio kit and never more.
We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion - the
time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds like, that
is. Try playing those back from vinyl...

What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

You can't hear them at all on DAB, unless you are prepared to hang
around for a minute or two.

I can't hear them on vinyl either, unless someone can recommend an LP
with the BBC time signal on it.
I don't think it would be very accurate due to the time delays inherent
in the pressing and distribution system.

--
Eiron.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


Now kindly consider any future posts of mine directed to all the
cringing lurkers here but, not to you - you are *excused*
henceforth....


FWIW Keith, I don't know if you regard me as a 'cringing lurker' or
not, but I don't particularly want your opinions "directed" to me, so
count me out. I gave up trying to discuss various things with you
because of the kind of behaviour you have shown in threads like this.
I do sometimes scan your postings but have decided I'd be wasting my
time to respond.


This post is so ridiculous (on a number of levels) I'm suspicious that
it's a forgery..??

(But if it's not, I'd just say keep it simple Jimbo and use your
killfile - no?)

I'll respond just this once to comment as follows:


OK then, it would be churlish not to take this 'possibly last' opportunity
to respond in detail, if we have established that the post was genuinely
yours.


Don't see a reason to killfile you. I don't find what you write
'offensive'
or annoying. Just that my view of much of it is as I previously stated.

I did hesitate to make the comments as I suspected you would simply
instantly reject them (as you seem to have done by labelling them
"ridiculous")


I am surprised you included yourself in the 'cringeing lurker' descriptive
as, since I blew back in here, you have been one of the very few here to
post anything at all - or had you failed to notice mine being the first
response you got to a recent one (after a bit of a delay), which then
bump-started a bit of a thread? Your last post regarding LS cables I left
alone and I see it remains unacknowledged yet, but a cable only has to a)
*reach* and b) not get too hot under the required load to satisfy my
requirements - beyond that I curtail my interest in the subject, as in many
other things!

The next thing I found ridiculous was that you try to chide me for
'behaviour' when all I have done is respond in kind (+) to insults and
slanderous remarks liberally coming my way - check the threads and see who
actually *starts* the ****-slinging! (Hint: He is not of these shores and
his Pooch is not of this planet...;-)

You then went on to say you 'sometimes scan' my posts (like they're hard to
spot in the torrent of extremely interesting traffic in this ng) but that
you would be 'wasting my time to respond' and then went and responded
anyway!! :-)

Finally, your allusion to my 'behaviour in threads like this' is as though I
have ever responded to you in a thread in the same manner - which, unless I
am greatly mistaken, I have *never* done? (Tell me if/when I am wrong about
this!!)

Now, if you feeling 'ridiculous' is not justified or is too sweeping, let's
agree it qualifies as *not your most edifying post of all time* on a number
of counts - no? (And is why I thought it might be a forgery!)



and/or respond in an apparently patronising manner (e.g. the
"Jimbo"). This is part of the pattern of your behaviour that has made me
lose interest in discussing audio with you.


I have said several times here - I pay back in the coin I'm paid in and I
get a lot of *patronising* from a few here but not from you (usually) - my
calling you Jimbo is no more than an affectionate term. I think, James old
bean, if I was going to be patronising to you, I would call you by another
name..!! ;-)



However after some hesitation I decided to make my previous posting
because, yes, I do wish it were otherwise. If occasions arise that make me
think so, I will respond. Similarly, if you ask a question that I might be
able to answer or help with in a way you'd find useful on some audio
point,
I will still be happy to do so. Just that I don't really feel there is any
more point in debating your personal opinions on audio with you.


Thank you for your continued offer of help (which I suspect would never
really have gone away) but I have to be careful what questions I ask here -
bowling underarm questions to spark a bit of activity has led to too many
people queuing to pat my head (you want *patronising*??) for too long now
and I'm not doing it any more.


I am not saying I dislike you or find you nasty, nor that I object to you
expressing your opinions. Not trying to 'win an argument' or call you
names. Just that my view is as I previously stated. You make your choices
and I make mine.

OK, my 2p on this has now run out. I'll let you get back to arguing with
others who are keen to do so... :-)


Is what I do - the bashers almost managed to clear everybody out of here,
but I like to swing in through the window and throw them around the room
from time to time to show 'em they ain't quite home and dry yet....

:-)


Playing now: Semprini Plays Chopin (Studio 2 Stereo TWO274) on my
2A3SET/V15MkIII/Fidelios setup - **stunning, razor sharp, impactful bliss**
:-)

Tip For Life regarding 'surface noise and artefacts when playing vinyl' -
move far enough back not to hear them! Simple! My rig fills the house
(bungalow) with music *two rooms* from where I'm sitting and I don't hear
anything other than the music!

That's it movie time soon!

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion -
the time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds
like, that is. Try playing those back from vinyl...


What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

Rather better than multipath FM...

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Tip For Life regarding 'surface noise and artefacts when playing vinyl'
- move far enough back not to hear them! Simple! My rig fills the house
(bungalow) with music *two rooms* from where I'm sitting and I don't
hear anything other than the music!

Says it all, really. No wonder you find 'full range drivers' acceptable
when that range is restricted to a few thousand hertz.

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

Keith G wrote:
and when you want a drink - which is a bit like wanting Bjork's
autograph after listening to one of her recordings in your own room.

Yeah but Bjork is beautiful! I remember years ago there was a programme
about celebrity meltdowns or something and it featured the scene
wherein she went mental at some journalist who was hassling her.

I lost it and started crying! OMG!

I do like Bjork!

And on her "Post" album, the last track, I think it's called
"Headphones", well, it's VERY demanding of speakers. The bass
is just incredible. You try to turn it up so that her voice
is at the right (loud) level, and then the bass kicks in and
the amp clips to ****.

Bjork demands a Krell!


Martin - who's just come back from RockWorld and they played
Fleetwood Mac and Floyd "Money" and it was very nice. And I spoke
for the first time in months to my ex-girlfriend and it was her 52nd
Saturday. . .

I'm too emotional.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49fd60fc.788132578@localhost
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:00:04 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave
Plowman (News) scribeth thus
In article ,
John Phillips
wrote:
The only time I listened to a (4 W) SET amplifier it
was driving a pair of 'speakers which had a
sensitivity of just 84 dB SPL at 1 m for 1 W. To my
ears the system was distorting badly and, as it
happened, I was able to verify that it was indeed
clipping (albeit soft clipping).

But the owner would have none of this and described
the sound as highly lifelike. I backed off, of
course. Although the system sounded bad to me, if the
owner was enjoying it then who was I to say what he
should or should not enjoy.

I had a great uncle who liked to collect really old phonographs and movie
projectors. He restored a number of them to operational condition and loved
to demonstrate them. Of course the old phonographs sounded bad, wax
cylinders and all that. The movie projectors did not produce really good
images with new film or old. Nevertheless they gave us both considerable joy
for being what they were. Of course neither of us were so delusional that we
thought that they performed better than their modern equivalents.


It seems to me that human sensitivity to distortion
can be very variable. I seem to be somewhat sensitive.
Others are clearly not.

Perception can be highly focused. Musicians tend to listen to music and
audiophiles tend to listen to sound.

I think that sensitivity can be developed by training
but I have come
to the conclusion that I would never take any such
training. It could only lead to less satisfaction
with audio kit and never more.

It depends on your role in the larger scheme of things. If one engages in
audio production then its best to be a little dissatisfied with the product
no matter what. The satisfaction comes from how people respond to what you
make, not what you think of what you make.

We actually have a very easy way of checking for
*gross* distortion - the time pips on R4. Assuming you
know what clean sine wave sounds like, that is. Try
playing those back from vinyl...


What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

You can't hear them at all on DAB, unless you are
prepared to hang around for a minute or two.

Doing a little thought experiment - sine waves generally do well, even when
coded at low bitrates. Simple signal, and all that. And that is why it is
not very informative to evaluate perceptual coders with traditional audio
technical tests.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


Now kindly consider any future posts of mine directed to
all the cringing lurkers here but, not to you - you are
*excused* henceforth....

Of course Keith you're way off base talking like this. And that's your
problem, you're not communicating with people, you are holding court.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
and when you want a drink - which is a bit like wanting Bjork's autograph
after listening to one of her recordings in your own room.

Yeah but Bjork is beautiful! I remember years ago there was a programme
about celebrity meltdowns or something and it featured the scene
wherein she went mental at some journalist who was hassling her.

I lost it and started crying! OMG!


Ya big jessie...



I do like Bjork!


So do I - always have!



And on her "Post" album, the last track, I think it's called
"Headphones", well, it's VERY demanding of speakers. The bass
is just incredible. You try to turn it up so that her voice
is at the right (loud) level, and then the bass kicks in and
the amp clips to ****.


You want the 'Headphones' track on the Telegram album - unless it's just the
recordings I've got, the Post version is tame compared to the Telegram
version.



Bjork demands a Krell!


She can afford to buy one if she really wants one!

snip emotional bit

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I had a great uncle who liked to collect really old phonographs and movie
projectors.


I like that he expects to be taken at face value with remarks like that
while hurling accusations of 'false claims' around to everyone else....

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


Now kindly consider any future posts of mine directed to
all the cringing lurkers here but, not to you - you are
*excused* henceforth....

Of course Keith you're way off base talking like this. And that's your
problem, you're not communicating with people, you are holding court.


Shining example of the crackpot thinking we get from this clown - first, he
*judges* me; then he *accuses* me and then he says *I'm* the one who's
holding court...?

Pot. Kettle. Parataxic distortion....

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion -
the time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds
like, that is. Try playing those back from vinyl...


What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

Rather better than multipath FM...


IS it that bad?. Did you ever get that odd problem with R4 sorted?..
--
Tony Sayer

Frequency response of the ear
 

Keith G wrote:

snip emotional bit


Why ? ....music is *all* about emotion.

Betcha you and Fleetie like Sigur Ros as well....as somebody said...music
from God...

Frequency response of the ear
 

"TonyL" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

snip emotional bit


Why ? ....music is *all* about emotion.

Betcha you and Fleetie like Sigur Ros as well....as somebody said...music
from God...


Yep, but my own particular favourite 'different band' atm is Rachel's:

http://www.rachelsband.com/

The soundtrack to this video is a good indication but it is not their best
work - it can get a lot *darker*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcE8YWdGtnI

-maybe ignore the vid and just listen? (Needless to say, I have just about
*all* their vinyl releases! :-)


Also 'His Name Is Alive' is OK in small doses and, again listened to rather
than watched:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7u3l...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx-A1...eature=related

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Keith G" wrote

Yep, but my own particular favourite 'different band' atm is Rachel's:

http://www.rachelsband.com/



Just found this demo track on the website:

http://www.rachelsband.com/sounds.html


Still not their best but gives a better indication than the Youtube vid -
you'll not be surprised if I say the download doesn't really do it justice
and that it's fabulous 'valves & vinyl' material...!! :-)

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Still not their best but gives a better indication than the Youtube vid
- you'll not be surprised if I say the download doesn't really do it
justice and that it's fabulous 'valves & vinyl' material...!! :-)

I'd hate to have to choose my music to suit my equipment. Or indeed the
other way round.

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Your reactions do make me regret I bothered to try and explain this to
you. As I feared would be likely, you haven't correctly read what I wrote.
So despite not really wanting to prolong this I'll try once more before
giving up...

If you then correctly understand my point, good. If not, then I'll leave it
alone. Have other more interesting things to do TBH.


I did hesitate to make the comments as I suspected you would simply
instantly reject them (as you seem to have done by labelling them
"ridiculous")


I am surprised you included yourself in the 'cringeing lurker'
descriptive

Since I didn't do what you assert, your surprise is understandable.

You need to read what I actually wrote, which was:



] On 25 Apr in uk.rec.audio, Jim Lesurf wrote:
] In article , Keith G
] wrote:


] Now kindly consider any future posts of mine directed to all the
] cringing lurkers here but, not to you - you are *excused*
] henceforth....


] FWIW Keith, I don't know if you regard me as a 'cringing lurker' or
] not...


The above line is quite clearly *not* me "including myself in the..."

It is saying I didn't know what your view on that was. Yet your new
comments make clear that you missed this point. To me the distinction is
quite clear.

[snip]

The next thing I found ridiculous was that you try to chide me

No. I wasn't chiding you. Again, you aren't carefully reading what I wrote
- this time in both my previous postings.

Finally, your allusion to my 'behaviour in threads like this' is as
though I have ever responded to you in a thread in the same manner -
which, unless I am greatly mistaken, I have *never* done? (Tell me
if/when I am wrong about this!!)

Again, problem as above. I carefully explained I didn't find what
you write offensive, etc.

Afraid your responses reinforce my feeling. You have read into what I
wrote things I actually neither wrote nor meant. This is one of the
reasons I've come to feel as I explained.


OK, my 2p on this has now run out. I'll let you get back to arguing
with others who are keen to do so... :-)


Is what I do - the bashers almost managed to clear everybody out of
here, but I like to swing in through the window and throw them around
the room from time to time to show 'em they ain't quite home and dry
yet....

:-)

Perhaps you should change your usenet name to 'Errol Flynn'. ;-


Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Frequency response of the ear
 

Keith G wrote:
"Keith G" wrote

Yep, but my own particular favourite 'different band' atm is
Rachel's: http://www.rachelsband.com/



Just found this demo track on the website:

http://www.rachelsband.com/sounds.html


Still not their best but gives a better indication than the Youtube
vid - you'll not be surprised if I say the download doesn't really do
it justice and that it's fabulous 'valves & vinyl' material...!! :-)


Sounds good on my ss multi-driver system as well :-)

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


No, you're missing the point - the job of a hifi system
is to try and convince you that 'you are there' (as *one*
here would once have had it) - ie create an illusion of
'reality'.

So far, so good.

On a really good system, the sound is to try
and recreate a realistic illusion of, say, a viola well
enough that you don't confuse it with the sound you would
expect to hear from a violin.

Straw man argument. An audio system has to be really bad to confuse a
knowlegable person that a violin is a viola and vice versa.

Not at all. The error of identity is made by the
listener, not by the system. As a a part of my recorded
arts training material I have a huge amount of recordingd made
to asses listener perception. Can you differentiate between
a cor Anglais and an oboe, or an alto and tenor saxophone
or an Eb and Bb clarinet, a trumpet/cornet/flugel horn,
playing in the same range, Arny?

I would put a pound to a penny that you cannot:-)


Iain

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion -
the time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds
like, that is. Try playing those back from vinyl...


What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

Rather better than multipath FM...


IS it that bad?.

Makes me wonder if you've ever listened to R4 on DAB. The pips are pretty
clean. Sine wave at that frequency isn't a problem even at the sadly low
kbps. But it very often is on FM - especially when reception isn't
perfect.

Did you ever get that odd problem with R4 sorted?..

Oh as usual it gets sorted when someone pulls their finger out.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Can you differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe, or an alto and
tenor saxophone or an Eb and Bb clarinet, a trumpet/cornet/flugel horn,
playing in the same range, Arny?

Can you, Iain?

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Can you differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe, or an alto and
tenor saxophone or an Eb and Bb clarinet, a trumpet/cornet/flugel horn,
playing in the same range, Arny?

Can you, Iain?

If you know how they sound and the source and gear are minimally decent,
it's quite easy.

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
We actually have a very easy way of checking for *gross* distortion -
the time pips on R4. Assuming you know what clean sine wave sounds
like, that is. Try playing those back from vinyl...


What do they sound like on low bitrate DAB 'tho;?...

Rather better than multipath FM...


IS it that bad?.

Makes me wonder if you've ever listened to R4 on DAB. The pips are pretty
clean. Sine wave at that frequency isn't a problem even at the sadly low
kbps. But it very often is on FM - especially when reception isn't
perfect.

I gave up with the DAB tuner quite somewhile ago and now use satellite
or FM feeds for "serious" listening. Some of the European sat stuff is
excellent especially France Musique and Bayern Klassik from Germany just
a pity that old auntie BBC would stop the old DAB dogma and up her rates
on satellite which is an excellent distribution medium for Fixed use.

We do have a DAB receiver which is a DTV and DAB one but its hardly ever
gets used, we find the TV on Sat that bit cleaner than DTV Freeview
FWIW..


Did you ever get that odd problem with R4 sorted?..

Oh as usual it gets sorted when someone pulls their finger out.

Which they don't seeming do of their own accord as they once did..


--
Tony Sayer

Frequency response of the ear
 

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

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Can you differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe, or an alto and
tenor saxophone or an Eb and Bb clarinet, a trumpet/cornet/flugel horn,
playing in the same range, Arny?

Can you, Iain?

The prof at the Tonmeister exam was satisfied that I could:-)

In a studio music environment one gets a great deal of practice,
and the chance to sit in front of orchestral instruments listening
carefully to their sound in each register. The clarinet passing
from chalumeau to clarino is a good place to start.

If you know how they sound and the source and gear are minimally decent,
it's quite easy.

It is important to ensure that the instruments being compared are
playing in common (overlapping) registers. For musicians with
a formal musical training used to listening to musical instruments
in a careful and analytical way it is, as Jenn says, not too difficult.

But wasn't it Arny who posted a snip of a synthesised or sampled
French horn and claimed it was the real thing? Hence my odds of
a pound to a penny against his being able to differentiate in say
eight out of ten real examples, between the cor Anglais and the oboe.

Iain

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Your reactions do make me regret I bothered to try and explain this to
you.


In which case let's end this now - it's getting too silly.

As one of the few regular posters here, you were not and are not included in
my 'cringeing lurker' descriptive - OK?

Frequency response of the ear
 

" "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Can you, Iain?



The prof at the Tonmeister exam was satisfied that I could:-)


Yet another monotonous *Iain shreds Poochie with consummate ease again*
post....

Ho hum....

LOL!

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Makes me wonder if you've ever listened to R4 on DAB. The pips are
pretty clean. Sine wave at that frequency isn't a problem even at the
sadly low kbps. But it very often is on FM - especially when reception
isn't perfect.

I gave up with the DAB tuner quite somewhile ago and now use satellite
or FM feeds for "serious" listening. Some of the European sat stuff is
excellent especially France Musique and Bayern Klassik from Germany just
a pity that old auntie BBC would stop the old DAB dogma and up her rates
on satellite which is an excellent distribution medium for Fixed use.

I mainly listen to R4 when doing things around the house, and already have
a choice of FM, DAB and FreeView audio on the distribution system. Don't
think I could be arsed adding satellite - although I could do from the
main system.

We do have a DAB receiver which is a DTV and DAB one but its hardly ever
gets used, we find the TV on Sat that bit cleaner than DTV Freeview
FWIW..

I've got an HD satellite box which also has a FreeView tuner (can upscale
both to HD parameters) - and can't say I've noticed any real differences
between the SD stuff on either. But then I may not watch the same channels
as you.

Did you ever get that odd problem with R4 sorted?..

Oh as usual it gets sorted when someone pulls their finger out.

Which they don't seeming do of their own accord as they once did..

Indeed. Seems to be a fact of life these days.


--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

" "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Can you, Iain?



The prof at the Tonmeister exam was satisfied that I could:-)


Yet another monotonous *Iain shreds Poochie with consummate ease again*
post....

If it can be done it's a statement of arrogance to assume others can't.

Ho hum....

LOL!

Thought only the lowest form of pond life used 'LOL' on Usenet...

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

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



LOL!

Thought only the lowest form of pond life used 'LOL' on Usenet...


Maybe...

Heard the news today, Plowie?

Unless, I've got it wrong, we can relax because the Home Office (aka the
Squirrel Farm) isn't going to monitor our every phone call and email, after
all....

.....instead, they are going to outsource it to the private sector....

......(no doubt because the Civil Service is too busy totting up their
pensions on a daily basis and couldn't, in any case, find their own arses
with both hands)....

.....who, driven by the overwhelming need for maximisation of profit, will
employ the cheapest possible labour available.....

.....which means we will soon be monitored by foreigners (immigrants) in our
own homeland.....

Frequency response of the ear
 

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

" "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Can you, Iain?



The prof at the Tonmeister exam was satisfied that I could:-)


Yet another monotonous *Iain shreds Poochie with consummate ease again*
post....

If it can be done it's a statement of arrogance to assume others can't.

Of course they can:-) Many have been trained to do so,
as a part of a specialised curriculum. Have you tried?

My neighbour is a specialist in cranial surgery - it would be
presumptious of me (or you too for that matter, Dave) to
assume that either of us can perform the same feats as he.


Iain

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

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

" "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Can you, Iain?



The prof at the Tonmeister exam was satisfied that I could:-)


Yet another monotonous *Iain shreds Poochie with consummate ease again*
post....

If it can be done it's a statement of arrogance to assume others can't.

Of course they can:-) Many have been trained to do so,
as a part of a specialised curriculum. Have you tried?

My neighbour is a specialist in cranial surgery - it would be
presumptious of me (or you too for that matter, Dave) to
assume that either of us can perform the same feats as he.


My experience of life is that there is usually a gap between what people
think they can do and what they actually can do - especially when it comes
to anything to do with the senses, which I believe are easily fooled.

I've had a lot of fun in the recent past with stuff like turning speakers
back to front while the listener was listening blindfolded, fading sources
playing the same thing, fading speaker/amplifier pairs on a shared source
&c. - I didn't keep records or compile stats, but I'd say as a rule of thumb
more than 90% of people have no idea after even only a short while when
making direct AB comparisons and that such comparisons are a waste of time
for anything other than night and day differences.

If/when I have to choose between two bits of kit I just use them both, swap
them in and out over a period of time and see which wins. As to *untrained*
people being able to spot the difference in the musical instruments you
mention in the manner you describe, my money would be on very few (if any)
people outside the music or recording professions being able to do it.....

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

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

" "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Can you, Iain?



The prof at the Tonmeister exam was satisfied that I could:-)


Yet another monotonous *Iain shreds Poochie with consummate ease
again* post....

If it can be done it's a statement of arrogance to assume others can't.

Of course they can:-) Many have been trained to do so, as a part of a
specialised curriculum. Have you tried?

You should be asking Arny that since you directed the comment at him.

My neighbour is a specialist in cranial surgery - it would be
presumptious of me (or you too for that matter, Dave) to
assume that either of us can perform the same feats as he.

More arrogance. But sadly typical of Tonmeisters.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
My experience of life is that there is usually a gap between what people
think they can do and what they actually can do - especially when it
comes to anything to do with the senses, which I believe are easily
fooled.

Right. Back to your milkman again.

I've had a lot of fun in the recent past with stuff like turning
speakers back to front while the listener was listening blindfolded,
fading sources playing the same thing, fading speaker/amplifier pairs
on a shared source &c. - I didn't keep records or compile stats, but
I'd say as a rule of thumb more than 90% of people have no idea after
even only a short while when making direct AB comparisons and that such
comparisons are a waste of time for anything other than night and day
differences.

You've already said that listening to your music in another room from your
speakers sounds just fine to you.

If/when I have to choose between two bits of kit I just use them both,
swap them in and out over a period of time and see which wins. As to
*untrained* people being able to spot the difference in the musical
instruments you mention in the manner you describe, my money would be
on very few (if any) people outside the music or recording professions
being able to do it.....

Being able to identify instruments (or whatever) in a mix is one of the
most basic requirements of sound mixing. You have to know which fader
requires a waggle.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Keith G" wrote


My experience of life is that there is usually a gap between what people
think they can do and what they actually can do - especially when it comes
to anything to do with the senses, which I believe are easily fooled.


http://www.businessballs.com/images/...ing_puzzle.jpg

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
My experience of life is that there is usually a gap between what people
think they can do and what they actually can do - especially when it
comes to anything to do with the senses, which I believe are easily
fooled.

Right. Back to your milkman again.



Sorry Poochie, I'm not playing - you start it (always) and *I* get the
chidey finger-wagging!

**** that....