On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you signed
up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?

44.1/48k 16-bit is fine for playback. Recording and processing at
higher bit rates or word lengths is sensible. It provides, for
example, extra headroom for live recordings. Information can all too
easily be lost, and once lost it can never be reliably recovered.
(That's entropy, man!)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you
signed up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?

Well that's wrong for a start because he didn't.

I've given up trying to explain such things to Keith because - as he has
stated - he wants an argument to 'win', and to be center-stage, not to
learn about what he doesn't understand.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Chris
Isbell wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom
you signed up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human
hearing?

Well that's wrong for a start because he didn't.

I've given up trying to explain such things to Keith because - as he
has stated - he wants an argument to 'win', and to be center-stage,
not to learn about what he doesn't understand.

I was referring to the above statement being attributed to Keith, who
did not write the above question, I did.

Sorry, didn't notice that you were responding to your own question! Lost
track of the quote indents! :-)

I've now commented elsewhere wrt my reasons for wanting a recorder like the
Tascam. Its partly for convenience - being able to make long recordings,
etc. e.g. being able to make them from something like a DTTV receiver at
48k with no resampling to 44k. Partly for a range of test/ experiment/
investigation purposes.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you
signed up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human
hearing?

Well that's wrong for a start because he didn't.

I've given up trying to explain such things to Keith because - as he has
stated - he wants an argument to 'win', and to be center-stage, not to
learn about what he doesn't understand.

I was referring to the above statement being attributed to Keith, who did
not write the above question, I did.


Bob, I seem to be replying only to you!

Mr Lesurf has got the ****s with me because he finally (after a great deal
of patience on *my part*) caught on to the fact that I didn't need his
tediously long and involved (and usually three days late) explanations of
various points which he deemed had skated past me.

Starting with Anthropology and ending with Zoology there are *thousands* of
topics I don't need *in depth* in - electronics is just one of them. I ask
when I need to know; I'm at least 40 years too old to be lectured in what I
don't....

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

Bob, I seem to be replying only to you!

Mr Lesurf has got the ****s with me because he finally (after a great
deal of patience on *my part*) caught on to the fact that I didn't need
his tediously long and involved (and usually three days late)
explanations of various points which he deemed had skated past me.

Come on Keith stop winding people up. :-)




Bob, if I am winding people up it'll almost always involve valves and/or
vinyl - the two *audio* topics the 'techno****s' tries to stamp out of
existence in this group some time ago.


Jim is a learned guy and we're lucky he spends the time to give us the
theoretical run down on things. That doesn't mean you have to concede to
every point Jim makes but does mean you need to have a good counter
argument which is a good thing. If he writes an article for you, the least
you can do is read it, we all have more to learn.


Bob, don't know where you were at the time but occasionally JL's posts only
got responses after I had replied to him and got the ball rolling. (If he
has any honesty at all he will remember that.) The problem (and personal
cost) for me was that it would only expose my further ignorance of topics
that I wasn't really interested in and, of course, opened the gates for a
further round of lectures and chidey finger-wagging.

I'm afraid (oops) I simply got fed up with trying to politely sidestep the
various *tedious/unending* issues that were, frankly, boring my wris****ch
to a standstill.

Then we've got this ludicrous 'wining debates' business....

Count me out, Bob - I know what a self-publicising egoist looks like when I
see one; he can feed on his current popularity (while it lasts) without
interference from me!

Further: I don't really trust 'ex-spurts' Bob - I've seen too many ****-ups
perpetrated by them in my lifetime. There is nothing in *audio* today which
wasn't hammered nice and flat by the Japanese in the 70s and of course they
are leading the way again with 'HD' today - the rest is just people
desperately trying to create an *earning niche* by being a bit different....

(Ask Baron Tim de Paravicini - or just plain 'Paravicini' as I knew him at
school...!! ;-)

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Bob, if I am winding people up it'll almost always involve valves and/or
vinyl - the two *audio* topics the 'techno****s' tries to stamp out of
existence in this group some time ago.

Paranoia showing again?

I've been around here far longer than you and don't remember anyone trying
to exclude any debate on any audio matters. Except you. Who prefers to
shout down anyone who disagrees with your narrow views.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Bob, if I am winding people up it'll almost always involve valves and/or
vinyl - the two *audio* topics the 'techno****s' tries to stamp out of
existence in this group some time ago.

Paranoia showing again?

I've been around here far longer than you


Longer yes, 'far longer' I don't know - explains your *proprietary*
attitudes and pathetic attempts to *police* this open forum though!!

LOL!!



and don't remember anyone trying
to exclude any debate on any audio matters.


No, of course you don't - how about your *handler's* interminable phrase
'broken amps' every time triodes were mentioned, just for starters..??


Except you. Who prefers to
shout down anyone who disagrees with your narrow views.



You're a *liar* Pucci****** - I know it and, far worse, I suspect you know
it also....




I g
--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *



Which is a pity, otherwise I'd happily pay the taxi fare to take the **** to
Heathrow...!! :-)



Dave Plowman


******.


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


Spam.

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Paranoia showing again?

I've been around here far longer than you


Longer yes, 'far longer' I don't know - explains your *proprietary*
attitudes and pathetic attempts to *police* this open forum though!!

LOL!!

Are you laughing at your own ridiculous statement? You're the one
constantly telling people what they can and can't do. I've merely pointed
out to you that there are more suitable groups for your posts which are OT
here. But since you think you *own* this group I didn't expect you to take
any notice. I can only assume you've been ridiculed in those groups even
more than here.



and don't remember anyone trying
to exclude any debate on any audio matters.


No, of course you don't - how about your *handler's* interminable phrase
'broken amps' every time triodes were mentioned, just for starters..??

Handler? Don't know what you mean Kitty. But like I said anyone who
doesn't touch their forelock and agree with your weird views gets
subjected to abuse.


Except you. Who prefers to
shout down anyone who disagrees with your narrow views.



You're a *liar* Pucci****** - I know it and, far worse, I suspect you
know it also....

You really want me to trawl through Google for examples, Kitty? But I
wouldn't waste my time on someone with no worth.

--
*What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?

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

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:


These days I often find myself hearing something I can't explain asking
myself what would Jim say about this. Yes, he's had an effect on me no
mistake.

Hopefully beneficial... or at least not too painful. :-)

Yes, 'trust your ears' when it comes to deciding if you prefer one result
to anorher, or that one thing sounded different to another. But engage your
brain and be prepared to question what may seem like the 'reason' if you
then want to understand why you perceived what you did - or how to
interepret that individual result as a possible guide for other decisions.

Still sure he's wrong about MMGW though as the recent
leaked/stolen emails would seem to reveal. :-)

ahem Now who's winding?... :-)

TBH the main 'opinion' I have on MMGW is that people should read and
understand the science as indicated by the IPCC reports, papers, etc. And
to not be distracted by the 'cherry picking' and other debating tricks
employed by others who start from wanting to believe it can't be true. So
far as I can see, the mass, diversity, and detail of the evidence shows the
reality quite clearly for those who can be bothered to read it, understand
the science involved, etc, rather that take what suits them from the
general media or the net.

WRT your last point. That is quite a good example of how those who wish to
attack the science instead adopt "go for the man not the ball" debating
tactics. If you want some idea why, I'd suggest you use the iPlayer and
listen to the first part of last week's 'Material World' science programme
on BBC Radio 4.

Note also that professionals/academics often have their own ways to talk
about things they are familiar with. So, for example, I've often described
the use of the FFT as a 'trick' that lets us get a given result. That does
not mean 'trick' as in a magician trying to fool others or hide something.
But means a neat way of doing something. Hence the recent 'exposure' (by
stealing and publishing someone elses correspondence out of context) isn't
necesarily saying what the media and others might lead you to think.

Bear in mind the behaviour of the media - as per the 'Today' programme -
where the 'interviewer' keeps interrupting to say what *they* have decided
the person being questioned "really means". In effect, dictating their own
answers and interpretations to the 'questions' they posed.

However since this isn't the correct group for discussing this, I'll not
comment further beyond pointing out that another habit of those who want to
dismiss the scientific evidence, etc, is to post contrary comments out of
context in forums (like this one) where they can expect a low chance that
anyone reading will have a background as an academic scientist who studies
the topic.

I don't expect people to accept my own views on any of the above (audio or
MMGW) just because I've given them. What I do hope, though, is that they
can be bothered to learn and understand, and then be able to base their own
views on a reliable understanding of the relevant evidence and how that can
support one view, or show others don't stand up to critical thought. Engage
brain before moving. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Come on Jim be fair. They were fighting tooth and nail to not publish
figures because they don't match the new religious polemic.

That is certainly what some people *claim* as the *reason*. But as per
comments about reading evidence, putting things into context, etc, don't
simply assume that what you are told about *someone else's intent* is
correct. Particularly when you are only given the cherry picked info
out of context and don't understand either the science or the rest
of the situation you don't know about.


It doesn't have any magic trick or in-house tech speak, its just
dishonest.

Now you are moving on to making potentially actionable statements about the
*intent* of someone you've probably never met, based on *assertions* from
those who have adopted a "go for the man not the ball" method.

If your concern is with what is 'dishonest' you might be better to reflect
on the behaviour of those who obtained and published the material without
consent, out of context, and then provide their own 'intepretations' as
being the actual ideas they seek to attribute.


None of which means they are wrong as such, just that the
cognizant should not take their work as gospel.

Ditto for the claims and 'intepretations' of others who present things out
of context and without the actual evidence. And without you knowing the
science.

BTW Had you listened to the R4 programme I mentioned *before* making the
above assertions? I suspect not from what you wrote above.


Given what you've said in the past about your understanding of the science
of audio (which is trivial in comparison) you may need to take care
here when - as above - your present your personal opinions as 'fact'.

Particularly if you are defaming someone you don't know in the
process on the basis of not understanding the science or how the
people actually behaved *in context*. And making such statements about
someone who is not here to read and respond to your personal
attacks on him. Think carefully about using the word 'dishonest'
if you wish to behave in this manner.

And we really should not be discussing this here. If you want to
tell the person who's emails were published that he is dishonest
then I'd suggest you write directly to him and say so. I doubt
anyone here knows him, or has the full info to comment on your
hearsay-based assertions. Given your assertion he can then decide
how to respond to you.

FWIW I am not a climate scientist or an 'expert' of any kind on
that topic. Nor do I know the people involved in the emails in
question. But I do know how academic scientists behave, and have
done a few things like listened to the above programme. And
in the past looked at this topic from outside on a number of
occasions. On that basis your comments above seem to me to be
ones that are at best unwise, and at worse, ones you would come
to regret.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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