Petition to stop FM being switched off

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:43:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

You only have to look at Usenet to see that! ;-)

Too true!
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:42:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:56:58 -0500, anahata
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:16:08 +0100, Mark wrote:

It's still an area where information is lost.
Lost in the noise...
It's time that fallacy was debunked, yet again...
So you deny the existence of quantisation noise?

No, we dont, but we deny that it has to necessarily be significant with
respect to natures own quantzation noise.

That's not what I am saying. Even if you cannot hear the difference,
information is still *lost*. If you had an infinite bandwidth you
could reduce quantization noise to zero but we don't.

well we cant hear ultrasonics either.

What you dont seem to appreciate is that even analogue electronics are
in fact 'digital'

An alternating current is formed from a stream of discrete quantum
electrons.

Even before the microphone, the alternating audio signals are discrete
molecules of air bouncing against your eardrums.

There is no perfection in nature.

Why pretend there is anywhere else?

Arguably a CD is pretty close to the limits of quantization noise of the
original signal.

You need to do a lot of close miking to get better, and arguably that in
itself is an artificial way to record compared with a pair of crossed
mikes..

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
[]
As an engineer, all I can say is that double blind tests merely ensure
that what gets picked is the equipment most like what the audience 'has
at home' and has got used to.

(-:

It took me over a year listening to various parts of what I was working
on to finally understand what all the various imperfections did, and
learn to like real quality. At first it simply sounded as it it was
lacking in character. I eventually realised that that was indeed the
whole point. I couldn't hear the electronics, I had instead to listen
to the material ;-)

I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.

Oh, and the things that are easy to measure, like frequency response,
step response stereo separation and harmonic distortion, are the things
that make the least difference. Its intermodulation distortion that
muddies up complex sounds, but without a spectrum analyser that's a
hard thing to measure.

Indeed, though such instruments for audio bandwidths, especially as PC
cards, are a lot cheaper than they were, and of course CDs are a good
source of test tones (I have one with several pairs of tones for
measuring HID). If you have a good CD player of course!



--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Now, don't worry. We'll be right behind you. Hiding. (First series, fit the
sixth.)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , jasee
writes:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:


Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
results as well.

If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
a difference.

sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is subjective.
Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double
blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the
right way.

I think you're pursuing different lines of argument. I think DwF is in
effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that
cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques. I
tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried away,
with terms like "musicality", and are easily mocked, often justifiably).
What you (jasee) are saying is that double-blind tests are among the best
ways - and I'd certainly agree with that, but these are double-blind
_subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd certainly agree that
the technical data should be presented too.)

A double blind test is a double blind test, whatever it is attempting to
measure!

From the scientific point of view, you can test for anything and the results
should show whether 'it' exists of not. And it doesn't matter if the human
test subjects _are_ the sort of people who actually pay thousands of pounds
on interconnections or dogged 'traditionalists'.

I think you're confusing the issue by mentioning subjectivity in connection
with double blind tests: its simply not in it. Thats the point, subjectivity
is ruled out. There has to be an objective difference for a postive result
to show in a double blind test. If some aspect of musicality (or whatever)
can be reliably observed in double blind tests, then it exists! There's no
subjectivity about it. Of course it's always useful if you can back it up
with some comparative technical data.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
There is no perfection in nature.

You obviously haven't seen my body.

Bill

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.

I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the
earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like
loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they
really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically
generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.

I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the
earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like
loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they
really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically
generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.

I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in certain
organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't see what the
fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I bought becoming so
noisy that I sent it back.

In article ,
jasee wrote:
I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in
certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't
see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I
bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.

You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven with
Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad transistor amp was
the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was changed for a better one
shortly after introduction.

The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching a
cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best in a long
room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course it only went down
to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances
made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker.

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

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

Bill Wright wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
There is no perfection in nature.

You obviously haven't seen my body.

Shudder. Fortunately I have not.

Some things are better left a mystery.

jasee wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the
earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like
loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they
really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically
generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.

I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad
electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in certain
organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't see what the
fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I bought becoming so
noisy that I sent it back.


Early quad transistor amps were crap really. I had one on the bench..