On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 21:34:07 -0800, "CW" wrote:



"Art Shapiro" wrote in message ...

On 2/3/2012 10:27 PM, Steve Barker wrote:


i can only say i hope you're kidding, and i hope the page i pulled up is
some kind of hacker joke. 2500samolians for TEN feet of cable?? LMAO!!
What a racket.

Steve, folks who see the price of some upper end power tools might well
feel the same way. Gee, even some bleedin' HAND tools can drop
someone's jaw who thinks Craftsman is the best there is.

I'm not a wealthy individual by any stretch of the imagination, but am
willing to expend some of my disposable income on good audio. If you
think the $2500 for 10 feet is reprehensible, you probably would retch
at what I'm using now. But it is a good match for the system.
================================================= ============
I'd be embarrassed to admit that I paid that much for wire.

Even "oxygen free" wire? ;-)

"Stuart" wrote in message ...


Aye, who was it said said "Two nations separated by a common language"?

Mind you, my spelling isn't always that good anyway, especially when I'm
feeling annoyed. It should be "knot" round here too and for that I must
eat humble pie.

Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

Is that pronounced, "umble"? ;-)

Max

Swingman wrote:

Your ignorance is showing. Key words: harmonics and timbre ... Use them to
learn something.

Gad! Someone finally mentioned "timber" in this thread. ;-)

Max

"Leon" wrote

And the dust collectors are not really an annoying noise, typically
quieter than any of the machines that they are hooked up to.

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

Max

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:13:35 -0700, "Max" wrote:



"Stuart" wrote in message ...


Aye, who was it said said "Two nations separated by a common language"?

Mind you, my spelling isn't always that good anyway, especially when I'm
feeling annoyed. It should be "knot" round here too and for that I must
eat humble pie.

Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

Is that pronounced, "umble"? ;-)

Give that man 30 Days In The Hole!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdXjm8pZMws

--
Energy and persistence alter all things.
--Benjamin Franklin

On 2/5/2012 10:58 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:27:18 -0600, wrote:

z wrote:

It is well known that _third order harmonics_, well above "human
audible" frequencies, do color the sound within the human audible
frequencies.

It may be "well known" but it isn't true.

Cite

*YOU* are making the claim.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm


Your ignorance is showing. Key words: harmonics and timbre ... Use them to
learn something.

Utter audiophoolisms. Look up "Fourier Transform" and "Nyquist limit".

... that is, we could before the Nyquist frequency limits of digital
sampling rates robbed us of anything above half the sampling frequency.

You can't be robbed of something that never existed.

Your ignorance is either more profound than your above statements suggest,
are you're simply trolling.

You've listened to too many audiophools.

Record any music containing an instrument(s) with harmonic content above
22050Hz onto a CD and anything above that frequency will be lost.

Wrong (worse than that). The world is not perfect but it doesn't matter. You
can't hear it.

Keyword, Nyquist ... Inform yourself before you spout off.

You're the one who needs to UNDERSTAND Nyquist. I deal with it every day.

Confirms my previous statement ... you're trolling, right?

You really don't believe that ... hell, it's so totally dead wrong that
you can't possibly believe it with a straight face?

What you just clearly stated is that there is no cutoff in frequency
response, above 22050Hz, on the 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate of Redbook
Audio CD??

And you supposedly "deal with Nyquist every day"??

I hope it's not with your day job, Bubba ... because if they're paying
you all they're getting in return is unmitigated ignorance.

Here, learn something before they find out:

http://slack.net/~ant/bl-synth/3.nyquist.html

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/5/2012 11:19 AM, Max wrote:


"Leon" wrote
And the dust collectors are not really an annoying noise, typically
quieter than any of the machines that they are hooked up to.

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

Max


i have found most things in the industrial world that don't make much
noise aren't doing much work. i think this especially applies to
vacuums and blowers.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:19:30 -0700, "Max" wrote:



"Leon" wrote

And the dust collectors are not really an annoying noise, typically
quieter than any of the machines that they are hooked up to.

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

What are you running, Max? Or did you just get some clothespins and
playing cards set up in the intake to stroke the impeller for that
sound effect?

My Griz 1029 is a quiet, strong sucker; a real sweetheart.

--
Energy and persistence alter all things.
--Benjamin Franklin

On 2/5/2012 11:45 AM, Swingman wrote:

On 2/5/2012 10:58 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Record any music containing an instrument(s) with harmonic content above
22050Hz onto a CD and anything above that frequency will be lost.

Wrong (worse than that). The world is not perfect but it doesn't
matter. You
can't hear it.

Absolutely amazing exchange ... unbelievable really, that someone could
actually reply in that manner and believe it!

If you're unfortunate enough to have been raised in the age of digital
music, with the attendant noise, and decrease in dynamic range and
frequency response of Redbook Audio, and the advent of the mp3, and you
wish to get involved in music reproduction, it is the path of least
resistance, and in your best interest, to ignore anything but the status
quo.

After all, digital equipment is cheaper, much easier to maintain,
requires little or no knowledge and/or basic understanding of underlying
audio principles to use, and, despite the fact that almost everyone who
has been exposed to the difference between digital and analog recording
will agree that analog "sounds better"; those using digital as a
preference continue to demand an increase in bit rates and sampling
frequency (because of the inherent "Nyquist Limit" in digital sampling)
to 24/96kHz to decrease noise, and increase both dynamic range and
frequency response; because, when doing so, it suddenly begins to
approach the fidelity of musical content recorded on analog equipment
.... and, lo and behold, it "sounds better".

and you gotta laugh at the ridiculousness of folks railing against the
concept that HFC (high frequency content) colors the sound of music
within the human audible range, while immediately using psycho-acoustic
properties like "masking", which relies upon HFC to work, as proof that
it doesn't ... you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Audio today is much like the debate over climate change, with proponents
from each camp railing against each other with a religious fervor. Mp3's
now basically rule in the digital music world ... if you don't think
that not a move in in the direction of mediocrity in the recording
world, then there is no help for you.

Then there is another more disturbing and profound reason:

It's truly sad that when you've ruined your hearing, like manyt folks
who have spent their formative years within the last 30, it is no damned
wonder that, because you can't hear it, you continue to loudly
proclaim/insist that no one else can.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20013937-47.html

http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/d...s/children.htm

As we continue to slide into mediocrity in all things ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
LOL. We now have another new audio engineering term ... "funnies"?

Don't look now, but you just clearly stated that your "funnies" at
higher frequencies", do indeed have an effect "within the audio band".

Yes.

Markem can surely give a better explanation than I but primarily
mechanical resonances. Obviously these need to be controlled in-band but
my understanding is that out of band resonances can have an effect in-band
too.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
Use it once and it might be a misspelling ... use it three times, as you
did, and it is out of the realm of misspelling and indeed into the realm
of "poor education".

Misspell it once, see it quoted back and repeat the same error.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

On 2/5/2012 12:12 PM, Stuart wrote:
In article2OadnWEImYGsO7PSnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
LOL. We now have another new audio engineering term ... "funnies"?

Don't look now, but you just clearly stated that your "funnies" at
higher frequencies", do indeed have an effect "within the audio band".

Yes.

Markem can surely give a better explanation than I but primarily
mechanical resonances. Obviously these need to be controlled in-band but
my understanding is that out of band resonances can have an effect in-band
too.

No need to explain ... I'm familiar with the process and agree (that is,
if our different terminology is not "masking" my understanding of your
point).


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/5/2012 12:13 PM, Stuart wrote:
In articleKZudnbVkT44AObPSnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
Use it once and it might be a misspelling ... use it three times, as you
did, and it is out of the realm of misspelling and indeed into the realm
of "poor education".

Misspell it once, see it quoted back and repeat the same error.

BTDT ... two many times.

that's a pun ... just in case)


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:45:57 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/5/2012 10:58 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:27:18 -0600, wrote:

z wrote:

It is well known that _third order harmonics_, well above "human
audible" frequencies, do color the sound within the human audible
frequencies.

It may be "well known" but it isn't true.

Cite

*YOU* are making the claim.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm


Your ignorance is showing. Key words: harmonics and timbre ... Use them to
learn something.

Utter audiophoolisms. Look up "Fourier Transform" and "Nyquist limit".

... that is, we could before the Nyquist frequency limits of digital
sampling rates robbed us of anything above half the sampling frequency.

You can't be robbed of something that never existed.

Your ignorance is either more profound than your above statements suggest,
are you're simply trolling.

You've listened to too many audiophools.

Record any music containing an instrument(s) with harmonic content above
22050Hz onto a CD and anything above that frequency will be lost.

Wrong (worse than that). The world is not perfect but it doesn't matter. You
can't hear it.

Keyword, Nyquist ... Inform yourself before you spout off.

You're the one who needs to UNDERSTAND Nyquist. I deal with it every day.

Confirms my previous statement ... you're trolling, right?

Certainly not.

You really don't believe that ... hell, it's so totally dead wrong that
you can't possibly believe it with a straight face?

Nope. It's you who doesn't understand what he's saying.

What you just clearly stated is that there is no cutoff in frequency
response, above 22050Hz, on the 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate of Redbook
Audio CD??

That's not what I said. Since you conveniently snipped it, I can only assume
you're intentionally obfuscating what was said (read: lying).

And you supposedly "deal with Nyquist every day"??

Every day. I'm an electronics engineer, currently working in the audio
industry, after 30+ years in computers.

I hope it's not with your day job, Bubba ... because if they're paying
you all they're getting in return is unmitigated ignorance.

You're doing a good enough job of that here. Stick to cabinets. You're
really good at that.

Here, learn something before they find out:

http://slack.net/~ant/bl-synth/3.nyquist.html

Completely irrelevant.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:07:26 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/5/2012 11:45 AM, Swingman wrote:

On 2/5/2012 10:58 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Record any music containing an instrument(s) with harmonic content above
22050Hz onto a CD and anything above that frequency will be lost.

Wrong (worse than that). The world is not perfect but it doesn't
matter. You
can't hear it.

Absolutely amazing exchange ... unbelievable really, that someone could
actually reply in that manner and believe it!

You're, of course, completely wrong.

If you're unfortunate enough to have been raised in the age of digital
music, with the attendant noise, and decrease in dynamic range and
frequency response of Redbook Audio, and the advent of the mp3, and you
wish to get involved in music reproduction, it is the path of least
resistance, and in your best interest, to ignore anything but the status
quo.

"Digital Music" (I assume you mean digitized music) is crap because that's the
way it's recorded; compressed to hell and overly separated. Not because the
format is poor (at least for the last 20 years).

After all, digital equipment is cheaper, much easier to maintain,
requires little or no knowledge and/or basic understanding of underlying
audio principles to use, and, despite the fact that almost everyone who
has been exposed to the difference between digital and analog recording
will agree that analog "sounds better"; those using digital as a
preference continue to demand an increase in bit rates and sampling
frequency (because of the inherent "Nyquist Limit" in digital sampling)
to 24/96kHz to decrease noise, and increase both dynamic range and
frequency response; because, when doing so, it suddenly begins to
approach the fidelity of musical content recorded on analog equipment
... and, lo and behold, it "sounds better".


....easier, so the hucksters had to move onto something else to sucker the
audiophools. Monster cable. giggle

and you gotta laugh at the ridiculousness of folks railing against the
concept that HFC (high frequency content) colors the sound of music
within the human audible range, while immediately using psycho-acoustic
properties like "masking", which relies upon HFC to work, as proof that
it doesn't ... you can't have your cake and eat it too.

When you use words like "colors" you merely show your audiophoolism. Physics
isn't with you.

Audio today is much like the debate over climate change, with proponents
from each camp railing against each other with a religious fervor. Mp3's
now basically rule in the digital music world ... if you don't think
that not a move in in the direction of mediocrity in the recording
world, then there is no help for you.

Good analogy. AGWers are much like the hucksters selling expensive crap to
audiophools.

Then there is another more disturbing and profound reason:

It's truly sad that when you've ruined your hearing, like manyt folks
who have spent their formative years within the last 30, it is no damned
wonder that, because you can't hear it, you continue to loudly
proclaim/insist that no one else can.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20013937-47.html

http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/d...s/children.htm

Sure, blame me for physics.

As we continue to slide into mediocrity in all things ...

That we can agree on. Physics being a prime area.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:46:43 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 11:19 AM, Max wrote:


"Leon" wrote
And the dust collectors are not really an annoying noise, typically
quieter than any of the machines that they are hooked up to.

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

Max


i have found most things in the industrial world that don't make much
noise aren't doing much work. i think this especially applies to
vacuums and blowers.

Not true. There are a lot of things that can be done to mitigate noise. Do
you buy the loudest car because it goes faster? The quietest because it gets
better gas mileage?

On 2/5/2012 12:21 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Every day. I'm an electronics engineer, currently working in the audio
industry, after 30+ years in computers.

IOW, with no experience whatsoever in making a living in the recording
industry while both owning and operating a successful recording studio.

Get back to me after you've spent 20+ years doing that.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:39:42 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/5/2012 12:21 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Every day. I'm an electronics engineer, currently working in the audio
industry, after 30+ years in computers.

IOW, with no experience whatsoever in making a living in the recording
industry while both owning and operating a successful recording studio.

You've obviously never studied the science behind Nyquist or Fourier.

Get back to me after you've spent 20+ years doing that.

You can spout audiophoolery all you want, but it's just that.

On 2/5/2012 11:46 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/5/2012 11:19 AM, Max wrote:


"Leon" wrote
And the dust collectors are not really an annoying noise, typically
quieter than any of the machines that they are hooked up to.

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

Max


i have found most things in the industrial world that don't make much
noise aren't doing much work. i think this especially applies to vacuums
and blowers.


In this case, 1100 CFM Jet DC and or a Festool Dust extractor you
thinking would be very wrong.

On 2/5/2012 12:54 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:39:42 -0600, wrote:

On 2/5/2012 12:21 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Every day. I'm an electronics engineer, currently working in the audio
industry, after 30+ years in computers.

IOW, with no experience whatsoever in making a living in the recording
industry while both owning and operating a successful recording studio.

You've obviously never studied the science behind Nyquist or Fourier.

You obviously have no clue as to the effects of Nyquist on the
_frequency response_ of the resultant digital recording.

Get back to me after you've spent 20+ years doing that.

You can spout audiophoolery all you want, but it's just that.

LOL ... another newly coined audio term, and derogatory at that, from
those grasping at straws to cover up their ignorance?

You know you've made your point successfully when the derogatory
terminology starts flying in lieu of reasoned response.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/5/2012 12:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:46:43 -0600, Steve
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 11:19 AM, Max wrote:


"Leon" wrote
And the dust collectors are not really an annoying noise, typically
quieter than any of the machines that they are hooked up to.

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

Max


i have found most things in the industrial world that don't make much
noise aren't doing much work. i think this especially applies to
vacuums and blowers.

Not true. There are a lot of things that can be done to mitigate noise. Do
you buy the loudest car because it goes faster? The quietest because it gets
better gas mileage?

no, but since you brought it up, the fastest ones do make the most noise.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
Anytime you're ready to compare the number of music recordings you have
to your credit as a _recording engineer_, that are being downloaded from
iTunes, and being streamed by Spotify and Rhapsody to millions around
the world as we speak, among others, let me know.

That would depend entirely on the copyright holders - I'm just the erk
doing the recording. Almost all were "private" recordings for
clubs/societies etc.

Now they seem to think that something like the Zoom audio recorder is all
they need and they do their own.

Sometimes people wanted a recording of their wedding, these days they want
a video. Even when vicars prohibit video during the service many churches
these days do their own audio. My own church now has a CD recorder as part
of the sound system and the person on the sound desk operates it.

CCTV too with large screens and a remotely operated camera, high up, that
can see most of the church so people at the back can see easily what's
happening at the front.

It's a good job I was doing it as an amateur and not trying to make a
living from it otherwise I'd now be another statistic on the register of
the unemployed

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
BTDT ... two many times.

that's a pun ... just in case)

Yes I spotted it g

Oh, and writing stuff at near midnight after a particularly tiring day
doesn't help - if that's an acceptable excuse/reason

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

On 2/5/2012 2:37 PM, Stuart wrote:
In articleIpudndWx3vqAVbPSnZ2dnUVZ_vYAAAAA@giganews. com,
wrote:
BTDT ... two many times.

that's a pun ... just in case)

Yes I spotted itg

Oh, and writing stuff at near midnight after a particularly tiring day
doesn't help - if that's an acceptable excuse/reason


Understand, and it is ... I noticed the time difference. FWIW, I hereby
apologize to you for any snarkiness on my part. I was in the same boat
myself.


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Larry Jaques" wrote

, "Max" wrote:

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

What are you running, Max? Or did you just get some clothespins and
playing cards set up in the intake to stroke the impeller for that
sound effect?

My Griz 1029 is a quiet, strong sucker; a real sweetheart.


http://tinyurl.com/84jz8yz
My Oneida really sucks but it doesn't do it quietly.

Max, using ear protection

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:19:01 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
One odd exception however is my dust collector and my stationary planer.
Neither are bad by them selves just running and not working but both
together seems to triple the noise at the planer.

Probably sympathetic sound. That's about the limit of my sound
knowledge you sound experts, so don't shoot me down too much.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:03:51 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/5/2012 12:54 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:39:42 -0600, wrote:

On 2/5/2012 12:21 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Every day. I'm an electronics engineer, currently working in the audio
industry, after 30+ years in computers.

IOW, with no experience whatsoever in making a living in the recording
industry while both owning and operating a successful recording studio.

You've obviously never studied the science behind Nyquist or Fourier.

You obviously have no clue as to the effects of Nyquist on the
_frequency response_ of the resultant digital recording.

You're *quite* wrong. I understand the science behind Nyquist and Fourier
perfectly. What I don't understand is how, so called, "professionals" can get
caught up in audiophoolery.

Get back to me after you've spent 20+ years doing that.

You can spout audiophoolery all you want, but it's just that.

LOL ... another newly coined audio term, and derogatory at that, from
those grasping at straws to cover up their ignorance?

No, it's not newly coined and describes you to a tee.

You know you've made your point successfully when the derogatory
terminology starts flying in lieu of reasoned response.

You obviously wouldn't understand Nyquist if I explained it to you, or you
wouldn't have posted a reference to a site that shows my point.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:38:45 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 12:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:46:43 -0600, Steve
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 11:19 AM, Max wrote:


"Leon" wrote
And the dust collectors are not really an annoying noise, typically
quieter than any of the machines that they are hooked up to.

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

Max


i have found most things in the industrial world that don't make much
noise aren't doing much work. i think this especially applies to
vacuums and blowers.

Not true. There are a lot of things that can be done to mitigate noise. Do
you buy the loudest car because it goes faster? The quietest because it gets
better gas mileage?

no, but since you brought it up, the fastest ones do make the most noise.

It must be the noise that causes the speed, right?

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:48:30 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Understand, and it is ... I noticed the time difference. FWIW, I hereby
apologize to you for any snarkiness on my part. I was in the same boat
myself.

HEY! You should be apologizing to the rest of us for talking about all
this sound stuff that very few of us understand.

I'd ask for an apology from the political pundits here but it could
result in my being inundated with political rhetoric.

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
IOW, with no experience whatsoever in making a living in the recording
industry while both owning and operating a successful recording studio.

You've obviously never studied the science behind Nyquist or Fourier.

You know, I saw on the TV news a couple nights ago, a piece about some
work done in the U.S. regarding brain activity measurements in response to
the spoken word. A computer translating into sound the electrical activity
caused by words spoken to the patient. First they played a direct sound
recording of the speaker and then the computer interpretation of the
"brainwaves".

I would love to know what, if any, brain activity there is, to sound
frequencies above the patients normal hearing range. It could settle the
argument once and for all.

Suppose a pure tone was played, let's say 5kHz and then with harmonics
added one by one. With second third, and fourth possibly, depending on the
age of the patient, one might expect a different pattern but what about
higher.

Needless to say, care would have to be taken in the design of the
headphones used to ensure they could not affect the result.

Using the human ear in this way, as measuring instrument, could have some
quite interesting results though we would have to improve on current
techniques, which require the skull to be opened up for brain surgery!

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
You know you've made your point successfully when the derogatory
terminology starts flying in lieu of reasoned response.

You know, that was my reaction when I saw this in response to one of my
posts:

"Irrelevant ... Google can indeed provide you with information and
terminology, but, unfortunately, can't provide you with the basic
understanding to properly use it."

Not derogatory terminology perhaps but certainly derogatory towards me.
grin

And you never did pick me up on the fact that although even studio
machines use equalisation they also use compensating circuitry to correct
the resulting phase shifts.

grin

PAX.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:36:42 +0000 (GMT), Stuart
wrote:

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
You know you've made your point successfully when the derogatory
terminology starts flying in lieu of reasoned response.

You know, that was my reaction when I saw this in response to one of my
posts:

"Irrelevant ... Google can indeed provide you with information and
terminology, but, unfortunately, can't provide you with the basic
understanding to properly use it."

Not derogatory terminology perhaps but certainly derogatory towards me.

Wasn't me, but it was right on target.

And you never did pick me up on the fact that although even studio
machines use equalisation they also use compensating circuitry to correct
the resulting phase shifts.

....and far more audiophoolery.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:25:49 +0000 (GMT), Stuart
wrote:

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
IOW, with no experience whatsoever in making a living in the recording
industry while both owning and operating a successful recording studio.

You've obviously never studied the science behind Nyquist or Fourier.

You know, I saw on the TV news a couple nights ago, a piece about some
work done in the U.S. regarding brain activity measurements in response to
the spoken word. A computer translating into sound the electrical activity
caused by words spoken to the patient. First they played a direct sound
recording of the speaker and then the computer interpretation of the
"brainwaves".

I would love to know what, if any, brain activity there is, to sound
frequencies above the patients normal hearing range. It could settle the
argument once and for all.

It *might* ask more questions but it certainly wouldn't give any answers.

Suppose a pure tone was played, let's say 5kHz and then with harmonics
added one by one. With second third, and fourth possibly, depending on the
age of the patient, one might expect a different pattern but what about
higher.

Certainly true. The fourth harmonic would be at what is considered to be the
"limit" (a few can hear significantly higher than 20kHz) of human hearing.
OTOH, the second harmonic of 15kHz is *way* outside the realm of human hearing
and as such doesn't matter at all.

Needless to say, care would have to be taken in the design of the
headphones used to ensure they could not affect the result.

None are flat and certainly none are flat from 50Hz to over 20kHz. Earphones
have ridiculous resonances, even the professional types.

Using the human ear in this way, as measuring instrument, could have some
quite interesting results though we would have to improve on current
techniques, which require the skull to be opened up for brain surgery!

I'd like to see some serious double-blind tests on audiophool stuff. Nothing
I'd love more than to see Monster, and its ilk, bankrupt. "Copper free", my
ass.

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
Understand, and it is ... I noticed the time difference. FWIW, I hereby
apologize to you for any snarkiness on my part. I was in the same boat
myself.

Apologies accepted, please also accept mine.

We are crazy I know but my eldest daughter and I had done a 16 mile walk
along the canal in temperatures around freezing and it had snowed the last
8 miles.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

In article
,
David Paste wrote:

Hello all,

I was in a tool shop t'other day (Axminster) and noticed a lovely
display of Festool tools, so naturally I went over to have a sneaky
grope and see what all the fuss is about. They are clearly a cut above
the kind of power tool I am used to using (just hobby & DIY) but...
the prices! THE PRICES! Why are they so expensive? They are
undoubtedly nice units, but they seem to be inordinately expensive -
500 quid for a cordless driver, 120 quid for an LED work lamp, etc
etc... The most expensive thing I saw was a router for 700-and-
something pounds.

So why are they so costly? And more importantly, are they worth the
money?

Thanks in advance,

David.

I has become patently obvious that, with a couple of exceptions, nobody
here has a clue about psychoacoustics.

"Max" wrote
"Larry Jaques" wrote
, "Max" wrote:

Mine sounds like an F-16 just after lighting the afterburner.

What are you running, Max? Or did you just get some clothespins and
playing cards set up in the intake to stroke the impeller for that
sound effect?

My Griz 1029 is a quiet, strong sucker; a real sweetheart.


http://tinyurl.com/84jz8yz
My Oneida really sucks but it doesn't do it quietly.

Max, using ear protection

Let me try that again.
http://tinyurl.com/7hkmbfg

I Hope that works

Max

On 2/5/2012 3:19 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


You obviously wouldn't understand Nyquist if I explained it to you, or you
wouldn't have posted a reference to a site that shows my point.

Let me say it once again:

"An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist
frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate."

If you want to continue playing cutesy with terminolgy, you either agree
with the above, or you need to specify and Cite why you don't.

Unlike you, I'm reasonable and will listen to any reasoned refutation,
but I will NOT accept you simply saying it is "wrong", which you have
repeatedly done without explanation.

Here it is again:

"An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist
frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate."

Have at it ... by my guest and pick it apart.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/5/2012 3:25 PM, Stuart wrote:

You know, I saw on the TV news a couple nights ago, a piece about some
work done in the U.S. regarding brain activity measurements in response to
the spoken word. A computer translating into sound the electrical activity
caused by words spoken to the patient. First they played a direct sound
recording of the speaker and then the computer interpretation of the
"brainwaves".

I would love to know what, if any, brain activity there is, to sound
frequencies above the patients normal hearing range. It could settle the
argument once and for all.

Suppose a pure tone was played, let's say 5kHz and then with harmonics
added one by one. With second third, and fourth possibly, depending on the
age of the patient, one might expect a different pattern but what about
higher.

Needless to say, care would have to be taken in the design of the
headphones used to ensure they could not affect the result.

Using the human ear in this way, as measuring instrument, could have some
quite interesting results though we would have to improve on current
techniques, which require the skull to be opened up for brain surgery!

Actually, that was done about ten years back and presented as a paper to
AES:

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

As with all religious arguments, the paper has it proponents and
detractors ... why I didn't mention it previously.

That no one has been able to successfully duplicate it, not that anyone
has tried to the same extent ... makes it almost like a climate change
debate.

But, there has also been some new developments with bone conductivity of
HFC that compliments the human ear in making use of it.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/5/2012 3:36 PM, Stuart wrote:
In articleONmdnevYHckET7PSnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
You know you've made your point successfully when the derogatory
terminology starts flying in lieu of reasoned response.

You know, that was my reaction when I saw this in response to one of my
posts:

"Irrelevant ... Google can indeed provide you with information and
terminology, but, unfortunately, can't provide you with the basic
understanding to properly use it."

Not derogatory terminology perhaps but certainly derogatory towards me.
grin

You mean like your remark previous to that where you stated your were
dealing with a "poorly educated" American?

... and "sunshine" is not derogatory?

Tit for tat, eh? .. G

Yes, Pax ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Certainly true. The fourth harmonic would be at what is considered to
be the "limit" (a few can hear significantly higher than 20kHz) of human
hearing. OTOH, the second harmonic of 15kHz is *way* outside the realm
of human hearing and as such doesn't matter at all.

I don't /believe/ any frequency beyond the upper limit of hearing matters
either, unless it gets hetrodyned down, but I would be interested in, and
open to, hard scientific evidence either way.

Needless to say, care would have to be taken in the design of the
headphones used to ensure they could not affect the result.

None are flat and certainly none are flat from 50Hz to over 20kHz.
Earphones have ridiculous resonances, even the professional types.

Which is why I said they would have to be specially designed.

Using the human ear in this way, as measuring instrument, could have
some quite interesting results though we would have to improve on
current techniques, which require the skull to be opened up for brain
surgery!

I'd like to see some serious double-blind tests on audiophool stuff.
Nothing I'd love more than to see Monster, and its ilk, bankrupt.
"Copper free", my as

As far as cables are concerned, the only thing that matters at audio
frequencies is the resistance, and that is simply measured. Keep it low to
maintain a good damping factor and all will be well.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org