In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

This was a post in which I was replying to Swingman. What are you,
zzzzzzzzzz, on about and who are you addressing?

--
Stuart Winsor

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

Robatoy wrote:
In article
,
David 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.

You expected a lot more here in rec.woodworking? If you wish to discuss
the acoustic properties of various types of woods, I'll be interested.

On 2/5/2012 4:49 PM, Stuart wrote:
In ,
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.

That is exactly what these guys are saying in effect.

I've got a lot of respect for this old timer, contemporary of Rupert
Neve, and an excellent audio designer:

http://recordinghacks.com/articles/t...-beyond-20khz/

Here is some more food for thought in that regard:

http://skreddypedals.com/digital_sucks/Ultrasonics.htm

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue52/ultrasonic.htm


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

Actually, in quite a few studies since, headphones turned out to not be
of benefit in HFC being important to perception of audio quality ...
strange as that may seem. I'd have to dig up a cite, but I clearly
remember reading that in an AES paper because of "who woulds of thunk
it?".


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.

I agree with that ... AAMOF, it was the first thing I said in the
thread. I am not a proponent of Monster Cable, but I do know from
practical experience that every link in the audio chain needs to be
designed to work together, and extension cord as speaker cable simply
does not fill that bill. Good quality speaker cable, of the proper gauge
and length for the application and components, yes.

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

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:06:01 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:

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

Psycho Acoustics? Is that must be the noise that mII or Twayne makes
here once in awhile?

On 2/5/2012 5:06 PM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:06:01 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:

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

Psycho Acoustics? Is that must be the noise that mII or Twayne makes
here once in awhile?

I think what Rob means is that anyone who likes to delve into the
principles of acoustics is a psycho!

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

On 2/5/2012 4:49 PM, Stuart wrote:

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.

Let me put some perspective on it:

Spending literally thousands of hours mixing recorded content of all
types, for commercial release and airplay, takes an unbelievable amount
of focus and concentration on all aspects of "sound" that very few folks
will ever have the opportunity to either practice or experience.

The overriding task and problem that must be solved when doing so is to
do it in such a manner that the resultant audio "mix" will _transfer as
accurately as possible_ AND over the greatest number of speakers and
playback systems that it may be played back upon.

IOW, just because it sounds good in the control room does not mean that
particular mix will _transfer_ to the outside world.

This ability to effect this _transference_ is the coin of the realm and
the keys to kingdom of success in the recording industry as an engineer.

This is a daunting task that requires an unusual amount of attention to
all aspects of audio and the principles of human hearing, as well as a
keen ear for differences in harmonic content, both within and without
the audible range of human hearing, as well as a keen sense of "timbre"
of instrumental sounds.

Again, this ability is what makes or breaks a recording engineer,
particularly if he also mixes what he has tracked.

Trust me ... those good enough to do this task well have the ability to
use HFC to their advantage.

I would put my life on it ...that's how convinced I am and firm in my
beliefs. I've lived it, and I've walked the walk, anyone who has not can
only have an opinion on the matter, but that's all it is, an opinion.

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

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:30:58 -0600, Swingman wrote:

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."

At best, sure. ...as long as your "represent" means *perfectly* reproduce. So
far, so good.

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.

It a waveform is *perfectly* reproduced, where's the beef?

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.

....except you haven't. You *state* the same old, tired, audiophoolery. There
is *NO* science behind it; religion, at best.

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."

Where "represent" == "perfectly reproduce"

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

How much better than *perfect* does a waveform need to be for an audiophool?
IOW, you're arguing my point. Thanks.

On Feb 5, 9:59*pm, Stuart wrote:

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.


Which canal?

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:57:59 +0000 (GMT), Stuart
wrote:

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

This was a post in which I was replying to Swingman. What are you,
, on about and who are you addressing?

This is the Usenet, not email. As to what I'm "on about", I was assuming that
you were reading the thread. I suppose that was a bit much to assume.

On Feb 5, 10:06*pm, Robatoy wrote:

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

Needs more domino joiner, clearly!

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:49:36 +0000 (GMT), Stuart
wrote:

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.

Heterodyning requires a nonlinear system (i.e. a multiplier). Audio systems
aren't nonlinear, at least by design. ;-)

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.

If they *could* be. Indeed, if they could be, someone would have done it.

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.

Agreed. It doesn't take tremendous effort to make it "good enough". 14GA zip
cord is just right. ;-)

On 2/5/2012 5:44 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:30:58 -0600, wrote:


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

How much better than *perfect* does a waveform need to be for an audiophool?
IOW, you're arguing my point. Thanks.


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

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

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

Fascinating.

What I will freely admit is this:

As a musician (guitar player) I used to stand next to the piano in church*
- not a Steinway (sp?) or anything posh but a decent enough instrument. My
one time singing teacher has a baby-grand in her front room. I have never
heard any recording reproduced on any system, or any electric piano, that
sounds quite like a real piano. Whether that is because I am
sub-consciously responding to the "hypersonic effect" of content in the
live sound I have no idea but it is fact.

As a chorister I don't expect any record-replay system to give me the same
experience I get standing/sitting underneath a pipe organ when the
organist chooses to give the instrument "a good work out" either -
especially with the pedal notes - but there are many reasons for that.
g

*Regrettably we had a vicar who became obsessed with electronic keyboards
and his successor was no better, so the piano is no longer used in morning
worship. I now worship elsewhere in a morning and it still only a Yamaha
Clavinova but that's because we meet in a school hall and have to set-up
and take down our "church" every Sunday.

--
Stuart Winsor

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

On 2/5/2012 5:55 PM, Stuart wrote:
In ,
wrote:
Actually, that was done about ten years back and presented as a paper to
AES:

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

Fascinating.

What I will freely admit is this:

As a musician (guitar player) I used to stand next to the piano in church*
- not a Steinway (sp?) or anything posh but a decent enough instrument. My
one time singing teacher has a baby-grand in her front room. I have never
heard any recording reproduced on any system, or any electric piano, that
sounds quite like a real piano. Whether that is because I am
sub-consciously responding to the "hypersonic effect" of content in the
live sound I have no idea but it is fact.

Now, I don't care who you are, that there's the _holy grail_ of the art
and science of recording!

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

"Robatoy" wrote

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

Is that you Robatoy?? I haven't seen a post of yours in months!! What did
you do to appease the internet gods to get this message through?

Good to hear from ya!

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Agreed. It doesn't take tremendous effort to make it "good enough".
14GA zip cord is just right. ;-)

I'm afraid 14GA means nothing to me, here we describe cables by cross
sectional area eg 1mmsquare, 2mmsquare etc. makes life much easier.
And "zip cord" is?

Not something you use to remotely operate your flies I presume.

--
Stuart Winsor

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

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Which is why I said they would have to be specially designed.

If they *could* be. Indeed, if they could be, someone would have done
it.

Just find the money (lots of it probably) and ask B&K

--
Stuart Winsor

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:06:01 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:

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

Psycho Acoustics? Is that must be the noise that mII or Twayne makes
here once in awhile?

I will give you a hint.

I use to run a small voice only studio. I had some very good AM radio
monitors. Which is all I needed for voice recordings. These were very good
speakers with NO high end. That's right. They went to about a 2/3rd
through the conventional audio spectrum, then nada, nothing, zip. I often
had folks over who had to wait for somebody to record. I would put on some
music for them.

Without exception, they always commented on the wonderful high end that my
speakers had. I would try to explain to them that there was no high end.
Just great bottom and middle. But since they heard the great bottom and
middle frequencies, They filled in the high end. I did not do it. The
speakers did not do it. There was a filter that chopped it off. There was
nothing electrical or acoustic that filled in the high end. It was all done
through what is referred to as psycho acoustic effect. It was internally
generated in their own brain. And when I would show them the documentation
on the speakers (JBL's) they would tell me I was lying.

Electronics and acoustics be damned. The human mind is capable of all kinds
of things that conventional, left brain types will not admit or believe.

"Swingman" wrote

I think what Rob means is that anyone who likes to delve into the
principles of acoustics is a psycho!

Apparently, he is an expert in this sort of thing. ;-)

On 2/5/2012 3:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:38:45 -0600, Steve
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?


uh, no. the power produced causes the speed. The still burning and
expelled gasses make the noise.

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

In article ,
Swingman wrote:
Actually, in quite a few studies since, headphones turned out to not be
of benefit in HFC being important to perception of audio quality ...
strange as that may seem. I'd have to dig up a cite, but I clearly
remember reading that in an AES paper because of "who woulds of thunk
it?".

Well I guess I am making an assumption that it is the ears and associated
systems that are the transducers responsible for communicating the
information to the brain.

--
Stuart Winsor

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

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:46:46 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 3:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:38:45 -0600, Steve
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?


uh, no. the power produced causes the speed. The still burning and
expelled gasses make the noise.

I suppose you've never heard of a muffler? You seem to equate the two.

On 2/5/2012 6:49 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:46:46 -0600, Steve
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 3:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:38:45 -0600, Steve
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?


uh, no. the power produced causes the speed. The still burning and
expelled gasses make the noise.

I suppose you've never heard of a muffler? You seem to equate the two.

oh yes, mufflers are a necessary evil. But they do decrease the power.
I wonder if they make flowmasters for the ****ing dust collection
systems? HA HA HA!!

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

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:08:29 -0700, "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

Ditto here when I'm using powah tools in the shop.
Respirator, too. And glasses, pushsticks, featherboards, and holddown
guides where applicable.

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

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:08:29 -0700, "Max" wrote:

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

Oops, forgot to say "no pics there" the first time.
I get a "browser not fully supported" for Mozilla 10, but it shows
other pics, so please doublecheck your gallery.

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

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:28:22 -0700, "Max" wrote:



"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

Yuppers. Shiny big thing, huh?

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

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:57:55 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 6:49 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:46:46 -0600, Steve
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 3:20 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:38:45 -0600, Steve
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?


uh, no. the power produced causes the speed. The still burning and
expelled gasses make the noise.

I suppose you've never heard of a muffler? You seem to equate the two.

oh yes, mufflers are a necessary evil. But they do decrease the power.

Ok...

I wonder if they make flowmasters for the ****ing dust collection
systems? HA HA HA!!

You still think noise == power. Amazing.

The folks here are right about Festool and you don't have to spend nearly that
much. If you care about noise, you can look at the specs (doesn't tell the
whole story, but it's a start).

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:28:22 -0700, "Max" wrote:

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

I Hope that works

Yuppers. Shiny big thing, huh?

Well, 'twas when it was gnu.

Max

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

No... everybody knows it's the K&N stickers that cause the speed...

--

-Mike-

On 2/6/2012 5:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

No... everybody knows it's the K&N stickers that cause the speed...


Nope! They do nothing with out the racing stripes.

Leon wrote:
On 2/6/2012 5:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

No... everybody knows it's the K&N stickers that cause the speed...


Nope! They do nothing with out the racing stripes.

Well, it's actually the symbiotic relationship superimposed upon the
resonant ambiance, coupled with the non-linear component of the wave sample
that creates the psychoacousitc perception. Everyone knows that - it's on
the internet...

--

-Mike-

On 2/6/2012 6:32 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 2/6/2012 5:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

No... everybody knows it's the K&N stickers that cause the speed...


Nope! They do nothing with out the racing stripes.

Well, it's actually the symbiotic relationship superimposed upon the
resonant ambiance, coupled with the non-linear component of the wave sample
that creates the psychoacousitc perception. Everyone knows that - it's on
the internet...


Nope! That is just jibber jabber! LOL

I see some of these after market "spoilers" on Corollas and Civics that
have to be slowing the car down from sheer weight and drag.

I read an article once comparing A Porsche, Mustang, and IIRC a Z28.
The test was to determine if spoilers actually help of change the feel
for the driver. The Porsche would deploy at a give speed where as the
other two test cars had the factory fixed spoilers.
IIRC I recall the drivers comments correctly the Porsche spoiler would
deploy some where above 135 mph and would retract at a slightly similar
but lower speed. As a result the drivers could did not notice a
difference in handling. So they disabled the spoiler and drove it up to
top speed with and with out the spoiler deployed. They said that there
was an obvious difference in the way the car handled and felt after
reaching 157 mph. Until then the spoiler was not that noticeable.

The Mustang had no difference at 157 with or with out the spoiler but
top speed was 4 or 5 MPH less with the spoiler. And none of the drivers
were comfortable driving that car at that speed.

The Z28 would not reach 157 mph with or with out the spoiler and there
was no noticeable difference with or with out.

So I went away with the assumption that your spoiler AND vehicle have to
have a well tuned suspension and the body aerodynamically styled to see
or notice the advantage of a spoiler. And the vehicle has to be able to
reach a high speed to take advantage of a spoiler also.

This test was for all out top speed driving and handling.

On 2/6/2012 5:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

No... everybody knows it's the K&N stickers that cause the speed...


and their filters. LOL! I hear ya.

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

On 2/6/2012 6:32 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 2/6/2012 5:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


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

No... everybody knows it's the K&N stickers that cause the speed...


Nope! They do nothing with out the racing stripes.

Well, it's actually the symbiotic relationship superimposed upon the
resonant ambiance, coupled with the non-linear component of the wave sample
that creates the psychoacousitc perception. Everyone knows that - it's on
the internet...


yeah, what YOU said. G

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

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:44:06 -0500, "
wrote:

Where "represent" == "perfectly reproduce"

I have yet to see the audio equitment either analog or digital that
pefectly reproduces any recorded sounds.

In article m,
"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote

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

Is that you Robatoy?? I haven't seen a post of yours in months!! What did
you do to appease the internet gods to get this message through?

Good to hear from ya!



How's puppydawg? GoogleGroups basically sucks. I spend most of my
social-Net time on Facebook. I tend to visit that at least a few times
daily.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article m,
"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote

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

Is that you Robatoy?? I haven't seen a post of yours in months!! What
did
you do to appease the internet gods to get this message through?

Good to hear from ya!



How's puppydawg? GoogleGroups basically sucks. I spend most of my
social-Net time on Facebook. I tend to visit that at least a few times
daily.

Send me your email addy and Facebook info. I took some pictures recently and
am putting together a second "Bucky report" and will send it to you and
Karl.

Quick comments, we recently got snow and puppy has genetic memory of snow
and wan in dog heaven all the time the snow was around. He would literally
do flips with excitement when out in the snow. We also got a kitten and
they are the best of buddies. Together they terrorize the house. She gets
up on things and knock them on the floor. He immediately chews them up. I
will get that report and pictures out soon.

On 2/6/2012 3:30 PM, Markem wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:44:06 -0500, "
wrote:

Where "represent" == "perfectly reproduce"

I have yet to see the audio equitment either analog or digital that
pefectly reproduces any recorded sounds.


Agreed. AAMOF, there is no equipment in the current "state of the art"
that has brought us any closer to faithfully recording/reproducing
content as experienced by the human ear.

And _the removal of frequency content inherent in the source material_ ,
in an effort to do, so has arguably gotten us further from that ultimate
goal.

(BTW, your keyboard types as bad as mine)

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

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:30:07 -0600, Markem wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:44:06 -0500, "
wrote:

Where "represent" == "perfectly reproduce"

I have yet to see the audio equitment either analog or digital that
pefectly reproduces any recorded sounds.

Because the components aren't perfect (or perfectible). The math is.

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:37:59 +0000 (GMT), Stuart
wrote:

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Agreed. It doesn't take tremendous effort to make it "good enough".
14GA zip cord is just right. ;-)

I'm afraid 14GA means nothing to me, here we describe cables by cross
sectional area eg 1mmsquare, 2mmsquare etc.

14Ga = 2.08mm^2

D(mm) = e^(2.1104-.11594n)

If that's too hard:

D(mm) = .127 x 92^((36-n)/39)

Where D is the diameter in mm and n is the wire gauge. Simple, huh? ;-)

makes life much easier. And "zip cord" is?

Two-wire "lamp cord". It's called "zip cord" because the two wires easily
separate down the middle (unzip it) by pulling them apart.

http://www.filmtools.com/zipcord122.html
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/images/zip4c.gif

Not something you use to remotely operate your flies I presume.

Not on purpose.