jj@rabbit.UUCP (04/11/84)
>Let's hear it for all the broad-minded folks on the net. Like you, maybe? >So far we've got: > > rabbit!jj commenting on psycho-acoustics without > trying the experiment. Says who, buster? I do work in psycho-acoustics (and not just for speech, Tom) for a living. (also digital methods of other sorts that I can't mention.) If you look at the header of my articles, or if you read net.audio, that's clear. Where do YOU get off with the ideas about who does what experiments? I didn't try the one on the net, as it was so poorly formed that it couldn't work. <Ever hear of double-blind? How about even SINGLE blind?> I HAVE run similar experiments, both with my stereo at home, although in a blind fashion (which is a better way to do it), and with slightly different basis, at work. (yes, the results apply, Larry.) Have you ever considered that there might be a few INFORMED opinions in this newsgroup? To put it in YOUR phrasing: Larry Tepper, who tells me what I have and haven't done, without ANY knowledge whatsoever of what I can, have, am, or will do. > tannenbaum's sarcastic reply about running the test > using his Rabbit GTI's radiator as the passive > radiator, without trying the experiment. How do YOU know? Can you predict what an AI project does? Perhaps you forget the meaning and uses of satire? > hplabsc!labelle's attempted insult of winograd's > technical knowledge -- without trying the experiment. > Attempted? Must have succeeded, seems to me. (You're certainly upset.) >Ok, to cover my butt, maybe you DID try the experiment, but >just forgot to post your results. No, I didn't forget, such things are covered in the literature fairly well, if you go look. No, I won't bother to post references, you clearly don't want facts, anyhow, and I have valuable work to do. >If you're really that interested in proving him wrong, try the >bleeping experiment and let us know how it went. > Larry Tepper - Storage Technology (disk division) > uucp: { decvax, hao}!stcvax!lat > { allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!lat > USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028 > DDD: (303) 673-5435 Please post an apology to net.audio, and all further articles to net.flame, at least until you decide to be civil once again. Radar detectors indeed! bah! Don't go out in the woods without a compass, Larry! -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
lat@stcvax.UUCP (Larry Tepper) (04/12/84)
Ok, jj, I've taken a few minutes to cool off after reading the nation-wide dressing down you gave my previous posting to this group. I intend to respond, not react, to yours. First things, first. I posted the original article in hopes that some facts about the alleged phenomenon would be presented on the net. One reader at least picked up on that and sent me mail with his polite opinion on the topic. How long would I need to be a subscriber to net.audio to read the articles in which you have given your credentials? I'm not disputing them, mind you. But please don't take me to task because I didn't happen to read the one(s) where you mention that you make your living in psycho-acoustics. Perhaps they were posted before stcvax gained access to the net. The only assumption I made in my submission was that you hadn't bothered (or forgot to, to use my original wording) post your results. You publicly made many more unfounded assumptions about me than I ever did, publicly and privately, about you. You would have served the net far better to spend your valuable time posting the references in the literature than to spend your valuable time flaming away at me. I would like to finish up with a previous posting of yours: > From: jj@rabbit.UUCP > Newsgroups: net.audio > Subject: Re: Fish buys a CD player > Article-I.D.: rabbit.2649 > Posted: Thu Mar 29 10:02:43 1984 > Mr.(I presume?) Decker, > In this newsgroup, it's customary to give the other > author NO benefit of the doubt, i.e. it's traditional and > conventional to call all other authors idiots, or worse. You said it! -- Larry Tepper - Storage Technology (disk division) uucp: { decvax, hao}!stcvax!lat { allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!lat USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028 DDD: (303) 673-5435
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/13/84)
<> Tepper (stcvax!lat) = ">>" vs. (rabbit!jj) = ">" >>So far we've got: >> >> rabbit!jj commenting on psycho-acoustics without >> trying the experiment. > >Says who, buster? I do work in psycho-acoustics (and not just for >speech, Tom) for a living. (also digital methods of other >sorts that I can't mention.) If you look at the header of my articles, >or if you read net.audio, that's clear. Where do YOU get off with the >ideas about who does what experiments? I didn't try the >one on the net, as it was so poorly formed that it couldn't >work... OK, Larry jumps to the conclusion that you didn't try the experiment just because you didn't give us any results. Yes, the experiment, as originally suggested, was not well planned - so flame at winograd; it was HIS idea! >Have you ever considered that there might be a few INFORMED >opinions in this newsgroup? Yes, jj, and yours may be one, but not the only one. What I would like - and what I think Larry would like - is for someone to throw enough honest science at this extra-speaker stuff to get a decent answer. (Personally, I don't expect a decent answer until we have a well-formed question, and I don't think we do yet.) If someone will present some science, we can handle it. > Larry Tepper, who tells me what I have and haven't >done, without ANY knowledge whatsoever of what I can, have, >am, or will do. >... >>Ok, to cover my butt, maybe you DID try the experiment, but >>just forgot to post your results. >... >No, I didn't forget, such things are covered in the literature >fairly well, if you go look. No, I won't bother to post references, >you clearly don't want facts, anyhow, and I have valuable >work to do. >... >Please post an apology to net.audio, and all further articles to net.flame, >at least until you decide to be civil once again. Jj, you've jumped to a pretty harsh conclusion about Larry. He's made a fair request - if you've got info, would you share it with us? If you're only here to flame at people, then YOU should move to net.flame and YOU should apologize...but I've read some of your better postings, and I think you've got worthwhile things to say in net.audio. The tone of this one posting of yours, however, was not quite civil. We all have valuable work to do, I guess. If you're bowing out, do so quietly, without parting shots. HOWEVER, if you'll take it easy a bit, how about sharing with us some good sources of technically reliable, carefully considered information on sound reproduction systems, etc. I have had a lot of trouble finding anything much outside of manufacturers literature, which is generally worth somewhat less than its weight in manure (except for Beranek's "Acoustics", which doesn't really fill the bill). In particular, the "extra speaker" business is straight out of the literature that Linn and Naim put out. Linn in particular makes several claims that run counter to conventional wisdom. Now, I don't have time to go off and take the courses (or work through several long texts) to get all of the background I need to examine those claims - BUT if someone will present me with some facts and/or some good sources of facts, I've got the background (and time and willingness) to examine each side for its technical merits and make an intelligent decision. Is that a fair basis? -- "A friend of the devil is a friend of mine." Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
jj@rabbit.UUCP (04/13/84)
Well, the "dressing down" wasn't meant quite as personally as you thought. It may have looked that way, though, but since I wrote it, I can't tell quite how it looked. As far as I can see, I didn't make a lot of unfounded assumptions about you, I just answered what you said about me. As far as my qualifications, I don't know, it has come up before, I don't remember when. (And I don't really care, sorry. I have better things to do.) As far as posting references, I fear that most of the papers I know of aren't very accessable. (As far as communicating information to an uninformed reader.) That is indeed unfortunate, but I didn't write them, and I can't rewrite someone else's paper, either. Take it easy. Further posting on the subject to net.flame, I think, this is off of the audio track. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (See them gaily gad about, they love to play and shout, ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (04/22/84)
+ OK, let's cool down a minute and think about what we're talking about. If I leave a piece of paper (say, 8-1/2x11 inches, college-ruled) sitting out in my listening room on top of a pencil, it will most likely cause several times greater distortion than the cone of a 4-inch speaker. There is nothing magic about the speaker; it isn't going to somehow `suck up' more sound energy than strikes its surface. And neither the paper nor the speaker can re-radiate more sound energy than it receives. When you consider that my paper/pencil combination is likely to be much less linear than even a speaker with a lousy suspension, and that the paper can do as good a job of sound radiation as the speaker cone, it becomes clear that even a slightly messy listening room is going to have a greater effect than that small speaker. As a matter of fact, I think that vacuuming the listening-room carpet will have a much greater effect on perceived sound, as it will change the high-frequency absorption characteristics by raising the nap. So, pick up after yourself and keep things clean, like your mommy says. :-) -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall