pablolie wrote:
> And who exclude those who state they can't hear a difference from the
> study...
Well, given the aims of the study, this is a legit statistical
technique. It might sound like cherry picking but when the point of the
study is to show only that *some* people can tell it's allowabl
Archimago wrote:
> Yes. Lots of text :-).
>
> Let's just lay it on the table and get it done with. The use of the
> impulse response to justify FUD is one of the greatest 'controversies'
> out there.
>
> As if we can actually hear the ringing for one.
>
> As if going through a sharp filter
Wombat wrote:
> So much text about the fear of ringing :)
> Funny you choose Clapton as example. I can imagine if the CD was done
> with best quality in mind it may be possible to sound even better as the
> HiBitrate download because of some watermark used for UMG related labels
> and online dist
Yes. Lots of text :-).
Let's just lay it on the table and get it done with. The use of the
impulse response to justify FUD is one of the greatest 'controversies'
out there.
As if we can actually hear the ringing for one.
As if going through a sharp filter would actually excite tons of ringin
cliveb wrote:
> OK, I can't comment on the vulnerability of hydrogen in pipelines, but I
> have seen film of a compressed cylinder of hydrogen being shot with an
> armour-piercing bullet. Result: well, not a lot, really. The tank didn't
> explode, all that happened was a small blue flame burning
cliveb wrote:
> So you're comparing hydrogen to gasoline. I hadn't realised the
> goalposts had been moved.
>
> OF COURSE gasoline is a far more convenient energy source than hydrogen.
> But I thought we were looking for a practical renewable alternative.
> I was simply comparing the feasibility
