Mnyb wrote:
> The part I would like most for hifi would be records mixed for a defined
> listening level
I don't see how that can work. Different people like to listen to their
music at very different levels.
One man's "too quiet" is another lady's "TURN IT DOWN!!" (well, in my
house, anyway :-)
drmatt wrote:
> Yeah, I realise that there's always a cynical view.. :) but at least
> it's -something- that provides a baseline of supposed mastering
> standard. How well enforced it is is another matter..
It actually works to a degree , but not many goes the whole mile and get
"everything thx"
drmatt wrote:
> Yeah, I realise that there's always a cynical view.. :) but at least
> it's -something- that provides a baseline of supposed mastering
> standard. How well enforced it is is another matter..
Whenever money is involved, as is the case with THX certification,
cynicism is never a ba
cliveb wrote:
> And the crucial word here is *consistently*. If you run a trial with 20
> people, it is statisically very likely that one of them will "pass the
> test". What then needs to be done is to repeat the test and have *the
> same person* pass the test again. If they don't, it's just a s
ralphpnj wrote:
> I don't understand the fascination with THX. THX is simply a label that
> is available for purchase along with a set of loosely defined
> "standards". Pay the money (aka licensing fee) and the THX label is
> yours whether or not the "standards" have been met.
>
Yeah, I realise
Very interesting. Thanks.
We have a very similar green energy selling scheme here in the US,
with a couple minor differences. The government (federal & state) set
minimum green mandates per power company as a percentage of
generated/sold power. Might be 10% this year then increasing to 1
drmatt wrote:
> But like all hypotheses, you only need to find -one- person who can
> consistently tell the difference and you have disproved the theory that
> "no-one can tell the difference"...
And the crucial word here is *consistently*. If you run a trial with 20
people, it is statisically ve
Paul Webster wrote:
> Me too.
>
> Fancy a trip down to Mile End Road for a chat with the authors?
When were you there?
I was at QMC between 1975 and 1978, studying Computer Science. (Well, I
started trying to do physics, but the maths got too hard :-)
Transporter -> ATC SCM100A
--
toby10 wrote:
> I'm curious if your solar install is active or passive? I assume it is
> the simpler system of just generating power to be sold/added on the grid
> (that was my proposed system)? Or are you actually using your own
> generated power yourself (which usually involves batteries and
I don't understand the fascination with THX. THX is simply a label that
is available for purchase along with a set of loosely defined
"standards". Pay the money (aka licensing fee) and the THX label is
yours whether or not the "standards" have been met.
https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&safe=of
Mnyb wrote:
> I go for practically nobody ;) which is about the same .. Couple that
> with the typical audiophile demographic and the typical old analogue
> recordings they listen to and I would not be surprised that if such a
> singular person ever would be found she would not be an audiophile
drmatt wrote:
> Agree. At the very least we need a THX-like mastering standard that
> removes the desire to saturate every recording at -0.02db.. If it can be
> extended all the way back to studio recording principles then even
> better.
>
> No one would argue against this. (Except studios who
Mnyb wrote:
> And on the other hand there is hardly no such quest for better records ?
> Well there is a handful of audiophile labels , but they hardly record
> anything anyone would listen to anyway ?
>
> Priority must be to make better sounding records as >99% of what's ever
> recorded would n
13 matches
Mail list logo
