Interesting you keep mentioning this peeking thing - any particular reason for this?Exactly the opposite, if one is referring to things which are actually audible without peeking. Funny how that correlation works.
I was just thinking - it must have been very hard for engineers to work out optimum TV transmission quality standards, without some "peeking" ... 🙂
ever watch the reality show, the "Voice"?
the judges have their backs away from the singer, so no "peeking"
they react only on the basis of what they hear...
the judges have their backs away from the singer, so no "peeking"
they react only on the basis of what they hear...
Interesting you keep mentioning this peeking thing - any particular reason for this?
Yes.
ever watch the reality show, the "Voice"?
the judges have their backs away from the singer, so no "peeking"
they react only on the basis of what they hear...
Orchestra auditions are done the same way, usually with a curtain.
So we're saying that if a beautiful girl sings poorly, and a plain girl has a superior technique that the judges will be incapable of picking this?
the judges will be incapable of picking this
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
So we're saying that if a beautiful girl sings poorly, and a plain girl has a superior technique that the judges will be incapable of picking this?
bias will tend to go the beautiful girl's way...
it is human nature to love beautiful things...or girls....
There is still a very strong tone in your response.... because one corner has virtually no integrity
I'm so awfully sorry, did I misquote and misinterpret something, again ?
Wikipedia :
-Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.
-In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions.
-Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy
(anything you say and have said, can and will be used against you, in a dark back alley)
Last edited:
Okay, how about this as a "test"? A YouTube clip of a live singer, singing along with a recording of herself, the classic soft jazz thing, being replayed on nominally highly competent equipment - do you think anyone would have the slightest problem picking, distinguishing the two - blind or otherwise?
Last edited:
Oops, I thought at first that was one of the judges ...An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
No, the clip itself includes the singer live, and a "high-end" system playing the recording of her, at roughly the same volumes. Assuming available at the best possible YouTube sound quality, will it be a no-brainer ...?you mean YouTube video on "high-end" system vs high quality recording w/o video?
you mean to tell that it's low quality audio? wanna know my guess? no statistically relevant discrimination on systems costing up to 10k (and maybe more).No, the clip itself includes the singer live, and a "high-end" system playing the recording of her, at roughly the same volumes. Assuming available at the best possible YouTube sound quality, will it be a no-brainer ...?
Place Duck drippings on a disposable plastic plate.
Put an equal amount on a lovely 12" Villeroy & Boch porcelain plate.
The objectivist will state it's Duck Smeg.
A subjectivist will say the 2nd is less worse.
(mine are salmon color/motif, $100 the plate, got 18 of them)
Put an equal amount on a lovely 12" Villeroy & Boch porcelain plate.
The objectivist will state it's Duck Smeg.
A subjectivist will say the 2nd is less worse.
(mine are salmon color/motif, $100 the plate, got 18 of them)
Place Duck drippings on a disposable plastic plate.
Put an equal amount on a lovely 12" Villeroy & Boch porcelain plate.
The objectivist will state it's Duck Smeg.
A subjectivist will say the 2nd is less worse.
(mine are salmon color/motif, $100 the plate, got 18 of them)
Would a real objectivist put forward such blanket, global statements?
Okay, this is the video - note that this can be watched at 1080p resolution, and the audio then corresponds to best rate MP3: Anne Bisson, Genesis Loudspeakers, Burmester Electronics - YouTube
Would a real objectivist put forward such blanket, global statements?
Does a real (or pretend to be) objectivist state it's a blanket, global statement ?
Does a real (or pretend to be) objectivist state it's a blanket, global statement ?
I may have missed the qualifiers.....
I consider myself an objective subjectivist (salmon colored).
A reason for me, to find a nitpicker on the left, as amusing as one on the right.
It's OK if you're not that smart.
A reason for me, to find a nitpicker on the left, as amusing as one on the right.
It's OK if you're not that smart.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Funniest snake oil theories