Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)

I've no idea. The website doesn't seem to want to say anything about that. What an absolutely crap website it is! Mind you it is from Ch5.

So, Could they?

David.

Doesn't seem to say anything about the actual test.

I've been involved in several of these sort of tests over the years, and the the standard for the closest approach to the original happened with equipment made in the '50s. The microphone was a BBC design - the PGS, made by STC as the 4038, and the speaker a Quad ESL. We used a male voice recorded digitally, and played back to the speaker which was behind a gauze along with the chap whose voice we used. The lighting was arranged so you couldn't see through the gauze. It fooled the majority of the listening panel - made up of allsorts, not just sound pros or Hi-Fi types. No moving coil speaker that we tried got close to fooling anyone.

It's much more difficult to do with two sources together like guitar and vocal as the ear will tend to position them - so stereo would be needed and impossible to do with more than one listener at a time. We also used solo sax with much the same results - but solo piano was guessed right by the majority.

I've no idea if its still there but that was the set-up at BBC / Kingswood Warren research labs, Surrey for blind testing/comparison of audio. In the situation I was aware of determining what the minimum sampling rate for audio ADC / DAC was that a human could tell as degraded.

The ch5 test was quite well done I thought. I did notice the Suzi one had the headband of the blindfold over her ears though. A large theatre stage set-up so no close-field effects, and pairs of speakers for stereo imaging. It would have been nice , having gone to all that bother, to get a few more people off the street to give their opinions also.

-- General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W) John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to play. After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his mouth and the clarinet solo continued.

In this case, no one perceived audibly the seque from live to recorded performance, even though we could see after a few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous applause.

Iain

So what was the result?

Iain

John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to play. After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his mouth and the clarinet solo continued. In this case, no one perceived audibly the seque from live to recorded performance, even though we could see after a few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous applause. >>

The clarinet is one of the worst examples of a sound that is unique when acoustic. It's bland, very middle register and contains few distinguishing features. A drum kit or as said by one poster a piano are much more distinctive when acoustic and un-recorded - you need complex overtones and subtle harmonics as well as some percussive element to show attack.

Presumably by a naive audience. The clarinet is pretty well the least demanding instrument of all for this sort of test. A much more severe test would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his product...

And a claque or two in the audience , no doubt.

-- General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

Yeah, seen that one ages ago.

It was quite interesting. It was that long ago now, that I can't remember whether they concluded that the expensive speakers were best. ISTR they did.

Martin

This is one of those tests that is only interesting if a no differences result is obtained using sensitive listeners. Any of a million likely screw-ups, many obvious and some subtle, will give a positive result for differences.

But there's no way that this particular test can have anything but positive results, as what the listeners heard via the electronic path contained doubled doses of room acoustics.

Simply setting up a test this stupid is like flunking an IQ test, let alone advertising that you screwed up in such an obvious way on TV.

The depressing fact is that 50 per cent of the entire human race is below average intelligence...

Cheers, Pete.

I became acutely aware of that when I served in the U.S. Army. Many people in the middle class are blithely unaware of the fact that almost everybody they encounter has an IQ > 100. I sure was.

In article , Pete Wilcox scribeth thus

As little as that eh?...

I remember a Properties of Structural Materials class I took, where I was the top student of about 25. But I only received a semester grade of 3.6 on a 4.3 scale. I talked to my advisor about this, and he said to remember that sometimes the instructor is grading himself.

Yes, and most of those are from the US with the "Leave no child behind act" that we must suffer with now.

I was just talking to a electrical instructor in a trade school where they were called to a meeting to talk about the 40+ sensors that had failing grades preventing them from graduating. After the school's superintendent got done, they all gave the failing students 60's to allow graduation.

what kind of stupidity is that?

At least!!!

Cheers, Pete.

Hmm, I thought I canceled that message due a miss placed word "Sensor", should be "Senior". Oh well. Well, I feel sorry for the students that really do work at it and deserved what the work force should be accepting out there over what is being pushed out on the public..

It may not be evident at the moment, but I see a major down fall in our near future..

It may work out in the end sense they're those that still believe in education (very few) how ever, they could be the models of our future where we now have to many (Dumb)chiefs and not enough indians. More indians are also favorable in a society of Mouse and Men.!

It seems that in some societies (no ranks stated here) feel that we own them something with out offering any thing in return.

----------------------------- These are the opinions of an old fart (or near it any ways) not to be taken seriously for any reason other than improving humanity.

"Pete Wilcox" wrote

This is only true if you define "average" as "median", or something close to it.

Most people mean "mean" by "average".

So the above-quoted statement has "issues with correctness".

But never mind.

Martin

Learn to post a correctly structured response to a post, including the Subject.

Seemed reasonably well structured to me. Bottom-posted, end everythink. Anyway, lighten up guys, it was just a joke! This is a good-humoured group for the most part, and you've got to expect the odd tongue-in-cheek post, especially from me!

Cheers, Pete.