Travis In Austin

I have had that happen on occasion. It has either been one of two things. Ground problem Internal to amp. Or, power grid problem that was fixed with line conditioner. If you have spare receiver, sub it in and see. If it persists, look at a line conditioner. Travis

It was Leonard Susskind at Stanford. That war went on for two decades.

No real objections other than a couple of observations already seen or discussed. The music they have selected is not that complex, and not that obscure. I think most on here would agree with that. The other problem is that one of their conclusions suggested the reason that people listening to complex music don't derive a greater satisfaction from listening more to complex music is that humanity is getting dumber. Quote from article: "An alternative explanation may be that general intelligence has decreased somewhat in Western populations during this period (e.g., Woodley and Figueredo, 2013; Woodley of Menie et al., 2015a,b; Woodley of Menie and Fernandes, 2015; Madison et al., 2016), and that the industry is catering for the average cognitive processing ability in the largest consumer groups."

Here are the 80 songs in the test data sheet 1.docx

What about the EQ that was applied during recording or mixing? Or do you consider that one and the same? Not sure what the two authors of the article are trying to figure out here. They cite previous old articles that correlate familiarity with preference. They also discuss the studies about physical reactions to music: "Unfamiliar music that elicited pleasant feelings was associated with activation in the anterior insula, cingulate gyrus, hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, and prefrontal anterior cingulate (Brown et al., 2004). Music experiences are also reflected in neuroendocrine changes. For example, listening to techno-music—but not classical music—increased the heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and concentrations of several neurotransmitters, peptides, and hormones related to. . . ." Sounds like a good dose of techno is in order for all of us. Does it mean I should junk me beloved classical? Are the authors simply trying to add complexity to the equation? If so, are they really testing complexity, or are is it just a reaction to obscure music? From the article, the emphasis is mine: "From each of the tracks selected in this fashion, one or in some cases two excerpts of 25–100 s in duration were copied. Each of those 197 MEs were meant to constitute an independent musical statement, comprising for example a complete passage or phrase. MEs were taken from an instrumental part of the track in case vocals were included in the track, often the introduction or the bridge. The instrumentation consisted mainly of electric or acoustic guitar, bass and percussion. Many examples also featured piano or different electric keyboard instruments as well as melodic instruments like saxophone, trombone, or violin." No vocals. Guitar, bass and drums? The examples selected don't sound terribly genre busting to me: "Inclusion criteria were (1) music which was generally characteristic of popular music in terms of musical properties as well as instrumentation and (2) foreign elements for a Western audience were accepted only if combined with more familiar elements in the accompaniment. Exclusion criteria were (3) stylesdistinctly different from pop-, rock-, jazz-, and world music or from any mix of these styles, and (4) traditional folk music unless featuring said accompaniment. In addition, (5) music with vocals was excluded in order to avoid that vocal quality and lyrics would become confounding variables (Fung, 1996; Coggiola, 2004). Finally, (6) MEs assumed to have been frequently played in broadcast media or to otherwise be widely known were also excluded to preclude as far as possible that the experts had previously heard them. This also decreased the risk that social conventions would affect ratings (Fisher, 1951; Crozier, 1997). Not sure what this means: "Nevertheless, the hypothesis that liking of more complex music benefits from more listening remains valid, and should manifest itself in a greater increase for more complex than for less complex music. This also failed to materialize. If anything, effects were greater for the less complex music, in terms of decreases in both Odd and Dull, while the increase in liking was just as large for all levels of complexity." What failed to materialize? The more you listen, the more you like, regardless of complexity? And it's all because we are getting dumber. "An alternative explanation may be that general intelligence has decreased somewhat in Western populations during this period (e.g., Woodley and Figueredo, 2013; Woodley of Menie et al., 2015a,b; Woodley of Menie and Fernandes, 2015; Madison et al., 2016), and that the industry is catering for the average cognitive processing ability in the largest consumer groups." That would certainly explain a lot.

Music sales is well tracked and well studied. Probably more so than any other art medium. You can subscribe to RIAA and Billboard reports for free. It will tell you what is trending and where things are heading. Here is the Billboard (Nielson) Report for 2017. 2017-year-end-music-report-us.pdf

Because they buy it. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2018/01/03/rap-overtakes-rock-most-popular-genre-among-music-fans-heres-why/990873001/

Decisions decisions

I think it ignores what this really Is, the music BUSINESS. There is no "happy medium in the music business. It either sells or it doesnt. The direction of pop mainstream music is set by a demographic of 14 to 24. Nobody here fits that bill. The group that buys the most music in the US is 45+, but it is mostly female and they mostly buy catalog music (60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. It is though to have any influence on the music of today when we are a tiny silver of a demo and the music the demo is buying is all from the past. We shape nothing. Kids shape music, as it should be.

Define intellectualism. It isn't dead at all in the classical sense. If you are referring to debate on political ideology in the US, it ended when WFB died. Chris

Article on EQ in live sound, and the benefits of training your ears to EQ. https://tapeop.com/interviews/117/learning-frequencies/ I believe @Chris A has talked about how his evolution progressed forward the more time he was able to work with frequencies and compare before and after. This is encouraged in this article and explains the benefits in the studio.

Almost, but not quite. Carl it is more akin to your world. A customer needs a needs a new ___ ..or they heard that they can get X.with an aftermarket this or that. It's money. .Edelbrock, Thrust, and on and on. Sometimes it is a.better mousetrap, sometimes it is snake oil. How many aftermarket products have you seen that claim something that is spot on? How many times total b.s.? PTFE, Slick 50, etc., etc. Andy Granatelli comes mind.

I like this guy https://www.sound-smith.com/articles/stylus-shape-information

Ya think?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-compact-disc-industry-is-officially-dead-charts-2018-2 Good article

http://www.ajc.com/news/national/gibson-guitar-company-maker-the-les-paul-facing-bankruptcy-after-116-years-business/OlaIEYdtLEv1rP92RvZFrM/amp.html Very sad news

I agree, but we are in a very distinct minority.

Did you just wake up from a 100 year daze? It's simple. The cost of the lives, "the untold millions" is less than the cost of putting in positive train control. That's how it works in a "free market" economy. The only thing can change that is regulation or subsidy. It is pretty basic economics.

Simple, cost. I think it was Haynes, like the underwear brand. Power loss wasn't the real issue on that landing/crash. The tail engine had an uncontained catastrophic failure (due to human error in the inspection/maintenance process). When the fan blades came apart pieces severed all 3 hydraulic lines of the 3 independent hydraulic systems (triple redundancy). The plane had a loss of control. No rudder, no alerions, no stabilizer. It had no way to turn, and no way to climb or descend. That all had to be done with differential power (to turn, and it seems they could only turn in one direction), adding power to fly level and reducing power to descend. It was indeed an extraordinary feat of flying and responding to an emergency. How would you even begin to program that into an autopilot. Even if you could, it is location dependant. They had not flaps or spoilers, and they had no way to flair. The only way to program and automate a system for the situation is to design something capable of duplicating "seat of the pants" flying. Yes, that will come in very, very handy the next time that exact make, model and type aircraft has a total loss of power and happens to be over the Hudson.

It will take until they develop and app that can identify a non-sequitor and respond with a non-sequitor of its own.

Autopilot work great if all engines are working. What autopilots cannot contend with is power loss.

Morgan Motor Cars, still made of wood

Pete Townsend saved his life, no doubt about that.

Did you see that mountain of cocaine? I thought it was the Winter Olympics for a second.

About 10 minutes of new and cool interesting stuff, like Tom Dowd, Duane Alman, interspersed with a lot of nothing.