Jerries and the list

I'd comment on the psychoacoustic properties of the high third, but, there
are many on this list who have not done any pschoacoustics, and they flatly
refuse to accept that such things exist. It's a shame that this list is not
the free discussion area that it should be. Opinions are fine, but I've
stopped making theoretical comment as obviously four years study of
acoustics counts for nothing on this list.

M

--- In tuning@y..., "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
> I'd comment on the psychoacoustic properties of the high third,
but, there
> are many on this list who have not done any pschoacoustics, and
they flatly
> refuse to accept that such things exist. It's a shame that this
list is not
> the free discussion area that it should be. Opinions are fine, but
I've
> stopped making theoretical comment as obviously four years study of
> acoustics counts for nothing on this list.

as someone who has spent hundreds of hours studying psychoacoustics
in libraries, and thousands studying it in 'real life', please let me
speak as one voice on this list who feels otherwise. as far as i'm
concerned, this list should be completely free, and there should be
much more psychoacoustics here!

On 3/15/02 5:32 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:18:41 -0000 (GMT)
> From: "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
> Subject: Jerries and the list
>
> I'd comment on the psychoacoustic properties of the high third, but, there
> are many on this list who have not done any pschoacoustics, and they flatly
> refuse to accept that such things exist. It's a shame that this list is not
> the free discussion area that it should be. Opinions are fine, but I've
> stopped making theoretical comment as obviously four years study of
> acoustics counts for nothing on this list.
>
> M
>
Thanks for "coming out" on this, Mark. I'd love to hear your assessment of
our "quest." You sound like the kind of guy who'd have something of value to
say.

Jerry