Re: odd !

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4810DF74.3D30BC3E@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> John O wrote:
>
> > >
> > > John- please understand- you posted no evidence but what you
remember-
> > > then claimed that as fact..just plain bad.
> >
> > I'll give you the other stuff, even though that ABX study is still
debated
> > on usenet, but the point is valid.
> >
> > FWIW I worked in the engineering department at Zenith at the time. I
> > remember it well because we had the same debate back then. Systems
guys
> > saying it wasn't possible and audio guys saying come and let us show
you.
> > (we eventually played with this in the anechoic chamber)
> >
> > Don't take offense, it wasn't intended that way. My experience and
that
of
> > others says our ears are better than 3 dB. That's all.
>
> I agree about the 3dB thing and ears. The commonly accepted norm is that
most
> people can hear 1dB volume increments but my point was that even that is
an
> underestimate for 'trained ears'.
>
> Graham
>

No where did I say all, I just said it's common that people can't hear
less
than 3.

As far as 1 dB steps on a telivision remote, and them being accurate, I
say
absolute horse ****.

In the late 70's may real time analyzers were only accurate to 3 db. A tv
remote being more accurate? ROTFLOL.