Jon Risch distortion test signal

[ToddB]

As you can with two tones. Extra tones don't give you better results, just more complex version of the results that may not be able to be interpreted.

Making something more complex does not necessarily make it better.

But music almost always consists of more than two tones, and if a test that introduces additional tones reveals distortion characteristics that differ from those that are measurable using only two tones, wouldn't that test theoretically better reflect the ability of a device to accurately reproduce music? I would tend to think that it does, and that it's to our advantage to know and account for this, assuming that the distortion character revealed with a complex signal is found to be audible.

[ToddB]

That is a double edged sword..

They will not publish anything useful unless they can patent it to protect IP

Agreed.

..and they will not publish results which counter their claims..

Are you suggesting that marketing at some companies takes precedence over engineering?

LOL...

[FLZapped]

But music almost always consists of more than two tones,

Which is one of several reasons why it isn't used for test measurements.

and if a test that introduces additional tones reveals distortion characteristics that differ from those that are measurable using only two tones, wouldn't that test theoretically better reflect the ability of a device to accurately reproduce music?

No.


-Bruce

[ToddB]

Which is one of several reasons why it isn't used for test measurements.

I'd think that music would be the ideal test signal, given that it's the signal the equipment is dedicated to reproducing, IF the overlapping of fundamentals and harmonics could be avoided, which is obviously not possible. That's why Risch chose the specific frequencies he used in his test tones, which seem to be attempts at compromising between mimicking the complex behavior of musical signals, while still being simple enough to provide discrete values to measure.

No.

Do you have an explanation for why not?

[skeptic]

I have decided to suspend my boycott of AR resulting from its new censorship policies making this exception. I have argued with Mr. Risch on this board in the past and the debates between us have been long and sometimes heated. As far as I can tell, he stopped posting here several years ago when I exploded every one of his theories about audio cables and power wires using simple logic, and his own words. That demonstration of my proof of his inconsistency and illogic should still be available in the archive should anyone care to find it and read it. I won't go into it now as it is a long dead debate as far as I am concerned.

Reading the current debate, it seems little has changed. Mr. Risch IMO has invented a new self serving illogical and inconsistent method for measuring non linear distortion which of course he immediately applies to justify his apology for the after market audio cable industry. It begins with incorrect assumptions, forces them together with faulty logic, is supported with subjective impressions and reaches a contrived conclusion which was IMO pre determined to once again justify his discredited views, at least in my opinion, on audio cables.

"Traditional test signals either use a single sine wave tone or at most, a pair of tones, to explore simple harmonic distortion, and simple IM distortion. Music is composed of many tones, all happening at once, and with varying relationships."

There is no such thing as simple harmonic and simple IM distortion. There is only harmonic and IM distortion. Denying that the use of one or two tones at a time is a valid way to predict how electronic devices will process more complex waveforms such is music is a denial of the well established principle of superposition as well as Fourier and Laplace analysis. It rejects over 100 years of accepted mathematical and theory scientific experience. It is a false argument.

"I realized that if you make all the tones fall at intervals where they would not have the same spacing ratio's, and would not have the same frequency intervals, this would avoid the cover-up of the distortion products. "

IM and Harmonic distortion is successfully and repeatedly measured to tens of thousandths of a percent, far lower than any human being can hear. There are no cover-ups. The existing science is not flawed or inadequate. At least there is no evidence of that here. The false arguement appeals to non technical neophytes, not engineers.

"The correlation between which unit sounded good, and which didn't followed the Phi Spectral measurements almost exactly."

This is a purely subjective statement which has no value in a scientific discussion. It is typical of the flawed reasoning frequently offered as statements of fact in Mr. Risch's presentations.

"I hypothesized that for bi-wired speaker cables, the big difference would be in the current flow, as the impedance's of the crossover would create a preferential situation with regard to the flow of current in the woofer cable vs. the tweeter cable."

This entire part of this presentation is based on a completely flawed assumption. As I have stated elsewhere, bi-wiring may have a theoretical justification but not the one usually presented which is that somehow different speaker cables are more suited to carry different frequencies or that somehow there is an interaction inside the cable with current at different frequencies which causes an undesired interacton. Current density in audio cables is infinitesimally low compared to what would be required to compromise the linearity of cables to handle current at different frequencies to the point of interactive distortion. The simple proof of this is the example of twisted pairs of telephone cables which can carry hundreds of multiplexed telephone conversations on different subcarrier frequencies where the current denisity is comparable to that of a speaker cable and each phone conversation is as clear as if there was only one.

If there is a justification for bi-wiring loudspeakers it is simply this. With bi-wiring, the amplifier's low impedance output stage is interposed electrically between the woofer which may generate substantial back emf and the midrange or tweeter. The amplifier would act to shunt current from this back emf before it reaches the other drivers much more effectively than would otherwise be the case. In a fair test, not only would the loads have to be completely passive but the combined gage (cross-sectional area ) of the woofer and tweeter wire would have to be equal to the single wire of the non bi-wired arrangement.

To suggest that Mr. Risch's method has some innovative insight is to assume that every one of the countless hundreds of thousands of mathematicians, electrical engineers, scientists, and technicians who have developed, used, and trusted test measurements and equipment over the last 70 to 80 years has overlooked an obvious theoretical flaw or ignored it.

It is also highly self-serving to defame professionally recognized international technical bodies such as the AES or IEEE by saying that they have rejected Mr. Risch's technical papers in the past because of political considerations. They were certainly rejected because of their technical flaws but even if they are accepted, that does not prove the usefulness or even validity of his theories, only that they don't have obvious fatal errors. It would be for the profession to develop and uses the proposed methods as a substitute for the existing methods as a demonstration of their innovative value.

BTW, if one actually were looking for frequencies to use in combination having the criteria Mr. Risch desired, the logical place to look is to prime numbers. Prime numbers are not evenly divisible by a whole number except by one and by themselves.

[RobotCzar]

“Traditional test signals either use a single sine wave tone or at most, a pair of tones, to explore simple harmonic distortion, and simple IM distortion. Music is composed of many tones, all happening at once, and with varying relationships.”

There is no such thing as “simple” harmonic and “simple” IM distortion. There is only harmonic and IM distortion. Denying that the use of one or two tones at a time is a valid way to predict how electronic devices will process more complex waveforms such is music is a denial of the well established principle of superposition as well as Fourier and Laplace analysis. It rejects over 100 years of accepted mathematical and theory scientific experience. It is a false argument.
.

Are you reading this E-stat? You are way, way off base in swallowing the high-end claims about "simple" test signals. I have tried to make this point to you, but you, like JR. know that if one card is removed from you house-of-cards belief system, the whole thing will collapse. Your "experience" is not an issue that anyone should care about, especially when it is irrational in light of simple scientific and mathematical facts.

Jon Risch is demonstrating a lack of understanding of extremely basic physical principles. Why would anybody give two hoots about what he says about his "discoveries"?

Why embrace ignorance?

[E-Stat]

Scratch the sarcasm. Please provide the proof for your assertion concerning the audibility claim.

IM and Harmonic distortion is successfully and repeatedly measured to tens of thousandths of a percent, far lower than any human being can hear. There are no cover-ups. The existing science is not flawed or inadequate

rw

[E-Stat]

You are way, way off base in swallowing the high-end claims about "simple" test signals.

I really do try to put myself in your shoes when I read comments like that. You relate from a completely different, detached point of view. You know what you've read. I know what I have experienced.

rw

[skeptic]

Sarcasm as a personal insult is the last resort of someone who cannot argue the facts.

This is the laboratory board where scientific principles are supposed to be the topic of discussion, not personal prejudice. It is especially inappropriate for someone who has been assigned the function of impartial moderator. This is reason enough for me to have stopped posting here.

[E-Stat]

It begins with incorrect assumptions, forces them together with faulty logic, is supported with subjective impressions and reaches a contrived conclusion which was IMO pre determined to once again justify his discredited views, at least in my opinion, on audio cables.

Your opinion is twice noted.

rw

[J Risch]

[

Exactly. How is this a rebuttal again? It is exactly what I said; Two tones and you get Intermodulation products of a non-linear device.

Actually, I was providing an example of how two tones can also provide the harmonic distortion information too. You missed the mark entirely there Bruce.

In any case, the scenario I describe is trivial, and it shows that you can indeed garner HD data from a test signal with more than one tone in it. Thus your statement: "1) You can ONLY merasure harmonic distortion with a single test signal." has been shown to be incorrect.

Exactly, but why bother to sweep, either you are going to see harmonic distortion generated by the non-linearities of the device, or you aren't. Or are you trying to talk about electro-mechanical devices without saying so?

This is at the crux of the matter here, and why both you and skeptic are way off base. With you Bruce, having an RF background, it is understandable that you look at things from such a background.
RF amps are designed a certain way, and have to deal with a very limited frequency range in terms of percentage of an octave band. Their distortion behavior is much more predictable and can be predicted by some simple equations relating level to an amount of 2nd or 3rd order distortion, hence the "2nd order intercept point" and the "3rd order intercept point" can be predicted and plotted.

Within these contraints, measurement at a single frequency may suffice to characterize the amps distortion behavior. If it has a certain 2nd order intercept point for 14.7 MHz, then for 14.2 MHz, it will behave virtually identical.

By the same token, this very predictable behavior also allows one to use a very simple two tone IM measurement to investigate the various orders of IM distortion. In such a simple and well defined amp, it is even possible to tie the HD and the IM distortion predictions together, and predict one from the other, if certain basic precautions are taken.

However, with audio, ALL BETS ARE OFF! You CAN NOT use this same RF experience to approach and measure audio devices! If one were to believe skeptic, then this would violate several laws of physics, and cause the universe to be sucked into a black hole or an equally catastrophic event.
The plain fact is, many audio amplifiers DO NOT behave this predictably, and measuring the HD at one frequency DOES NOT PROVIDE A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT IT WILL DO AT ANOTHER FREQUENCY.

The simplest proof of this is any decent power amp review that includes a harmonic distortion measurement at more than one frequency, or an HD measurement that sweeps the audio band. Quite simply, if what Bruce and skeptic say is true, then the distortion would not vary across the audio band, it would remain a constant value, all the way from 20 Hz, to 20 kHz. Guess what? It ain't so. A great many audio amplifiers exhibit higher harmonic distortion at the frequency extremes than at say, 1 kHz.

This simple fact is all that it takes to completely blow FLZapped and skeptics tirades out of the water. Bruce with his insistence that "You can ONLY merasure harmonic distortion with a single test signal.", and skeptic with his "Denying that the use of one or two tones at a time is a valid way to predict how electronic devices will process more complex waveforms such is music is a denial of the well established principle of superposition as well as Fourier and Laplace analysis."

That's the ball game right there.

Or are you trying to talk about electro-mechanical devices without saying so?

No, but we can not ignore them, just because they also throw any such dogma about predicting the distortion behavior well enough that only one frequency would suffice to fully characterize the HD of an audio device, or that one set of frequencies would suffice to fully characterize the IM all across the audio band. Speakers, mics, headphones, these all can have highly non-linear behavior that defies any such predictions and assumptions.

This pretty much takes care of the vast majority of both FLZ's and skeptic objections and comments.

In theory, ahhhh, I see. As usual, you haven't actually done it. Like all the rest of your "theories" that remain unproven.

Actually, I was speaking of someone in the third person, for myself, I have indeed made all three measurements, and they all came up different on speakers, power amps, CDP's, etc. but none were as revealing as my Phi Spectral test signal.

As you can with two tones. Extra tones don't give you better results, just more complex version of the results that may not be able to be interpreted.

So, because a more powerful test signal is harder to interpret, we should just give up and not use it? That hardly sounds very scientific or searching to me.

Making something more complex does not necessarily make it better.
Any electrical engineer will tell you as you add more test signals, the more the results are going to look like noise.

Indeed, and you confused this very issue the first time around here at AR. You said that the distortion products were "the noise floor", when in fact, they were a lot of distortion products being generated.
However, the whole big deal with my new test signal is that YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY CAME FROM _and_ none of them are readily covered up by any of the others. That is the power of the Phi Sepctral, that is the big deal.

Jon Risch

[FLZapped]

I'd think that music would be the ideal test signal, given that it's the signal the equipment is dedicated to reproducing, IF the overlapping of fundamentals and harmonics could be avoided, which is obviously not possible.

You have just answered your own question.

That's why Risch chose the specific frequencies he used in his test tones, which seem to be attempts at compromising between mimicking the complex behavior of musical signals, while still being simple enough to provide discrete values to measure.

Did you bother to look at those links provided? Think how complicated it is to sort out ALL the IM products from 12 simultaneous signals. It's a factorial type problem. I'll expound:

You have first order products for the following:

f1+/- f2, f1+/- f3, f1 +/- f4,....f1+/-f12
f2 +/- f3, f2 +/-f4, f2 +/-f5,....f2 +/-f12
f3 +/- f4, f3 +/-f5,......f3 +/- f12
.
.
.
f11 +/- f12

That's plus AND minus AND that's ONLY for the first order products! Imagine working this out only through say 5th order products...

Now can you begin to grasp how complicated it is to try and sort out all those distortion products? Why? When all you need are two tones. Either your device is linear and produces no products, or it is to a degree non-linear and does produce products. Easily executed, easily measured, and easily quantified. That's why these tests exist as documented world-wide standards.

Furthermore, as I said, the more you add on test signals, the more it looks like noise. Well, that also means it's harder and harder to find very small products from all the "noise" generated by all those signals convoluted together.

-Bruce

[J Risch]

As far as I can tell, he stopped posting here several years ago when I exploded every one of his theories about audio cables and power wires using simple logic, and his own words. That demonstration of my proof of his inconsistency and illogic should still be available in the archive should anyone care to find it and read it.

In your dreams you did. BTW, the AR archives that you are referring to are no longer readily available, but I wish they were, because then folks could see that you did no such thing.

Most of what you rail about in this post, I have answered in my reply to Bruce/FLZapped re RF amps and how your overly simplistic assumptions about audio electronics, much less electro-acoustic devices, are incorrect.

The bottom line is, if a single tone would suffice to fully characterize an audio device, the FTC would not have the requirement to state a bandwidth for a distortion measurement, a simple 1 kHz tone would suffice.

Me:
"I realized that if you make all the tones fall at intervals where they would not have the same spacing ratio's, and would not have the same frequency intervals, this would avoid the cover-up of the distortion products. "

IM and Harmonic distortion is successfully and repeatedly measured to tens of thousandths of a percent, far lower than any human being can hear. There are no cover-ups. The existing science is not flawed or inadequate.

However, that does not address what I was talking about in my paper, I was referring to the use of the multitone signals that were in common use up till that point in time, most notoriously, the Audio Precision FASTEST signal, and others like it.

In point of fact, and covered in my paper, the AP FASTTEST signal DOES cover up almost ALL the harmonics, and almost all the IM products, what is left to see are the primarily anharmonic and highly non-linear distortion products, which is fine if the DUT is really terrible, or is prone to highly non-linear distortion like a loudspeaker, but not so fine if we are trying to discriminate between two otherwise fairly well measuring audio devices.

And as I have repeatedly stated, and NO ONE has yet to provide ANY rebuttal to, is that no where are the raw metrics of the thresholds of audibility for HD or the JND's been properly correlated to what we hear with music, and how it would be judged sonically. So stating that some harmonic or IM product is "far lower than any human being can hear" has very little meaning in the real world, and is NOT something one can hang their hat on.

Me:
"I hypothesized that for bi-wired speaker cables, the big difference would be in the current flow, as the impedance's of the crossover would create a preferential situation with regard to the flow of current in the woofer cable vs. the tweeter cable."

This entire part of this presentation is based on a completely flawed assumption. As I have stated elsewhere, bi-wiring may have a theoretical justification but not the one usually presented which is that somehow different speaker cables are more suited to carry different frequencies or that somehow there is an interaction inside the cable with current at different frequencies which causes an undesired interacton.

Quite a few folks seem to have dificulty with this one, even after I have pointed it out in several different ways, and provided a graph of the current flow in the two different wire pairs of a bi-wired speaker.
I show this at:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/page7.htm
I talk about why this is at:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/biwiring.htm

If there is a justification for bi-wiring loudspeakers it is simply this. With bi-wiring, the amplifier's low impedance output stage is interposed electrically between the woofer which may generate substantial back emf and the midrange or tweeter. The amplifier would act to shunt current from this back emf before it reaches the other drivers much more effectively than would otherwise be the case. In a fair test, not only would the loads have to be completely passive but the combined gage (cross-sectional area ) of the woofer and tweeter wire would have to be equal to the single wire of the non bi-wired arrangement.

And I show this in a table at:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/biwiring2.htm
along with the simplified circuit used to derive it.

I have been posting about both issues for a long time now, I guess John Curl is right: first, it doesn't exist, then it was known about all along, then it was invented by us.

To suggest that Mr. Risch's method has some innovative insight is to assume that every one of the countless hundreds of thousands of mathematicians, electrical engineers, scientists, and technicians who have developed, used, and trusted test measurements and equipment over the last 70 to 80 years has overlooked an obvious theoretical flaw or ignored it.

Welllllll, you said it, not me. As I said in my first posted reply to Resident Loser. some folks get it, and some don't. The ones who do are thrilled with the power and capability it offers, and one's who don't are grumbling about how it is not like Grandpa's test signals, darn newfangled high-falutin computers and FFT's!

They were certainly rejected because of their technical flaws ...

We have yet to see WHAT technical flaws you are talking about, since none of what you have posted so far made a serious attempt to explain what is flawed with the Phi Spectral multitone test signal, other tha your OWN flawed interpertation of the validity of the use of a single test tone (or a single pair of tones for IM) to fully characterize the distortion in an audio amplifier.

BTW, if one actually were looking for frequencies to use in combination having the criteria Mr. Risch desired, the logical place to look is to prime numbers. Prime numbers are not evenly divisible by a whole number except by one and by themselves.

I actually looked into that, but found that I still wanted to have a more consistent criteria for the selection of the primary test tone frequencies, and how do you choose the approximate spacing of these prime numbers? Within the limitations of the FFT bins, it would have been too easy to fall into the same "equal spacing" trap that ended up with several or more of the prime number tones at spacngs that would end up covering up a harmonic or an IM product.

BTW, the criteria for a prime number does not preclude that it can not cause various distortion products to fall on top of one another, because these distortion products are multiples of the prime number, and cross-products, etc., so it is not certain that they would not tend to do so at some higher order of distortion.
Note that is it is NOT immediately obvious what MIGHT get covered up, just by an inspection ofthe primary frequencies, and even with a sophisticated spread sheet, and numerous analysis runs, it is hard to be sure that you are not inadvertantly covering up some product or another, without going over each potential possibility. The Phi multipliers I used at least have some mathematical assurance behind them, in terms of providing the least amount of distortion product cover up.

Jon Risch

[J Risch]

Jon Risch is demonstrating a lack of understanding of extremely basic physical principles. Why would anybody give two hoots about what he says about his "discoveries"?

Why embrace ignorance?

Indeed, I could ask you the same question.

Exactly what was demonstrated, and how did you come to that conclusion?

Before you answer, it might behoove you to read the replies I have made to Resident Loser, and to skeptic and FLZapped.

Rather than parrot what skeptic said, I want to know precisely where I was demonstrating this lack.

Come on, it should be child's play for you to provide specifics that are just a copy of what skeptic posted..

Jon Risch

[FLZapped]

Actually, I was providing an example of how two tones can also provide the harmonic distortion information too. You missed the mark entirely there Bruce.

Interesting, trying to use IM as HD, and blame me for your confusion. Right.

In any case, the scenario I describe is trivial, and it shows that you can indeed garner HD data from a test signal with more than one tone in it. Thus your statement: "1) You can ONLY merasure harmonic distortion with a single test signal." has been shown to be incorrect.

What you described by any standard is IM distortion. Not Harmonic distortion. By world-wide recognized standards, harmonic distortion is measured with a single tone and is supported mathmatically. Intermodulaton is measured with multiple tones. These are given definitions that the rest of the engineering world recognizes as a standard, except you, apparently.

This is at the crux of the matter here, and why both you and skeptic are way off base. With you Bruce, having an RF background, it is understandable that you look at things from such a background.

Devices are either linear, or they are not. Either they produce distortion products, or they don't.

The physics don't change with the operating frequency.

RF amps are designed a certain way, and have to deal with a very limited frequency range in terms of percentage of an octave band. Their distortion behavior is much more predictable and can be predicted by some simple equations relating level to an amount of 2nd or 3rd order distortion, hence the "2nd order intercept point" and the "3rd order intercept point" can be predicted and plotted.

And that matters because? You think the physics changes or something? How absurd. IM is IM and HD is HD and it is ALL generated the same way, regardless of operating fequency. If the device is perfectly linear, no products. If it is non-linear, you get distortion products.

By the same token, this very predictable behavior also allows one to use a very simple two tone IM measurement to investigate the various orders of IM distortion.

Again, you think the physics change? Did you miss the fact that your engineering text book doesn't have a seperate section on defining harmonic and intermodulation distortion for audio vs rf?

However, with audio, ALL BETS ARE OFF! You CAN NOT use this same RF experience to approach and measure audio devices!

Please, show us all how the physics of harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion are generated differently for rf vs audio. Please show us all how can or cannot get f1+/- f2, 2f1+/- f2....nf1 +/- f2 for either rf or audio, please, we're all waiting for the new formula to show us all that the mathmatics that have accurately described intermodulation distortion for SOOOOO many years is suddenly wrong. Please, we're all waiting.

If one were to believe skeptic, then this would violate several laws of physics, and cause the universe to be sucked into a black hole or an equally catastrophic event.

Yet you think it is okay for you to espouse several different laws of physics as to how IM and harmonic distortion are generated at audio vs rf. Yet you say we are violating the laws of physics? I have yet to see you show anywhere which ones are actually being violated. You're just hand waving.

Enough of this squirming around to deflect the real purpose of this discussion:

Your multi-tone test signal is completely unusable to measure intermodulation distortion and is a violation of the recognized definition in measuring harmonic distortion.

Two tones, are all that's needed for IM. Regardless of operating frequency.

Harmonic distortion is measured using a single tone, regardless of operating frequency.

This is recognized world-wide and has been so for a long, long time and no one has proven otherwise. Including you. Even your test signal follows these laws. The problem is, your test signal will generate SO many products it would be impossible to distinguish noise from distortion products making it unusable as a viable test signal.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I really do try to put myself in your shoes when I read comments like that. You relate from a completely different, detached point of view. You know what you've read. I know what I have experienced.

rw

And there are people who KNOW thay have seen Bugs Bunny at Disney World....

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I really do try to put myself in your shoes when I read comments like that. You relate from a completely different, detached point of view. You know what you've read. I know what I have experienced.

rw

Okay. Then turn on your java and experience these audio illusions:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/nest/imager/con...ons/ST/st.html

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/nest/imager/con...ons/TT/tt.html

http://www.kyushu-id.ac.jp/~ynhome/E...usions2nd.html

Then tell us about how reliable your experience really is.....

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

And there are people who KNOW thay have seen Bugs Bunny at Disney World....

You still haven't got that right, have you?

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...offee&session=

rw

[skeptic]

Mr. Risch;

If you want to overturn 150 years of mathematics and 75 years of laboratory practice based on it, both of which have been accepted universally all over the world, you have to start with an examination of the underlying mathematical principles and the laboratory practices which follow them and show precisely where the equations are wrong or where the instrumentation doesn't conform to the equations. Then you have to present new or modified equations showing why they are right and showing how and why your theory conforms to them. Then, accomplished people in the field with credentials will sit up and take notice. Professional journals have much higher standards and require far more rigorous proof than consumer magazines and internet chat boards. If you want to be taken seriously by them, you must live up to those standards. What is acceptable to a tinkering hobbyist, even one affuent enough to equip a laboratory, sell consumer products, and call himself an engineer, is inadmissable to a PHD in physics or electrical engineering.

[FLZapped]

You still haven't got that right, have you?

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...offee&session=

rw

Oh, but I do.

http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/n...e/k061101.html

[skeptic]

Why should I make any attempt to engage in serious discourse with someone who first insults me, a supposedly impartial moderator no less, then deletes his insult without so much as an apology, and then demands proof for something which anyone with a real technical background in audio would know and understand without question? It was painful enough for me to enter into exchanges with you before you were elevated to "moderator." Power does indeed corrupt, even on the smallest scale.

[E-Stat]

Oh, but I do.

http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/n...e/k061101.html

Interesting. I guess that is a sad commentary on cultural literacy today. They should have asked a second grader who would know the difference.

rw

[E-Stat]

Why should I make any attempt to engage in serious discourse with someone who first insults me, a supposedly impartial moderator no less, then deletes his insult without so much as an apology, and then demands proof for something which anyone with a real technical background in audio would know and understand without question?

Absolutely no reason at all. I already know the answer.

Power does indeed corrupt, even on the smallest scale.

As a moderator (as opposed to poster), I will ask you to debate the issues and cease the personal attack you began with Mr Risch. The chest beating opening paragraph was unnecessary. As was my original response to that.

rw

[skeptic]

I did not attack Mr. Risch on this thread. (That's the one that was deleted by Eric which caused me to stop posting here, remember?) I attacked his theory. Is that also not allowed under the new regime? Isn't that what Todd asked for originally?

"Views?
Spews?
What say yous?"

"I'm just shocked that no naysayers are willing to think for themselves and venture any thoughts about the technical merits of Risch's idea."

Maybe he was disingenuous. Maybe he didn't want a real discussion after all. Mabye he was just pretending.

As for you, I'm still waiting for an apology for your personal insult rather than hiding behind deleting your original sarcastic response to my posting. Your kind of attack was supposedly the very essence of the rationale for changing the rules in the first place...if that was the real reason.

[E-Stat]

I did not attack Mr. Risch on this thread.

These comments are not germaine to the discussion:

"That demonstration of my proof of his inconsistency and illogic should still be available in the archive should anyone care to find it and read it."

"Mr. Risch IMO has invented a new self serving illogical and inconsistent method for measuring non linear distortion which of course he immediately applies to justify his apology for the after market audio cable industry."

As for you, I'm still waiting for an apology for your personal insult rather than hiding behind deleting your original sarcastic response to my posting.

I edit many a post after reflection. And you're correct. I apologize as moderator for my first reaction to "Skeptic Speaks Out". I really need to bite my tongue first when the pomposity begins...

rw