Jon Risch distortion test signal

[FLZapped]

You really don't get it, or are refusing to see the light.

Your comments and claims are on record, and to try and deny them is the silliest thing to attempt. Your claims have been rebutted, and your comments are shown to be a slanted and personal view that has no relationship to reality.

End of any further attempts to explain things to you Bruce, it is futile and not worth the effort.

Jon Risch

Thank you, because I'm tired of your hand waving and endless twisting of the facts. If you insist on further hand waving, at least shave your armpits. Nowhere have you actually presented a convincing argument or brought forth any relevent facts that conclusively proves your position.

So if you want to come back for more, maybe we can talk about the proof you have for dielectric sound. silver sounding bright, multiple phase reversals in coaxial cable that is less than a tenth of a wavelength, noise in wire, and your completely unproven listening methodology that supports your theories, yet no one else in the world has verified any of your claims with any method, much less yours.

Bogus theories that you have yet to prove....just like you haven't proven any real usefulness for your phiddle-phaddle test signal.

-Bruce

[ToddB]

What Jon claims he did and what Jon can actually produce are two different things.

So I take it that you've performed tests using Jon's method and produced measurements that contradict his? You do remember what forum this is, right, and you're not just making an unsupported claim based on personal experience here? Bwahahahaha.....

If you had the history with him that many of us do, you would immediately know this without explaination.

My history with Jon is quite sufficient for me to have arrived at a judgement as to the value of his perspective.

I didn't say the results are invalid, just unusable. Like that old quip: "Too many cooks spoil the broth" - too many test tones spoil the test.

Again, you're not accounting for the results Jon has already posted. If you disagree with his results, then you must believe that he's either lying or that his calculations are wrong. Which is it?

One other thing you have to understand is that these tests must be able to be performed outside the engineering lab. Make it too complicated makes it unusable anywhere but the engineering lab. Okay, so how is a tehnician out in the field going to be able to relate his findings to an engineer if they aren't speaking the same "test language" because he cannot perform this test and be able to interpret the results?

I see that Jon has already responded to this. While the principle you espouse is certainly legitimate enough, this particular application doesn't appear to stress that principle to any large degree.

[ToddB]

And enough with the personal insults, everyone. If you can't say something without insulting somebody, then don't say it.

[markw]

It's just that it seems nobody EXCEPT Jon has ever seen the validity od his approach.

And, as I said in my first post on this subject, the experts still haven't evaluated it, at least those you consider experts anyway. While professional in their fields you don't accept their opinions because they don't agree with Jon's?

Quite a few have torn it apart here but apparantly that's not enough for you. Howsa bout getting some of those guys from the AES to come to his defense. You're the one that brought that up in he first place.

As it now stands, 9 out of 10 doctor's do NOT recommend Crest. ...and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.

[skeptic]

I think it's only fair to let the AES look at his paper and see if there is any merit in what he says. Personally, as I've said, I don't see any. However, people who know much more about it than I do will have the chance to examine it carefully, challenge it, tear it apart, and if they can't shoot it down, adopt part or all of it. I hope he lives long enough to see the results. From what he alluded to in his other posting, it seems like he's expecting to pass away in the not too far flung future. Developing a test method to prove his theories about audio cables seems to be part of his life's crusade.

I must say that while I don't agree that his method offers anything new or necessary, I at least agree with him to the extent that the current procedures for evaluating much in audio equipment is inadequate because it doesn't show us the differences that exist. The state of the art of design has far surpassed the state of the art of measurement or at least the commonly used procedures. Equipment should be pushed well beyond the current limits by tests which demonstrate electrical performance differences which correlate with real world audible differences. However, unless there is a sound mathematical foundation to support the measurement theory, guesses like saying that the current test procedures mask distortion or that there is a correlation between what he measured whith his procedure and what sounds good to some people isn't adequate. While I've seen all kinds of graphs of waveforms and tabulations as well as very long explanations and references in his presentations, I do not recall seeing even one mathematical formula. When he says that the distortion is masked, he needs to back it up with equations showing how and why and others to show how and why his procedure overcomes the problem. As far as I can tell, he hasn't done that. And he hasn't shown why the current test equipment which can measure such infinitesmal distortion levels gives erroneous results. All I have is his verbal assurances which are not adequate for me. I don't think that they will be adequate for the AES either. Also, it is surprising that someone would want to introduce a new theory on an internet web page and defend it staunchly before having peer review acknowledge its worth. This is the kind of bravura which opens people up to ridicule but that seems more common than ever these days.

[FLZapped]

So I take it that you've performed tests using Jon's method and produced measurements that contradict his?

Nothing to contradict, there is nothing from Jon in the first place, except handwaving. Besides, it has nothing to do with actual measurements, but whether or not his test signal has any merits in the realm of equipment testing, so far, he has failed to show that it can, or will, subplant anything currently in existance that is simpler and easier to implement and interpret.

My history with Jon is quite sufficient for me to have arrived at a judgement as to the value of his perspective.

tha is because jon hangs out in quarters where he does not receive critical scrutiney from his peers(or has manipulated the environment to prevent it), rather people of very limited technical knowledge whom he has hoodwinked with his bogus theories. Do a search on the NNTP newsgroups and see what happened to him there when he ran across some of his peers.

Again, you're not accounting for the results Jon has already posted. If you disagree with his results, then you must believe that he's either lying or that his calculations are wrong. Which is it?

What calculations? I have yet see a single calculation from him. As for his data, it is scant and flawed. Go over to AA and look up Steve Eddy's discussion on the matter. Further, you missd the point entirely, has nothing to do with making measurements, but whether the test signal has any real value, if it does something unique that can't be reproduced by any other means, or if it simplifies current methodology. Jon hasn't shown anywhere that it does.


-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I think it's only fair to let the AES look at his paper and see if there is any merit in what he says.

As far as I know, he has already submitted it.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

When he says that the distortion is masked, he needs to back it up with equations showing how and why and others to show how and why his procedure overcomes the problem. As far as I can tell, he hasn't done that. And he hasn't shown why the current test equipment which can measure such infinitesmal distortion levels gives erroneous results. All I have is his verbal assurances which are not adequate for me.

Too bad the archives here are lost. He has on more than one occasion tried to say it is because the commonly available test equpment uses averaging. Of course the flaw in that argument is that the measurement is steady-state and the use of averaging acutually improves the noise floor by averaging it out, because it is an uncorellated(random) signal, and therefore actually improves the measurement accuracy.

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

I at least agree with him to the extent that the current procedures for evaluating much in audio equipment is inadequate because it doesn't show us the differences that exist. The state of the art of design has far surpassed the state of the art of measurement or at least the commonly used procedures. Equipment should be pushed well beyond the current limits by tests which demonstrate electrical performance differences which correlate with real world audible differences.

Extraordinary. Gee that's my feeling exactly !

rw

[skeptic]

Not so fast. I'm only back for this one thread because I don't want to see somebody get away with something of questionable merit unchallenged.

I belive in torturing captives. Captive terrorists, captive amplifiers. Make it cry. Make it howl in pain. Push it to the limit and then some. Break it if you have to. They do it with cars. Why not with amplifiers? They do it to engineers (I know first hand, my friends and I have been there.) So far at least one has escaped. The AES will put him on the bench and see if he has the stuffing to stand up to the ultimate challenge. Maybe that's why he had his ominous premonition. :-) John Escalier would be miserable without Jon Risch. Who would he argue with so vehemently? Who else cares that much about this crap?

[E-Stat]

Who else cares that much about this crap?

Musiclovers who don't buy the company line because they know better.

rw

[ToddB]

Nobody is insulting anybody.

Bruce telling Jon to shave his armpits was childish and insulting. I'm surprised that I'm having to explain this to you.

It's just that it seems nobody EXCEPT Jon has ever seen the validity od his approach.

I see validity to his approach, I've seen nothing in this thread to dissuade my curiosity about it, and I fully intend at some point to perform the tests on my own equipment to see what kind of results I get. Actually performing the measurements would be the one guaranteed way to determine if Jon's method has any validity, which may be why nobody who has shown up in this thread to rail about the supposed flaws in his method claims to even have tried it.

And, as I said in my first post on this subject, the experts still haven't evaluated it, at least those you consider experts anyway. While professional in their fields you don't accept their opinions because they don't agree with Jon's?

And as I said in my first post on this subject, I was asking for opinions on the validity of the test from the people who frequent this board, I did not ask for a peer reviewed evaluation from any experts. Also, I would have no problem accepting an opinion that disagreed with Jon's, were a compelling argument justifying that opinion to be presented.

Quite a few have torn it apart here but apparantly that's not enough for you. Howsa bout getting some of those guys from the AES to come to his defense. You're the one that brought that up in he first place.

You must only have internalized one side of this discussion, because Jon has addressed every concern that's been raised. He also doesn't appear to need anyone else to defend him, because his explanations are intelligent and quite reasonable, but I suppose I'll find out the truth of the matter when I actually perform the tests myself.

As it now stands, 9 out of 10 doctor's do NOT recommend Crest. ...and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.

Then I guess that would be reason enough for you to feel comfortable with your preconceptions, even though a rationale has been posited that may prove those preconceptions to be wrong.

[ToddB]

Nothing to contradict, there is nothing from Jon in the first place, except handwaving.

Nothing? Handwaving? Jon has provided graphs, measurements, and explanations for how he arrived at his results. They're posted for the whole world to see. If you have data that contradicts those results, then let's see it.

Besides, it has nothing to do with actual measurements, but whether or not his test signal has any merits in the realm of equipment testing,

I can't believe you actually said this. Jon's method has EVERYTHING to do with the measurements, especially since he claims that those measurements prove to correlate with audible impressions. The measurements are the ENTIRE POINT of the method. How can you possibly not understand that?

so far, he has failed to show that it can, or will, subplant anything currently in existance that is simpler and easier to implement and interpret.

Yes, you've made it quite clear that this is your position.

tha is because jon hangs out in quarters where he does not receive critical scrutiney from his peers(or has manipulated the environment to prevent it), rather people of very limited technical knowledge whom he has hoodwinked with his bogus theories.

Do spare me the patronizing attitude and conspiracy theories. You've had just as much opportunity to give your side of this issue as Jon's had to give his. If people have found your arguments to be lacking, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that it's because your arguments have been lacking. If you believe that insulting the audience is somehow going to further your argument, it's not, at least not with me.

What calculations? I have yet see a single calculation from him. As for his data, it is scant and flawed.

The calculations he made to arrive at the test signals he used. The frequencies he used in those test signals, as a result of those calculations, are posted on his website. The results from some tests are also posted, I assume the unincluded graphs agree with those results, and explanations for how the results were arrived at are given. All of the information is available for you to use in proving that his method is flawed, if in fact you are able to do so.

Further, you missd the point entirely, has nothing to do with making measurements,

Like I said, as I read it, this has everything to do with the measurements.

but whether the test signal has any real value, if it does something unique that can't be reproduced by any other means, or if it simplifies current methodology. Jon hasn't shown anywhere that it does.

I don't recall Jon ever claiming that his method simplifies the current procedure, and if he did, then I would have to disagree, because it's clearly more complex. The value in that additional complexity, though, would be the claim that the test results are more representative of the audible performance of the equipment under test. Your position that the data Jon has posted is not unique and can be arrived at by more traditional means is not one that I would currently agree with, since I've never seen it anywhere else.

[FLZapped]

Nothing? Handwaving? Jon has provided graphs, measurements, and explanations for how he arrived at his results. They're posted for the whole world to see. If you have data that contradicts those results, then let's see it.

Graphs? where? YOu mean that link that had that fasttest thing, that isn't his work.

I can't believe you actually said this. Jon's method has EVERYTHING to do with the measurements, especially since he claims that those measurements prove to correlate with audible impressions. The measurements are the ENTIRE POINT of the method. How can you possibly not understand that?

Yeah, he claims, he hasn't sufficiently backed up his claims. Again, you miss the point, and gawd, I repeated it enough. He can't show where his methodology, which he even admits reaquires a ton of computing power to even begin to interpret, is better than any method already available and is more simple, and more easily einterpreted. Find a new argument, please, this one is dead, and rotting already.

Do spare me the patronizing attitude and conspiracy theories.

What in the hell are you smoking?

The calculations he made to arrive at the test signals he used.

WHAT CALCULATIONS? He has never once demonstrated them, beside pulling out a known algorithm and applying it, why do you think it already had a name???

I don't recall Jon ever claiming that his method simplifies the current procedure, and if he did, then I would have to disagree, because it's clearly more complex. The value in that additional complexity, though, would be the claim that the test results are more representative of the audible performance of the equipment under test. Your position that the data Jon has posted is not unique and can be arrived at by more traditional means is not one that I would currently agree with, since I've never seen it anywhere else.

Obviously you have no background in testing and mathmatics. It's already been explained and demonstrated that as you increase the number of test signals, the test signal itself begins to look more and more like noise(much less than when you add all the distortion product into the mix). Noise is not a very useful test signal, if it were, we'd use music, because it is mathematecally indistinguishable from noise.

Again, this is a dead and rotting argument. Please find a new one that is unique.

-Bruce

[markw]

I see validity to his approach, I've seen nothing in this thread to dissuade my curiosity about it, and I fully intend at some point to perform the tests on my own equipment to see what kind of results I get. Actually performing the measurements would be the one guaranteed way to determine if Jon's method has any validity, which may be why nobody who has shown up in this thread to rail about the supposed flaws in his method claims to even have tried it.

This brings to mind a quote from the first Star Wars. “The force has a powerful effect on weak minds, Luke”

Your words from post #68 in this thread:

I don't have any particular technical knowledge or experience related to this subject, so take my opinion for what it's worth, but based on the arguments given in this thread, I'm not seeing a sufficient rationale for taking the position that Jon's test method is without merit.

Your self admitted lack of technical knowledge and experience notwithstanding, there are several here who DO have such experience who dare question the validity, repeatability and usefulness of what Jon proposes. This was pointed out by Bruce, John and Sketic, all of whom have shown a more than passing familiarity with the subject matter at hand. More than you or I. The fact that they don’t simply bow down to him is where your problem lies.

And as I said in my first post on this subject, I was asking for opinions on the validity of the test from the people who frequent this board, I did not ask for a peer reviewed evaluation from any experts.

…and you got them. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

The problem you seem th have is that there are others involved in this field that don’t happen to be swayed by mumbo jumbo. They require proof before buying into a new idea. After that cold fusion thing, it seems a prudent thing to do. …Not to mention David Koereshs Jim Jonsess followers.

Again, you asked for it. It’s your problem that the only “experts” you acknowledge are those that agree with you.

You must only have internalized one side of this discussion, because Jon has addressed every concern that's been raised. He also doesn't appear to need anyone else to defend him, because his explanations are intelligent and quite reasonable, but I suppose I'll find out the truth of the matter when I actually perform the tests myself.

Again, I refer to your words from post #68 in this thread:

I don't have any particular technical knowledge or experience related to this subject, so take my opinion for what it's worth, but based on the arguments given in this thread, I'm not seeing a sufficient rationale for taking the position that Jon's test method is without merit.

No, you won’t find the truth in anything. Skeptic was kind when he responded to your post 68 that you were out of your league. You may play around with some stuff and, amazingly enough, come to the results you want to get. Should you choose to post your results of this test, you better have your technical chops up to snuff because I’m pretty sure the same techs who took Jon to task here will be more than ready to do the same for you.

Then I guess that would be reason enough for you to feel comfortable with your preconceptions, even though a rationale has been posited that may prove those preconceptions to be wrong.

Yeah, I would always be happy to embrace advancements in audio. I will when one is developed and proven. So far, the jury is still out on this one. It's been around for how long? Nobody has openly adopted it yet? Doesn't that suggest something to you?

I also wanted to believe we had cold fusion to afford cheap, plentiful and clean power too. But, fortunately greater minds than ours saw through the handwaving and promises to the real facts at hand.

[J Risch]

It's just that it seems nobody EXCEPT Jon has ever seen the validity od his approach.

That's a weird thing to say. NOBODY is all inclusive, and since I have provided some references as far as others who have used it, and others who have cited it in their papers, it is patently untrue. If all you are talking about is the very limited world of AR, here on The Audio Lab, then that is a hoot.

Quite a few have torn it apart here but apparantly that's not enough for you.

Again with the hyperbole. Only two people here, people KNOWN to be hostile to me personally, have attempted to raise issues about the Phi Spectral test signal. I have answered all of the issues raised quite thoroughly, and so, even their "tearing apart" is certainly in question. Who else are you referring to? jneutron asked some simple questions about it, he did not "tear it apart".

Do YOU have anything technical to add, or technical issues to raise? I haven't seen any from you, all I have seen you post about looks just like jumping on along with those other two for the ride.

Your hostility toward me is also well known, so it should not be any surprise that you are going to add your voice to the attempts, but that is all it is, your opinion, apparently based on just two other hostile people.

Jon Risch

[J Risch]

... I at least agree with him to the extent that the current procedures for evaluating much in audio equipment is inadequate because it doesn't show us the differences that exist. The state of the art of design has far surpassed the state of the art of measurement or at least the commonly used procedures.

I don' think that too many people would argue that a simple single number metric like THD is not showing the whole picture, and that it does not directly correlate with perceived sound quality. Nor would very many argue that a single number metric like SMPTE IM distortion is also inadequate to rank audio device for sound quality.

That is where the new generation of multitone test signals came in, folks, not just me, but lots of others, were looking for something that would work better than the classic THD and IM tests. Note that before I presented my paper at the AES covention in September of 1998, the multitones that existed were an attempt to go beyond the single tone THD/HD measurements, to go beyond the two tone IM measurements. Some of those earlier multitone test measurements had been published in Mix magazine as having correlation with the sound of various studio monitors, others had been highly touted by the companies who developed them, and had created proprietary trade-marked test signals for use with their measurement equipment.

However, unless there is a sound mathematical foundation to support the measurement theory, guesses like saying that the current test procedures mask distortion or that there is a correlation between what he measured whith his procedure and what sounds good to some people isn't adequate. ... When he says that the distortion is masked, he needs to back it up with equations showing how and why and others to show how and why his procedure overcomes the problem. As far as I can tell, he hasn't done that.

I pretty much spell out how and why the other multitone test signals in use prior to my Phi Spectral cover up either a lot, or MOST of the probabvle distortion components.

If we look at one of the ones promoted by Audio Precision, the FASTEST multitone, it should be quite clear, once I have pointed it out, that a multitone test signal that is based on the use of tones at 1/3 octave intervals, will cover up virtually ALL of the harmonics, and most of the IM products, etc. due to this even frequency spacing.

Just to make it crystal clear, let's look at some specifics. The 1/3 octave frequencies are:
20, 25, 31.6, 40, 50, 63, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 316, 400, 500, 630, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3160, 4000, 5000, 6300, 8000, 10000, 12500, 16000, and 20000.

Audio Precision does adjust the frequencies to correspond to an FFT analyzer bin center frequency, in order to maximize the ability to use the empty analyzer bins to best advantage. The actual 31 frequencies are: 16.15, 21.53, 26.92, 43.07, 53.83, 64.60, 80.75, 102.28, 123.82, 156.12, 199.18, 253.02, 317.61, 398.36, 500.65, 635.23, 802.11, 1001.3, 1248.9, 1598.8, 1997.2, 2503.2, 3154.6, 3999.8, 4995.7, 6352.3, 7999.6, 10002, 12500, 16005, and 19999 Hz. Note that none of these deviate from the nominal 1/3 octave frequencies by more than 5 Hz, in keeping with placing them in the center of the FFT bin range.

Since we are limited to the FFT bin width in terms of frequency resolution, and this particular AP test uses 5 Hz wide bins (an 8 K FFT), I will simplify things and use the original even number 1/3 octave frequencies for my simple examples.

I will NOT cover every possible example, as doing this would make even one of my more traditional posts look short.

So lets say we wanted to use this FASTEST signal to look at harmonic distortion. OK.
If we try to look at the harmonic distortion of the 20 Hz tone, what happens? Whoa, wait a minute, we can't!
There are primary tones at 40 Hz, 60 Hz, 80 Hz, 100 Hz, etc. By the very definition of a 1/3 octave tone sequence, there are going to be primary tones all across the audio band that prevent us from looking at the HD of most all of the primary tones within the audio band.

What about looking at IM distortion? Well, if we examine the tone sequence for the 1/3 octave FASTEST multitone, we can see that a great many of the tones have spacings that are the same. As one trivial example, we see that we have a 100 Hz tone and a 200 Hz tone, a 400 Hz tone and a 500 Hz tone, a 25 Hz tone and a 125 Hz tone. These all have spacings of 100 Hz differences. If we were to try and look at the IM distortion for the difference tones from these frequency pairings, guess what? There is a 100 Hz primary tone that will cover up all of the distortion products that have a 100 Hz difference frequency.

Same thing for the 200 Hz and 400 Hz pair, the 200 Hz difference tone is covered up by the primary tone at 200 Hz, as is the difference tone from 800 and 1000 Hz, and from 50 Hz and 250 Hz. I would think that you are getting the general idea by now, and I truly hope that I do not need to call out ALL the possible cover-up combinations that an even 1/3 octave spacing of the primary tones causes.

Virtually ALL of the HD products are covered up, and a great many of the IM products as well.

Once we look at the Phi Spectral multitone in this same manner, we can see that virtually ALL of the HD products are NOT covered up by any of the primary tones, nor are they covered up by other distortion products, and that most of the IM products are not covered up in this same manner.

I went through this in my paper, and went through the same excercise for the SYSid default multitone test signal (the one's used in the published reports for MIX magazine, some of these reports WERE available online, but I do not know if they still are) and for the Jensen Spectral Contamination multitone.

All of these multitones had the same basic problem: extensive cover-up of many of the HD and IM products by the primary tones AND by other distortion products.

By now, most folks would get the significance of the Phi Spectral, and how powerful it is, in that it avoids this basic problem, and allows a complete accounting of what distortion is present, and WHERE it came from, that is, what tone or tones generated it.

Yes, one does need the power of a computer to assist in keeping track of all the information present, and to fully extract all of the data from the test tone. What I did for my paper, allows anyone with a decent soundcard, and/or a CD-R burner, and some simple wave file editing/generation software to duplicate my efforts at very low cost.

Several of the major test/measurement instrumentation packages have the capability to generate and run a Phi Spectral multitone, and this includes the AP gear, the SYSid, some of the Rhodes & Schwartz gear, as well as some others that allow for the programable generation of a multitone signal.

Also, it is surprising that someone would want to introduce a new theory on an internet web page and defend it staunchly before having peer review acknowledge its worth.

In terms of defneding it "staunchly", I am doing so, because I know just how much power and utility this signal has, and have been through the wringer on it already: from my own examination for potential flaws and problems. For many a good engineer, their own worst critic is themselves.

As I have stated before, and posted here, I presented a paper to the AES in Sept. of 1998,
and have since received literally hundreds of inquiries regarding the signal.

The vast majority of those people "got it", and wanted to get particulars on the implementation and use of the test signal.

Since then, I have been working on new variations of the Phi Sectral, ones that I hope will allow measurements of such things as "loss of inner detail", and measurements that can show the weighted audibility of the distortion products, thus eliminating the need for a manual look-up table, etc.

Jon Risch

[FLZapped]

Since then, I have been working on new variations of the Phi Sectral

So obviously, it hasn't set the testing world on fire.....

-Bruce

[markw]

That's a weird thing to say. NOBODY is all inclusive, and since I have provided some references as far as others who have used it, and others who have cited it in their papers, it is patently untrue. If all you are talking about is the very limited world of AR, here on The Audio Lab, then that is a hoot.

Granted, nobody is all inclusive. LEt's say that nobody with enough technical chops to even have a clue what you are talking about here nas endorsed it. The onlyt "real" endorsments you have are faith based.

Again with the hyperbole. Only two people here, people KNOWN to be hostile to me personally, have attempted to raise issues about the Phi Spectral test signal. I have answered all of the issues raised quite thoroughly, and so, even their "tearing apart" is certainly in question. Who else are you referring to? jneutron asked some simple questions about it, he did not "tear it apart"..

Well, there's Skeptic and Bruce weighing in on te negative. John E asked a few questions but, as of yet, hasn't endorsed it yet. ...and neithe has anybody else of any repute that I can recall

Do YOU have anything technical to add, or technical issues to raise? I haven't seen any from you, all I have seen you post about looks just like jumping on along with those other two for the ride.

Your hostility toward me is also well known, so it should not be any surprise that you are going to add your voice to the attempts, but that is all it is, your opinion, apparently based on just two other hostile people.

Jon Risch

Technical, no. I'm years out of the loop but from your past statements and the ease with which others with the chops have caused you too many curious answers, I've learned to be vewy, vewy skeptical of almost anything you say. Not that I don't think it's possible, but I'd like a few more learned opinions before filling this perscription, doc. I'm still waiting for the 9 out of 10 doctors to use it.

[J Risch]

So obviously, it hasn't set the testing world on fire.....

-Bruce

See my earlier reply to markw and swerd, post #17 at:
Jon Risch distortion test signal

Jon Risch

[J Risch]

... just the two folks here at AR who are known to be hostile to me.

Technical, no. I'm years out of the loop but from your past statements and the ease with which others with the chops have caused you too many curious answers, I've learned to be vewy, vewy skeptical of almost anything you say. Not that I don't think it's possible, but I'd like a few more learned opinions before filling this perscription, doc. I'm still waiting for the 9 out of 10 doctors to use it.

Curious answers? Yet another mechanism to avoid actually having to back up a solid statement or claim on your part.

My answers have been straight forward and on target, and neither Bruce nor skeptic have been able to show a convincing and solid flaw with my statements or reasoning.

In point of fact, you have nothing to go on except your own hostility towards me, no actual technical reasons other than what you see those two others trying to bring up as relevant.
Your opinion on this matter isn't even really your opinion, just repeating what others have said.

Jon Risch

[markw]

... just the two folks here at AR who are known to be hostile to me.



Curious answers? Yet another mechanism to avoid actually having to back up a solid statement or claim on your part.

My answers have been straight forward and on target, and neither Bruce nor skeptic have been able to show a convincing and solid flaw with my statements or reasoning.

In point of fact, you have nothing to go on except your own hostility towards me, no actual technical reasons other than what you see those two others trying to bring up as relevant.
Your opinion on this matter isn't even really your opinion, just repeating what others have said.

Jon Risch

Let's just say highly skeptical. I did work with microwaves (ande waveguide) many years ago and I was very familiar with skin effect then and I don't think the rules have changed that much since then, particularly when it comes to what frequencies it affects. A lot of what you espouse is bull, pure and simple. Your takes on the skin effect while perhaps germaine when talking microwaves, is a non-issue in rfeal world audio ye, there you go running around saying the sky is falling.

So, why should I believe this is any different, particularly when you seem to be so against any "real world" controlled testing, except your own, of course. When the IHF or some accredited agency gives their approval by accepting your tests, or at least publicly acknowledging it's validity, then I'll apolgize.

Again, no hostility. I just take anything you say with a big grain of salt and a lot of expert verification, which I ain't seen yet. Ouestioning is not the same as accepting. It's only a first step, much like walking into the auto showroom to look at sticker prices.

[ToddB]

Beside, why aren't you pissing and moaning about his personal attacks, I even pointed them out for you.

Bruce, if you could manage to react with less hysteria, you might notice things like my post that preceded markw's comment including the phrase "enough with the personal insults, everyone". Do you know what the word "everyone" means? The reason I quoted what you said in my reply to markw was because it was a very clear example of one of the insults I was referring to, and markw was apparently in need of a very clear example. If you don't want your particular insults used as examples, then an obvious way to avoid that would be to stop insulting people.

And for future reference, insulting me is one guaranteed way to get your posts deleted, which is what I'm about to do with this post of yours.

[ToddB]

Graphs? where? YOu mean that link that had that fasttest thing, that isn't his work.

No, I was referring to the graphs Jon said he would e-mail to anybody who wants them, and to which he refers throughout his article and paper. There's also the graph labled "Figure Y" on the first page of the article on his webpage.

Yeah, he claims, he hasn't sufficiently backed up his claims.

Not to your satisfaction, obviously. How many times are you going to feel the need to say this? Do you think we don't know what your position is by now?

Again, you miss the point, and gawd, I repeated it enough. He can't show where his methodology, which he even admits reaquires a ton of computing power to even begin to interpret, is better than any method already available and is more simple, and more easily einterpreted. Find a new argument, please, this one is dead, and rotting already.

The point, as YOU continue to miss, are the results Jon claims to have generated with his method. You obviously disbelieve those results, I've asked you at least once why you disbelieve them, and you have failed to provide me with an answer to that question that I find satisfactory. So I'll ask again: Jon has claimed a set of results that are generated with his test method, you obviously believe that those results are false, and I would like to know why you believe that.

The only aspect of his test method that Jon hadn't addressed to my satisfaction was what to do with all of the distortion products that were going to be generated with his signal. I wasn't too concerned with this, since I assumed that I would be able to limit the number of products when I ran the test myself, but upon rereading either Jon's webpage article or his paper, I forget which, I discovered I'd overlooked that he was limiting results to the 10th harmonic. So, for me, this addresses the only substantive issue you've raised that I still had questions about.

And you're mischaracterizing what Jon said about computing results. He stated that a common household PC with a sound card would be sufficient for performing this test. The only person I recall claiming that this would require a "ton of computing power" is you.

What in the hell are you smoking?

Nice answer. If you could actually defend your comment, I expect you would have, instead of responding with tripe like this.

WHAT CALCULATIONS? He has never once demonstrated them, beside pulling out a known algorithm and applying it, why do you think it already had a name???

I thought you said you read his paper? He says that he generated the frequencies he used by calculating multiples based on permutations of the golden section numbers. The frequencies derived from that formula apparently failed to work for him for the 12 tone test, so he used different multiples, which he admits were arbitrary, to generate different frequenies for some of the tones.

Obviously you have no background in testing and mathmatics. It's already been explained and demonstrated that as you increase the number of test signals, the test signal itself begins to look more and more like noise(much less than when you add all the distortion product into the mix). Noise is not a very useful test signal, if it were, we'd use music, because it is mathematecally indistinguishable from noise.

We're not talking about noise, Bruce, we're talking about a fixed set of tones, no more than 12, whose whole purpose is to produce distortion byproducts that will remain discrete and able to be read. You have more education in this field than I do, so why is it that I am able to grasp this concept and you are not? If you believe that even a limited sample of 12 tones will produce results that are sufficient to render the test useless, then we're back to my question of how you explain the results Jon claims to have generated? As I said before, you must either believe that Jon is lying or that his calculations are wrong. Which is it? A straight answer here would be nice.

Again, this is a dead and rotting argument. Please find a new one that is unique.

If you feel that you've contributed all to this thread that you're able to, then stop posting in it. Nobody's forcing you to continue in the discussion.

[ToddB]

This brings to mind a quote from the first Star Wars. �The force has a powerful effect on weak minds, Luke�

More insults? Perhaps because you have nothing useful to offer the conversation?

Your self admitted lack of technical knowledge and experience notwithstanding, there are several here who DO have such experience who dare question the validity, repeatability and usefulness of what Jon proposes. This was pointed out by Bruce, John and Sketic, all of whom have shown a more than passing familiarity with the subject matter at hand. More than you or I. The fact that they don�t simply bow down to him is where your problem lies.

Yet more useless static from you. The only problem here appears to be that some people are unwilling to honestly evaluate or consider the procedure because it doesn't conform to the safe, comfortable, and familiar method that they're used to. From my perspective, Jon has adquately responded to every issue that's been raised in this thread. If there are flaws in his responses, nobody here is explaining what they are to my satisfaction.

The problem you seem th have is that there are others involved in this field that don�t happen to be swayed by mumbo jumbo.

"Mumbo jumbo", huh? That's the most learned response you have to offer?

�Not to mention David Koereshs Jim Jonsess followers.

And yet more insults...

Again, you asked for it. It�s your problem that the only �experts� you acknowledge are those that agree with you.

You are the one who seems concerned about finding experts to bow down to. I'm looking for coherent explanations.

You may play around with some stuff and, amazingly enough, come to the results you want to get.

So now you're a mind reader, and you've somehow devined what results I want to get? For all I know, the results will be exactly the same with Jon's method as they will be for the traditional methods. But then, this comment of yours wasn't intended to actually be constructive.

Should you choose to post your results of this test, you better have your technical chops up to snuff because I�m pretty sure the same techs who took Jon to task here will be more than ready to do the same for you.

All I can do is plug in the tones, read the results, and explain how I performed the test. If I perform the tests as properly as I can, and the results wreck some people's world views, that's not my problem.

Yeah, I would always be happy to embrace advancements in audio. I will when one is developed and proven.

I'm not surprised that you're only concerned about what external authority figures tell you is an advancement. The only advancements I've cared about are the ones that improve the quality of my listening experience, whether any "authorities" have proven it or not.

I also wanted to believe we had cold fusion to afford cheap, plentiful and clean power too. But, fortunately greater minds than ours saw through the handwaving and promises to the real facts at hand.

Since this comment is so misrepresentative of what actually happened, I assume that you don't know. The cold fusion claim was disproven because other labs attempted the experiment, and all of them were unable to replicate the results of the original two scientists. See how that works, people actually tried out the experiment, and compared the results? That's an intellectually honest approach that goes beyond hypothetical theorizing.