That's my final answer

[FLZapped]

From: Jon Risch distortion test signal

In post #127,
http://forums.audioreview.com/showp...3&postcount=127
you said:
" Doesn't change the fact that you cannot generate the signal easily with NBS traceable equipment. According to your paper, you're using a CD."

You aren't really serious about this kind of stance, are you? I provided a very easy way for others to duplicate what I did with a minimum of equipment and investment. This is not a crime or a problem.

As I noted in another post here, the signal can easily be generated via a full duplex soundcard by playing back a previously constructed wave file

This is not traceable to an NBS standard.

"Doesn't change the fact that it cannot be interpreted with anything less than lots of computing horsepower."

I addressed this earlier, with regard to just how much computing power was needed.

The use of a simple Excel (or other brand of) spreadsheet allows one to hone in on as many distortion products as one wishes to check, including spcifically for HD, THD, IM, etc. Last time I heard, such a spread sheet will run on just about any computer that is still working!

What about all the computational power needed to seperate out all the products generated?

You said:
"Again, I urged you to go look at Steve Eddys comments on this at AA, have you???"

Yes, he should go look, because then he would discover that what Steve Eddy was posting about was primarily his concen over wire movement, ....

So put the Steve Eddy train to bed, it is not at all like you are trying to portray it here.

Okay, so here it is:

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

Please note his conclusion:

I don't see that anything is clearly shown other than crossover effects.

se

Even though you've submitted your paper to the AES, it has never made it past the pre-print stage, including given an opportunity to present it at a conference.

That's speaks volumes.

-Bruce

PS - It's too bad some moderator sees fit to delete a perfectly valid argument from a thread that is already closed, requiring this action to replace it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Even though you've submitted your paper to the AES, it has never made it past the pre-print stage, including given an opportunity to present it at a conference.

That's speaks volumes.

Actually Bruce, it doesn't really mean a thing. AES is just like corporate america, run by the good ole boy network. Everyone that get's the oportunity to present, or publish has a "inside" contact with someone influential within the organization. That is really the only way he will ever get published, or heard. Often if the information submitted runs contrary to what has already been published by someone influential in the organization, it will get buried.

I have a VERY good friend who submitted a paper on an improved way of tuning theaters and dubbing stages so they sound better about three years ago. Unfortunately while his method produced better sounding theaters and dubbing stages, it ran counter to the industry standard that Dolby established years and years ago. He also introduced a all horn loaded speaker system that is superior sounding, and cheaper than JBL's THX approved theater systems. Well his paper hasn't seen the light of day thanks to VERY prominent members in the organization. And this is despite the fact that he has proven time and time again(in front of studio executives and technicians) that his method is better than the current industry standard for getting great sound in theaters.

Just because Jon's paper hasn't been published or peer review, does not exactly mean that its information is invalid. I just shows that Jon is not well connected within AES, and is not part of the ole boy network.

[FLZapped]

Actually Bruce, it doesn't really mean a thing. AES is just like corporate america, run by the good ole boy network. Everyone that get's the oportunity to present, or publish has a "inside" contact with someone influential within the organization. That is really the only way he will ever get published, or heard. Often if the information submitted runs contrary to what has already been published by someone influential in the organization, it will get buried.

I have a VERY good friend who submitted a paper on an improved way of tuning theaters and dubbing stages so they sound better about three years ago. Unfortunately while his method produced better sounding theaters and dubbing stages, it ran counter to the industry standard that Dolby established years and years ago. He also introduced a all horn loaded speaker system that is superior sounding, and cheaper than JBL's THX approved theater systems. Well his paper hasn't seen the light of day thanks to VERY prominent members in the organization. And this is despite the fact that he has proven time and time again(in front of studio executives and technicians) that his method is better than the current industry standard for getting great sound in theaters.

Just because Jon's paper hasn't been published or peer review, does not exactly mean that its information is invalid. I just shows that Jon is not well connected within AES, and is not part of the ole boy network.

While I have no doubt is true, you would think that by now something would have happened, especially with the opportunity to give a conference presentation.

I suppose it take a lot of pressing the flesh to get anywhere. But if your friend gets positive results by going directly to the theaters, proving himself and is getting contracts, he still wins. That is another way to gain acceptance, too.

I never said the information was without validity. Just that he hasn't shown that he can clearly make measurements any better or easier than what can be had with currently available tests. Nor has he been able to show that he is able to reveal anything new that can't be measured with current methodology. It doesn't help that the big example(mentioned above) he holds out as his vindication is fraught with errors. (I'm not the only one to say that, either)

This is the uphill battle he faces, much less than competing with the good ol' boys...

Anyway, this thread has actually reached and end. I only reposted here in a new thread because one moderator went on a deleting frenzy and removed my posting from the closed thread. It is my understanding that he is no longer a moderator here.

-Bruce