|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Stop please. You're already too deep; gonna need a helium mix soon. posted by john curl on November 19, 2002 at 12:17:03:
""Why don't you ask Dr. Hawksford about ALL OF HIS PAPERS on this subject.""I am in direct discussion with him regarding those, and have asked him of it, and I quote(my text to Dr. Hawksford):
""Because the situation I encountered fits exactly your Fig. 7, I contend (politely, of course), that it is possible you may have seen a measurement setup error. Given the age of the paper,have you delved any further into the subject?" And, I would like your opinion of my analysis.""
Now, if you look closely, you will see the words "Given the age of the paper, have you delved any further into the subject?" I hope it will not be necessary to explain to you what that means.
""Then you will have CLEAR AND COMPLETE COPIES of his work. What you asked Dr. Hawksford is regarding ONLY what I sent you, and then you complained about its print quality.""
I lamented the lack of discernability of the paper overall, but did not assign blame. Rather, I thanked you for your efforts. And what was readable to me was sufficient to ask intelligent questions of Dr. Hawksford.
""If you want to dispute his measurements, it seems only fair that you read everything pertaining to his measurements that he has written""
I asked him if he had delved further.
Dr. Hawksford appears to be most comfortable with my questions. He is most kind, and has taken the time to respond to me.
You, on the other hand, are obsessed with being the alpha male with respect to all things audio. Why you continue to harp on the Hawksford thing is beyond me. No, actually, it's not beyond me. You use "chaff" in a consistent and predictable manner to divert the conversation so you do not have to address a question you are unable to answer. Again, the question on the table is "is 110 dB under 50mV within the realm of human hearing."
I feel obliged to remind you..."I don't know" is an acceptable answer. I've had to use it many times in my work environment, and am very comfortable in the understanding that others may know more than me. Perhaps there IS something I can teach you after all?
Follow Ups:
John Es, I have answered you in every way that I can. Of course, exactly what I am measuring should be lost in the program material. If we were listening all day to continuous 5kHz test tones, I doubt that a different wire would make much difference, BUT it implies a basic non-linearity that is consistent, yet different between different types of wires. Of course, it would be better if I could just do a differential subtraction with live material between a 'high distortion' wire and a reference wire, and I bet that I would find all kinds of distortion, but for now, I must be content with a steady 5kHz signal or an SMPTE IM measurement. The SMPTE IM measurement is about 4 times more sensitive with a similar distortion made with back to back diodes at a 3V level and a resistor in parallel with the diodes and one to ground. It emulates the sort of distortion pattern almost exactly, and the SMPTE IM distortion is about 4 times higher than the same test done with harmonic distortion. I can see this with the push of a button, and I did it today. However SMPTE IM distortion outputs at 60 Hz intervals and at very low measurement levels,this tends to get mixed up with any ground loops in my set-up. This will take time to untangle. My 5kHz tone has an 18 db/oct 400Hz hi pass filter that removes most of the grounding garbage, so it has not been a problem so far.
So subtract 10-12 dB from my original meaurements of about -110dB and you get -98 dB This is progress. I am sure that if I can use multiple tones that I will then get 'triple-beats' that will be even more obvious in the measurement, and at higher levels too!
For the record, you asked Dr Hawksford for any later work, BUT you did not ask him for the original work that he did on what you are critical of. That is what I think that you should read.
I am cognizant and understanding of the technical issues surrounding the measurements you are attempting. And, I appreciate them.As for Hawksford, why do you bother? He is more than capable of speaking for himself, far more capable of discussing the issues I raise than you. And he is in a far better position to understand what it is I am questioning than you. And he does not share your concerns.
If you choose to defend him from "horrible, questioning people" like me, I think it may be necessary for you to actually understand what you are talking about, not just read it.
Your best option is to stick to what you know..
As my "hero" Clint Eastwood once said,, " a good man knows his limitations".
I hope that at some time in the future, I may be able to call you a "good man".
That is why I sent you to him.
""That is why I sent you to him.""And that is much appreciated. As was your fax (two actually) to me. Thank you again.
But to continue to raise the "Hawksford issue"? Or Hummel?? C'mon, get real..you speak of things you have not demonstrated the ability to understand. Not good, not bad. Just is. (gee, I've heard that before).
Please stop referring to Hawksford...Or Hummel. It is simply "chaff", nothing to do with the subject...You have placed yourself in an untenable position, one which you cannot talk yourself out of. So stop trying....
If I have an amplifier question, I'm told you are THE MAN!!
For E/M theory, You are over-extending yourself. Big time...
TTFN, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: