|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: John Curl, you still grabbing at straws?? posted by John Escallier on November 24, 2002 at 10:16:17:
John Es, you have accused me of 'whining' and I have accused you of 'sniping'. Let me define what I mean by 'sniping'.
To me, 'sniping' is the criticism of someone elses research without attempting to verify or ascertain whether your criticism has any merit. So far, you have 'sniped' Hummel, Hawksford, and me, in that order.For me, 'sniping' is related to 'refereeing' because that is where it does the most damage.
For everyone, this is what happened at an IEEE Conference on TIM at Tulsa in 1978. Walt Jung and I had completed giving our respective papers on (TIM or SID) when Walt recognized Dr. Ashley in the audience. He asked Dr. Ashley, in front of me, why Ashley had rejected his paper written specifically for the 'Journal of the AES' where Dr. Ashley was a referee at the time. Dr. Ashley responded that "he didn't like the math". He was referring the the 'Volterra series'. Dr. Ashley didn't try to PROVE that there was anything wrong with the math, and he never did show that anything was wrong, he just expressed his uninformed opinion.
I knew something about the 'Volterra series' because I studied it at UCB in the same graduate class as the co-author of Walt's Paper and this is where it had originally came from. Walt's paper wound up published in 'The Audio Amateur' and this started a long tradition of using alternate venues, rather than the AES.
This is 'sniping' folks.
As far as my measurements are concerned:
Engineers know that the underlying basis of any harmonic distortion is a deviation in the transfer function, which ideally should be a straight line. I am looking for 'kinks' in the transfer function. Harmonic analysis is one of the LEAST SENSITIVE methods of measuring the underlying non-linearity, but it is relatively easy to do, and we can measure extremely low levels, BECAUSE we can null the original signal. Actually, a multitone IM signal would be better, and real music would be better still.
Fortunately, a single harmonic can predict that there is an even greater amount of distortion generated with real music, but I just can't directly measure it at this time.
It is also true that I am using a 5kHz signal, for convenience. I could use a 500 Hz signal and then the 7th harmonic would fall at 3500 Hz. However, my THD analyser is 25 years old and does not want to null at 500 Hz without me readjusting it, while also measuring at the LOW LEVELS necessary for this test. The non-linearity that I am measuring will track with frequency. At higher input levels, the distortion goes away, as this a crossover type distortion, rather than a simple nonlinearity, so I am running my distortion analyser at its operational limits. This is why this sort of distortion in wires goes unnoticed,because nobody looks at wires at lower voltage levels, where they actually operate in audio systems.
To criticise my efforts at this point is 'sniping' as you have refused to consider what I just stated, and your intent is to block my input rather than to constructively criticise it. I knew this from the first, so I originally responded as to your 'intent' rather than the specifics of your question. I hope that this clarifies the situation, however, I will always have critics just like my friends. Oh well. ;-)
Follow Ups:
""To me, 'sniping' is the criticism of someone elses research without attempting to verify or ascertain whether your criticism has any merit.""Criticism of someone elses research hasn't happened within my posts. You react to a question you do not wish to answer by calling it sniping, and then deflecting the issue, dropping names, saying "read a book", criticising education, saying "oh, I proved that wrong 20 years ago", ad nauseum. People will soon be passing around the "top ten reasons John Curl is better than I" list. Humor is always the best medicine.
Criticism...no.. All I asked was "" if 110 dB below 50 mV at 35Khz was audible to humans.""
That is not criticism. Criticism is: "what you are testing is BS, you are stupid, you don't know what your talking about, your mother wears combat boots." A simple, nicely worded question is not that.
It may indeed prove out that the "measurements in the mud" you are doing correlate to the real issue. Then again, it may not.
Your attitude is not one of a professional. Is it any wonder a lot of the big names don't frequent this forum? To be constantly on guard lest John Curl feels impinged upon?
As you can see, I don't live my life worrying about you. You can be right at times, wrong at others.. I also "own" the same subset.
""So far, you have 'sniped' Hummel""You misquoted him, then beat everybody down with your "new electron physics" mumbo jumbo, which I am ridiculed about whenever I bring it up to a real physicist. And you still are unable to answer the question I posed with regard to that "physics", a simple, high school level question. How long did you spew that stuff on this forum??? And how many people were beginning to believe it??
""Hawksford,""
I identified a possible testing error, and discuss it with him. Pointing out an error in research is mandatory for the advancement of science. Blindly accepting incorrect analysis and testing methods is the quickest way to bring scientific advancement to a halt. I'm beginning to believe more and more that that is why you do not like peer review.
""and me, in that order""
YOU??? I hadn't sniped. You can believe what you want. I find a lot of your "postulates, or pseudoscience" to be beneath response. Unfortunately, those here without E/M theory background might actually believe some of your "interesting" theories...That "faith" based system is better suited for religion, not a technical forum.
Having papers not accepted for personal reasons is unacceptable, your story is interesting, and worthy of public review. But has nothing to do with your continued unprofessionalism..It's not a valid excuse.
My definition of whining? Read all the posts you have made in response to one of mine. THAT is whining. And that is unprofessional.
John Es, I have only one nagging question. The rest I can ignore. That is: When and how did I misquote Hummel?
For the rest, it is amazing how many individuals can find 'research errors' in other peoples work, yet not do anything themselves to prove with any evidence of an oversight being actually made. This is what Dr. Ashley did, almost 25 years ago to Walt Jung, and allegedly blocked Walt's 55 page preprint from being put in the AES Journal. It is interesting that Walt Jung is now awarded for his efforts over the years, but when you are an innovator, trust me, you can easily be blocked by those who would take the credit themselves, or stop you just because they cannot change their paradigm of what they think is important in their area of expertise. Just for fun let me quote you a few examples:
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home" Ken Olsen Pres. of DEC 1977"I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existance of atoms and other such dogmas" Ernst Mach 1913
""John Es, I have only one nagging question. The rest I can ignore. That is: When and how did I misquote Hummel?""Well, it's about time. You passed that for a while.
Sent you an e-mail...Please read it.
I will not address any of this post or any other ""attack"" posts from you until you have done so.
Let me know if you didn't receive it. The system here had no problem sending it, or at least telling me it was sent.
Thanks.
John Es, I answered your E-mail, not how did I 'misquote' Hummel? For the record, my test load is about 4K ohms.
John Es, I answered your E-mail, not how did I 'misquote' Hummel? For the record, my test load is about 4K ohms.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: