In Reply to: RE: Dear Jim Austin, posted by Charles Hansen on November 20, 2017 at 02:15:51:
>> And the AES paper that introduced MQA to the world (although not by name) was certainly much more of a marketing piece than one normally finds in peer-reviewed journals. I really don't understand how that paper made it through the peer-review process - there were so many questionable aspects to its contents that I find it embarrassing to the AES. The only thing I can figure is that using his position as a "Fellow" plus having no less than 50 references intimidated the reviewers (even though many of those 50 references do not support his work, and in some cases even contradict it).
I regret not having saluted this worthy characterization when it first appeared. That article in an issue guest-edited by a colleague directly spurred Brad Meyer and me to do our blind comparison of hi-rez w RBCD, w detection at the same level as chance, public 3y later. So hear and bravo.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- hear, hear, to CHansen - drmoran@aol.com 13:26:23 08/11/20 (0)