rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (06/25/84)
On Charles Pearson's postings... >Boy! You like to miss-read anything you get your eyes on. ...said the pot to the kettle... >After your massive blunder, I was having such fun watching you >continue the farce.... Now it is time to clear up some of >your self-generated problems. ...shall we bounce this part of the discussion over to net.flame? >1) I never specified the frequency that the square waves were >measured (?) at for my initial flame. ...but it didn't matter; Pearson's arguments were theoretically incorrect (that is, the incorrectness was frequency-independent). >The source was that >comic book called 'AUDIO' and their consistant mis-intreperation >of their tests. They are the ones who use the square wave test. >(Not I.) They are the ones who specify the frequency. (Not I.) >They are the ones who think it is correct and valid. (Not I.) BFD, as we say. If they use the test, I would assume that they (and not Charles Pearson) should be the ones to specify the frequency. Of course, if Charles Pearson thinks that it is neither correct nor valid, then Charles Pearson should explain why it is invalid. (Not I.) Seriously (for a brief moment:-), it would be nice to know what they use the square-wave test for, and whether that seems like a valid use of it. That's a much more mature (not to mention constructive) approach than calling the mag a "comic book". > I view their test as an example of how CD implimentation >has failed us miserably... ...without explaining any of the failure! >2) I never said that I could hear the difference between a cow >and a Boeing 747,... I am going to be a good boy and bite my tongue on this one! (Clean through, I expect...) >3) I did say that I couldn't spell or tpye. ...and it's the one thing that you HAVE demonstrated well and supported with many examples - unlike your non-problem of square waves... -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.