"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Brian L. McCarty (pretending to be "Robert Morein") wrote...
I'd like to see you recognized for what you a a charlatan, a
fraud, and a bad scientist.

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Yup, looking for people who can back their theories up with emperical
evidence clearly brands me with the stigma being a bad scientist.

Arny, PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! Especially this one!

Apparently, there is some question as to whether my post was genuine.

I have a big beef with Arny Krueger, and I have labeled him a bad scientist,
and I believe I am not without justification.
The "ABX" protocol is useful, and fundamental to precise scientific
investigation in many areas of human perception. Therefore, my extreme
deprecation of Arny Krueger is not because he espouses ABX per se.

However, as has been the case throughout the history of science, bad science
has coexisted with good science, and in very large proportion. Most
currently accepted scientific facts were preceded by theories that had the
standing of fact and that were later proved false. Arny Krueger is, in my
opinion, part of that large proportion of would be scientists who have
misused the label of science. Why people do this is a matter of conjecture.

All good scientists have an open mind and a dispassionate attitude toward
their subject material. It should be apparent that Arny is quite certain,
with no room for error, on all the subjects on which he espouses, and that
he is extremely passionate. This is a recipe for contamination; it prepares
for assassination of the truth.

On the other side of this room are a large number of audiophiles. Many, like
myself, take no pride in their hearing, yet find simple phenomena that
constantly reoccur. One of these is that some combinations of amplifiers and
speakers sound different from other amplifiers with the same speakers. The
claim is not made that one can tell the difference between all, or even
most, amplifiers. Nor is it claimed that expensive amplifiers sound
different from cheap ones. However, I personally possess quite a number of
amplifiers with seemingly distinct sound signatures. All of these amplifiers
are, apparently, "good", in that they are of reputable make, heavily built,
and definitely not defective, since in my case, I have more than one of just
about every amp I own.

For this reason, I advocate to the audiophile that he try different
amplifiers with his speakers, in whatever experiment conditions will allow.
If he has ABX handy, by all means use it, but then, this discussion is a bit
elementary for him. If he has a method of precision matching levels, use it,
by all means. However, when faced with virtually no resources, if the only
person the audiophile has to satisfy is himself, he should do it by
switching the wires himself. He may find a difference; he may not; no harm
done. If he finds an amplifier that pleases him more, he should choose that
amplifier. He should not believe he heard nothing, or be discouraged from
doing this, because Arny Krueger says it's a useless exercise.

Arny's uncopromising position seems to be that "all properly operating
amplifiers of a certain power class, when level matched, are
indistinguishable." I would certainly agree with this if "properly
operating" meant "perfect", but it does not, because there are no perfect
amplifiers.

Arny has strung together a lot of methodology with the assumption that the
logic is transitive. In other words, if A implies B, and B implies C, then A
implies C. In this way, he purports to "prove", via samples on his ABX
website, that the ear is far too tolerant of distortion to hear the
difference between "properly operating amplifiers."

To me, and to many other audiophiles, this is analogous to ****ing on our
backs and calling it rain. People have proved the existence of God, and
disproved the existence of God. Have they proved anything? No. A good
scientist, when confronted by a very large body of people who apparently
believe that some good amplifiers sound better than other good amplifiers,
when coupled to some good speakers, would open up his imagination, his
spirit, his curiosity, and his will, to find out what's going on.

Arny claims to be protecting the consumer from himself. It is unquestionably
the case that many audiophiles DO delude themselves into believing that
they hear things that they don't. This usually happens as the hobby gets a
little old, and they seek to repeat the thrill of discovering new things.
But the hobby has many curmudgeons like myself, who own old, discarded
things. I have no stake in preferring any one of my Parasounds to my Haflers
to my Acoustats. I chose these amplifiers a long time ago, after passing
over others. They are not new, and they do not thrill me, and when I'm done
switching around, I have just as many as I started with. Arny may claim that
I am still contaminated with my own humanity, but it is hard to find my
motive.

I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

Ironically, Arny Krueger is a fairly knowledgeable guy. Unfortunately, his
knowledge is not accompanied by wisdom, nor an understanding of the limits
of his knowledge. Usenet provides an outlet for people who want to
pontificate. Many of us have a feeling of pride when we answer a question
that may be read by several thousand people. But we must remember that
humility is just a word, it is a principle of action. In this case, to be
humble as a scientist means to openly accept and investigate, and encourage
the possibility that any theory one has authored is wrong.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a
Parasound
HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do
the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

For example, damping factor is measured with small signals.
With large
signals, some amplifiers don't damp so well.

As I said, damping factor is useless. DF is actually a measure
of how poorly an amp can damp the system. In all but the most
pathologically deficient amps the vast majority of damping is
done by the voice coil resistance, suspension, and air inside the
enclosure. Even a very low DF is unable to damp the system at
resonance.

Dick Pierce penned a very nice paper on the subject which can be
found in the google archive. You may have to copy both pieces of
the link into your browser due to word wrap.

DAMPING FACTOR: EFFECTS ON SYSTEM RESPONSE
A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Dick Pierce
Professional Audio Development
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...dq=&hl=en&lr=&
ie=UTF-8&selm=GE1tJy.BIp%40world.std.com&rnum=1

or you can do an Advanced Group Search and search for message ID
=

There are great bass amps, and there are so-so bass amps.

Agreed, but damping factor is no indication.

The damping factor is measured under small signal conditions.
The typical number is, as you point out, far too high, to make a worthwhile
differentiation between amps.
I speculate that if the damping factor were measured under large signal
conditions, numbers sufficiently low to explain the difference in bass
quality between amps would be obtained.

I observe differences in bass quality with musical material played at 75 dB
SPL, on speakers which are 88 to 92 dB efficient.
Two amplifiers which I frequently compare are the Hafler XL-280, rated at
145 WRMS/channel, and the Acoustat TNT-200, rated at 200 WRMS/channel, both
into 8 ohms.
Do you believe that dynamic range or clipping, as you previously mention,
are causes? I don't.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a
Parasound
HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do
the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

For example, damping factor is measured with small signals.
With large
signals, some amplifiers don't damp so well.

As I said, damping factor is useless. DF is actually a measure
of how poorly an amp can damp the system. In all but the most
pathologically deficient amps the vast majority of damping is
done by the voice coil resistance, suspension, and air inside the
enclosure. Even a very low DF is unable to damp the system at
resonance.

Dick Pierce penned a very nice paper on the subject which can be
found in the google archive. You may have to copy both pieces of
the link into your browser due to word wrap.

DAMPING FACTOR: EFFECTS ON SYSTEM RESPONSE
A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Dick Pierce
Professional Audio Development
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...dq=&hl=en&lr=&
ie=UTF-8&selm=GE1tJy.BIp%40world.std.com&rnum=1

or you can do an Advanced Group Search and search for message ID
=

There are great bass amps, and there are so-so bass amps.

Agreed, but damping factor is no indication.

The damping factor is measured under small signal conditions.
The typical number is, as you point out, far too high, to make a worthwhile
differentiation between amps.
I speculate that if the damping factor were measured under large signal
conditions, numbers sufficiently low to explain the difference in bass
quality between amps would be obtained.

I observe differences in bass quality with musical material played at 75 dB
SPL, on speakers which are 88 to 92 dB efficient.
Two amplifiers which I frequently compare are the Hafler XL-280, rated at
145 WRMS/channel, and the Acoustat TNT-200, rated at 200 WRMS/channel, both
into 8 ohms.
Do you believe that dynamic range or clipping, as you previously mention,
are causes? I don't.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The damping factor is measured under small signal conditions.

Or not, as is desired.

I've measured power amp output impedance two ways.

One method is to apply a signal source to the output of a power amp through
a resistor, and measure the voltage drop across the resistor. The output
impedance of the amplifier can be calculated from this voltage. Of course,
this should be done at a large number of frequencies. In fact, the exact
method I use works with *any* broadband signal, ranging from swept tones, to
multitones to pink and white noise, and even music. Precise results are
obtained throughout the whole audio band. The amount of voltage applied and
the size of the voltage is easy enough to change. I use one channel of a 300
wpc power amp to apply the test voltage. I'm careful! Once the test setup is
recalibrated for the new operating level, the identical same results are
obtained within normal experimental errors.

Another method is to simply measure the output voltage of the power amp,
with and without a load applied. If the impedance of the load is known, the
difference between the two voltages at all audio frequencies can be used to
calculate the output impedance of the power amp. The test load and the test
voltage can be chosen at will. I've used resistors, as well as real and
simulated loudspeaker loads. By using highly precise measuring equipment,
accurate results can be obtained even though the voltage differences are
relatively small.

Both methods produce fully comparable results and the results are the same
regardless of operational level and load on the power amp, as long as the
power amp doesn't clip.

The typical number is, as you point out, far too high, to make a
worthwhile differentiation between amps.

Generally true.

I speculate that if the damping factor were measured under large
signal conditions, numbers sufficiently low to explain the difference
in bass quality between amps would be obtained.

Been there, done that. Not true. Modern power amps are highly linear
devices. That means that *all* of their parameters are highly linear as long
as they aren't clipping.

Much of the output impedance of modern power amps comes from passive
devices. The output impedance at the point where feedback is taken off is
often significantly lower than it is at the output terminal. Output
isolation inductors and wiring inside the amp are significant sources of
source impedance, particularly at high frequencies. Since these are all
passive, highly-linear devices and the amp itself is highly linear, the
output impedance of the amp is the same regardless of level - right up to
the point where the amp clips.

I observe differences in bass quality with musical material played at
75 dB SPL, on speakers which are 88 to 92 dB efficient.
Two amplifiers which I frequently compare are the Hafler XL-280,
rated at 145 WRMS/channel, and the Acoustat TNT-200, rated at 200
WRMS/channel, both into 8 ohms.

Do you believe that dynamic range or clipping, as you previously
mention, are causes? I don't.

Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who knows?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The damping factor is measured under small signal conditions.

Or not, as is desired.

I've measured power amp output impedance two ways.

One method is to apply a signal source to the output of a power amp through
a resistor, and measure the voltage drop across the resistor. The output
impedance of the amplifier can be calculated from this voltage. Of course,
this should be done at a large number of frequencies. In fact, the exact
method I use works with *any* broadband signal, ranging from swept tones, to
multitones to pink and white noise, and even music. Precise results are
obtained throughout the whole audio band. The amount of voltage applied and
the size of the voltage is easy enough to change. I use one channel of a 300
wpc power amp to apply the test voltage. I'm careful! Once the test setup is
recalibrated for the new operating level, the identical same results are
obtained within normal experimental errors.

Another method is to simply measure the output voltage of the power amp,
with and without a load applied. If the impedance of the load is known, the
difference between the two voltages at all audio frequencies can be used to
calculate the output impedance of the power amp. The test load and the test
voltage can be chosen at will. I've used resistors, as well as real and
simulated loudspeaker loads. By using highly precise measuring equipment,
accurate results can be obtained even though the voltage differences are
relatively small.

Both methods produce fully comparable results and the results are the same
regardless of operational level and load on the power amp, as long as the
power amp doesn't clip.

The typical number is, as you point out, far too high, to make a
worthwhile differentiation between amps.

Generally true.

I speculate that if the damping factor were measured under large
signal conditions, numbers sufficiently low to explain the difference
in bass quality between amps would be obtained.

Been there, done that. Not true. Modern power amps are highly linear
devices. That means that *all* of their parameters are highly linear as long
as they aren't clipping.

Much of the output impedance of modern power amps comes from passive
devices. The output impedance at the point where feedback is taken off is
often significantly lower than it is at the output terminal. Output
isolation inductors and wiring inside the amp are significant sources of
source impedance, particularly at high frequencies. Since these are all
passive, highly-linear devices and the amp itself is highly linear, the
output impedance of the amp is the same regardless of level - right up to
the point where the amp clips.

I observe differences in bass quality with musical material played at
75 dB SPL, on speakers which are 88 to 92 dB efficient.
Two amplifiers which I frequently compare are the Hafler XL-280,
rated at 145 WRMS/channel, and the Acoustat TNT-200, rated at 200
WRMS/channel, both into 8 ohms.

Do you believe that dynamic range or clipping, as you previously
mention, are causes? I don't.

Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who knows?

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a Parasound
HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

Sighted evaluations.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a Parasound
HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

Sighted evaluations.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who knows?

Given that you deny the experience of thousands of perceptive audiophiles
with a closed mind and a contemptous attitude, you are a BAD SCIENTIST.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who knows?

Given that you deny the experience of thousands of perceptive audiophiles
with a closed mind and a contemptous attitude, you are a BAD SCIENTIST.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a Parasound
HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

Sighted evaluations.

No.
Truth.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a Parasound
HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

Sighted evaluations.

No.
Truth.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who
knows?

Given that you deny the experience of thousands of perceptive
audiophiles with a closed mind and a contemptous attitude, you are a
BAD SCIENTIST.

Prove that I deny that it exists and that I don't think understanding it
gives valuable insight into the listening experience.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

Given that you don't do bias-controlled listening tests Bob, who
knows?

Given that you deny the experience of thousands of perceptive
audiophiles with a closed mind and a contemptous attitude, you are a
BAD SCIENTIST.

Prove that I deny that it exists and that I don't think understanding it
gives valuable insight into the listening experience.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a
Parasound HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

Sighted evaluations.

No.

Tell us about your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening
tests, Bob.

Truth.

Of a kind...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
That doesn't hold with my own experience.
A Hafler XL-280 simply doesn't have the bass response of a
Parasound HCA-2200ii.
On paper, both amps have enough current and enough frequency
response to do the job.

Something else must be at play. Dynamic headroom, clipping
behavior, etc.

Sighted evaluations.

No.

Tell us about your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening
tests, Bob.

Truth.

Of a kind...

From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Brian L. McCarty (pretending to be "Robert Morein") wrote...
I'd like to see you recognized for what you a a charlatan, a
fraud, and a bad scientist.

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Yup, looking for people who can back their theories up with emperical
evidence clearly brands me with the stigma being a bad scientist.

Arny, PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! Especially this one!

Apparently, there is some question as to whether my post was genuine.

I have a big beef with Arny Krueger, and I have labeled him a bad scientist,
and I believe I am not without justification.
The "ABX" protocol is useful, and fundamental to precise scientific
investigation in many areas of human perception. Therefore, my extreme
deprecation of Arny Krueger is not because he espouses ABX per se.

However, as has been the case throughout the history of science, bad science
has coexisted with good science, and in very large proportion. Most
currently accepted scientific facts were preceded by theories that had the
standing of fact and that were later proved false. Arny Krueger is, in my
opinion, part of that large proportion of would be scientists who have
misused the label of science. Why people do this is a matter of conjecture.

All good scientists have an open mind and a dispassionate attitude toward
their subject material. It should be apparent that Arny is quite certain,
with no room for error, on all the subjects on which he espouses, and that
he is extremely passionate. This is a recipe for contamination; it prepares
for assassination of the truth.

On the other side of this room are a large number of audiophiles. Many, like
myself, take no pride in their hearing, yet find simple phenomena that
constantly reoccur. One of these is that some combinations of amplifiers and
speakers sound different from other amplifiers with the same speakers. The
claim is not made that one can tell the difference between all, or even
most, amplifiers. Nor is it claimed that expensive amplifiers sound
different from cheap ones. However, I personally possess quite a number of
amplifiers with seemingly distinct sound signatures. All of these amplifiers
are, apparently, "good", in that they are of reputable make, heavily built,
and definitely not defective, since in my case, I have more than one of just
about every amp I own.

For this reason, I advocate to the audiophile that he try different
amplifiers with his speakers, in whatever experiment conditions will allow.
If he has ABX handy, by all means use it, but then, this discussion is a bit
elementary for him. If he has a method of precision matching levels, use it,
by all means. However, when faced with virtually no resources, if the only
person the audiophile has to satisfy is himself, he should do it by
switching the wires himself. He may find a difference; he may not; no harm
done. If he finds an amplifier that pleases him more, he should choose that
amplifier. He should not believe he heard nothing, or be discouraged from
doing this, because Arny Krueger says it's a useless exercise.

Arny's uncopromising position seems to be that "all properly operating
amplifiers of a certain power class, when level matched, are
indistinguishable." I would certainly agree with this if "properly
operating" meant "perfect", but it does not, because there are no perfect
amplifiers.

Arny has strung together a lot of methodology with the assumption that the
logic is transitive. In other words, if A implies B, and B implies C, then A
implies C. In this way, he purports to "prove", via samples on his ABX
website, that the ear is far too tolerant of distortion to hear the
difference between "properly operating amplifiers."

To me, and to many other audiophiles, this is analogous to ****ing on our
backs and calling it rain. People have proved the existence of God, and
disproved the existence of God. Have they proved anything? No. A good
scientist, when confronted by a very large body of people who apparently
believe that some good amplifiers sound better than other good amplifiers,
when coupled to some good speakers, would open up his imagination, his
spirit, his curiosity, and his will, to find out what's going on.

Arny claims to be protecting the consumer from himself. It is unquestionably
the case that many audiophiles DO delude themselves into believing that
they hear things that they don't. This usually happens as the hobby gets a
little old, and they seek to repeat the thrill of discovering new things.
But the hobby has many curmudgeons like myself, who own old, discarded
things. I have no stake in preferring any one of my Parasounds to my Haflers
to my Acoustats. I chose these amplifiers a long time ago, after passing
over others. They are not new, and they do not thrill me, and when I'm done
switching around, I have just as many as I started with. Arny may claim that
I am still contaminated with my own humanity, but it is hard to find my
motive.

I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

Ironically, Arny Krueger is a fairly knowledgeable guy. Unfortunately, his
knowledge is not accompanied by wisdom, nor an understanding of the limits
of his knowledge. Usenet provides an outlet for people who want to
pontificate. Many of us have a feeling of pride when we answer a question
that may be read by several thousand people. But we must remember that
humility is just a word, it is a principle of action. In this case, to be
humble as a scientist means to openly accept and investigate, and encourage
the possibility that any theory one has authored is wrong.

This sounds like one big whine.

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Brian L. McCarty (pretending to be "Robert Morein") wrote...
I'd like to see you recognized for what you a a charlatan, a
fraud, and a bad scientist.

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Yup, looking for people who can back their theories up with emperical
evidence clearly brands me with the stigma being a bad scientist.

Arny, PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! Especially this one!

Apparently, there is some question as to whether my post was genuine.

I have a big beef with Arny Krueger, and I have labeled him a bad scientist,
and I believe I am not without justification.
The "ABX" protocol is useful, and fundamental to precise scientific
investigation in many areas of human perception. Therefore, my extreme
deprecation of Arny Krueger is not because he espouses ABX per se.

However, as has been the case throughout the history of science, bad science
has coexisted with good science, and in very large proportion. Most
currently accepted scientific facts were preceded by theories that had the
standing of fact and that were later proved false. Arny Krueger is, in my
opinion, part of that large proportion of would be scientists who have
misused the label of science. Why people do this is a matter of conjecture.

All good scientists have an open mind and a dispassionate attitude toward
their subject material. It should be apparent that Arny is quite certain,
with no room for error, on all the subjects on which he espouses, and that
he is extremely passionate. This is a recipe for contamination; it prepares
for assassination of the truth.

On the other side of this room are a large number of audiophiles. Many, like
myself, take no pride in their hearing, yet find simple phenomena that
constantly reoccur. One of these is that some combinations of amplifiers and
speakers sound different from other amplifiers with the same speakers. The
claim is not made that one can tell the difference between all, or even
most, amplifiers. Nor is it claimed that expensive amplifiers sound
different from cheap ones. However, I personally possess quite a number of
amplifiers with seemingly distinct sound signatures. All of these amplifiers
are, apparently, "good", in that they are of reputable make, heavily built,
and definitely not defective, since in my case, I have more than one of just
about every amp I own.

For this reason, I advocate to the audiophile that he try different
amplifiers with his speakers, in whatever experiment conditions will allow.
If he has ABX handy, by all means use it, but then, this discussion is a bit
elementary for him. If he has a method of precision matching levels, use it,
by all means. However, when faced with virtually no resources, if the only
person the audiophile has to satisfy is himself, he should do it by
switching the wires himself. He may find a difference; he may not; no harm
done. If he finds an amplifier that pleases him more, he should choose that
amplifier. He should not believe he heard nothing, or be discouraged from
doing this, because Arny Krueger says it's a useless exercise.

Arny's uncopromising position seems to be that "all properly operating
amplifiers of a certain power class, when level matched, are
indistinguishable." I would certainly agree with this if "properly
operating" meant "perfect", but it does not, because there are no perfect
amplifiers.

Arny has strung together a lot of methodology with the assumption that the
logic is transitive. In other words, if A implies B, and B implies C, then A
implies C. In this way, he purports to "prove", via samples on his ABX
website, that the ear is far too tolerant of distortion to hear the
difference between "properly operating amplifiers."

To me, and to many other audiophiles, this is analogous to ****ing on our
backs and calling it rain. People have proved the existence of God, and
disproved the existence of God. Have they proved anything? No. A good
scientist, when confronted by a very large body of people who apparently
believe that some good amplifiers sound better than other good amplifiers,
when coupled to some good speakers, would open up his imagination, his
spirit, his curiosity, and his will, to find out what's going on.

Arny claims to be protecting the consumer from himself. It is unquestionably
the case that many audiophiles DO delude themselves into believing that
they hear things that they don't. This usually happens as the hobby gets a
little old, and they seek to repeat the thrill of discovering new things.
But the hobby has many curmudgeons like myself, who own old, discarded
things. I have no stake in preferring any one of my Parasounds to my Haflers
to my Acoustats. I chose these amplifiers a long time ago, after passing
over others. They are not new, and they do not thrill me, and when I'm done
switching around, I have just as many as I started with. Arny may claim that
I am still contaminated with my own humanity, but it is hard to find my
motive.

I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

Ironically, Arny Krueger is a fairly knowledgeable guy. Unfortunately, his
knowledge is not accompanied by wisdom, nor an understanding of the limits
of his knowledge. Usenet provides an outlet for people who want to
pontificate. Many of us have a feeling of pride when we answer a question
that may be read by several thousand people. But we must remember that
humility is just a word, it is a principle of action. In this case, to be
humble as a scientist means to openly accept and investigate, and encourage
the possibility that any theory one has authored is wrong.

This sounds like one big whine.

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
....
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have, and the
alternatives are extremely complex and difficult to manage and
dependent upon a number of single-point failure potentials) and
the "legend" ("NASA didn't have enough money...", well, it wasn't
NASA that built the optics, AND the test that COULD have detected
the flaw had already been paid for, the mistake that caused the
problem, a missing spacer, did nothing to change the cost of
manufacturing) is something else entirely.

Be that all as it may: Arny, Robert, listen carefully: nobody
but the two of you give a flying **** about your little love fest
anymore. Take it to email and leave the humans alone.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
....
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope. Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have, and the
alternatives are extremely complex and difficult to manage and
dependent upon a number of single-point failure potentials) and
the "legend" ("NASA didn't have enough money...", well, it wasn't
NASA that built the optics, AND the test that COULD have detected
the flaw had already been paid for, the mistake that caused the
problem, a missing spacer, did nothing to change the cost of
manufacturing) is something else entirely.

Be that all as it may: Arny, Robert, listen carefully: nobody
but the two of you give a flying **** about your little love fest
anymore. Take it to email and leave the humans alone.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system.

"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real
scientists to stop pontificating.

"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real
scientists to stop pontificating.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have, and the
alternatives are extremely complex and difficult to manage and
dependent upon a number of single-point failure potentials) and
the "legend" ("NASA didn't have enough money...", well, it wasn't
NASA that built the optics, AND the test that COULD have detected
the flaw had already been paid for, the mistake that caused the
problem, a missing spacer,

It was not a missing spacer. Urban legend propagated by Dick.

did nothing to change the cost of
manufacturing) is something else entirely.

Dick, you're not human.
From http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vwen/cla...0/cs294-8/hw1/

from Risk Digest, Volume 15, Issue 14
There were three test rigs built for that mirror, and
two of them reported the error. It happened that the third was considered
the most accurate, so management -- under considerable pressure -- ignored
the results from the other two.

from Houston Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1990
The manufacturer, Perkin-Elmer, did not assign its best people to
telescope construction and "there was a surprising lack of participation
by optical experts with experience in the manufacture of large telescopes,"
the investigators' final report said. Portions of the report had been
leaked earlier.

"There were at least three cases where there was clear evidence that
a problem was developing and it was missed all three times," said Dr. Lew
Allen, director of the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif., who directed the study.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have, and the
alternatives are extremely complex and difficult to manage and
dependent upon a number of single-point failure potentials) and
the "legend" ("NASA didn't have enough money...", well, it wasn't
NASA that built the optics, AND the test that COULD have detected
the flaw had already been paid for, the mistake that caused the
problem, a missing spacer,

It was not a missing spacer. Urban legend propagated by Dick.

did nothing to change the cost of
manufacturing) is something else entirely.

Dick, you're not human.
From http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vwen/cla...0/cs294-8/hw1/

from Risk Digest, Volume 15, Issue 14
There were three test rigs built for that mirror, and
two of them reported the error. It happened that the third was considered
the most accurate, so management -- under considerable pressure -- ignored
the results from the other two.

from Houston Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1990
The manufacturer, Perkin-Elmer, did not assign its best people to
telescope construction and "there was a surprising lack of participation
by optical experts with experience in the manufacture of large telescopes,"
the investigators' final report said. Portions of the report had been
leaked earlier.

"There were at least three cases where there was clear evidence that
a problem was developing and it was missed all three times," said Dr. Lew
Allen, director of the space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif., who directed the study.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
I speculate that if the damping factor were measured under
large signal
conditions, numbers sufficiently low to explain the difference
in bass
quality between amps would be obtained.

I observe differences in bass quality with musical material
played at 75 dB
SPL, on speakers which are 88 to 92 dB efficient.
Two amplifiers which I frequently compare are the Hafler
XL-280, rated at
145 WRMS/channel, and the Acoustat TNT-200, rated at 200
WRMS/channel, both
into 8 ohms.
Do you believe that dynamic range or clipping, as you
previously mention,
are causes? I don't.

Nevermind. I didn't realize who was making these claims. No
sense wasting my breath trying to educate...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
I speculate that if the damping factor were measured under
large signal
conditions, numbers sufficiently low to explain the difference
in bass
quality between amps would be obtained.

I observe differences in bass quality with musical material
played at 75 dB
SPL, on speakers which are 88 to 92 dB efficient.
Two amplifiers which I frequently compare are the Hafler
XL-280, rated at
145 WRMS/channel, and the Acoustat TNT-200, rated at 200
WRMS/channel, both
into 8 ohms.
Do you believe that dynamic range or clipping, as you
previously mention,
are causes? I don't.

Nevermind. I didn't realize who was making these claims. No
sense wasting my breath trying to educate...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

From: (Dick Pierce)
Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. The one thing
that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be partlicularly
enamored with Arny.

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

From: (Dick Pierce)
Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. The one thing
that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be partlicularly
enamored with Arny.

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real
scientists to stop pontificating.

Ah, you mean like when someone states that the 2.4 meter Hubble
telescope has a diameter of 40 inches? Or that a simple "Focault
knife-edge test" is the preferred method to testing large diameter
Ritchey-Chretien systems and that interferometric null tests are not?

Yes, indeed, we see what you mean.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message ...
"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real
scientists to stop pontificating.

Ah, you mean like when someone states that the 2.4 meter Hubble
telescope has a diameter of 40 inches? Or that a simple "Focault
knife-edge test" is the preferred method to testing large diameter
Ritchey-Chretien systems and that interferometric null tests are not?

Yes, indeed, we see what you mean.

"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: (Dick Pierce)
Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space
Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put
the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible
mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault
knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled
system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

The reason I mentioned it is your preposterous claim that it would be
impossible to test the optical system on the ground.

"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: (Dick Pierce)
Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space
Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put
the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible
mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault
knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled
system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

The reason I mentioned it is your preposterous claim that it would be
impossible to test the optical system on the ground.

"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: (Dick Pierce)
Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space
Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put
the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible
mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault
knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled
system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. The one
thing
that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be partlicularly
enamored with Arny.

Stu, I've passed the Ph.D preliminary exam in two fields: theoretical
physics and electrical engineering.

"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: (Dick Pierce)
Date: 10/29/2003 8:40 AM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
bad science has coexisted with good science,
...
I am reminded of the mistake NASA made with the Hubble Space
Telescope.
Each
optic was rigorously checked, but they didn't have the money to put
the
thing through a test on the ground. Good minds made a terrible
mistake.

And both have coexisted with bad examples and bad memories of bad
anecdotes. Urban legends such as "physicists proved that bees can't
fly" is one such example. The above quoted "anecdote" is another.
It's a case where the REAL FACTS (i.e., it's impossible to conduct
a true infinity-focus null test on large optics in a finite
sized laboratory no matter HOW much money you have,

Dick, I didn't realize you're a member of the bull**** club as well.
The telescope mirror is 40 inches in diameter, and the Focault
knife-edge
test would have easily detected the abberration in the assembled
system.

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

Noted. He also knows little about science, engineering, or audio. The one
thing
that we do know about him is that he does not appear to be partlicularly
enamored with Arny.

Stu, I've passed the Ph.D preliminary exam in two fields: theoretical
physics and electrical engineering.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real
scientists to stop pontificating.

Ah, you mean like when someone states that the 2.4 meter Hubble
telescope has a diameter of 40 inches? Or that a simple "Focault
knife-edge test" is the preferred method

I did not say that. I see you're a lying master of the debating trade like
Arny.

to testing large diameter
Ritchey-Chretien systems and that interferometric null tests are not?

Yes, indeed, we see what you mean.

I see what you mean. Your posts are frequently informative, but when you are
wrong, you persist due to the same twisted, warped psychological need as
Arny: the need to dominate, to pontificate.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 10/27/2003 10:15 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

[snip]

Stuart Welwood
http://members.aol.com/StuWelwood

No. It's an impassioned plea for all the fakes who think they are real
scientists to stop pontificating.

Ah, you mean like when someone states that the 2.4 meter Hubble
telescope has a diameter of 40 inches? Or that a simple "Focault
knife-edge test" is the preferred method

I did not say that. I see you're a lying master of the debating trade like
Arny.

to testing large diameter
Ritchey-Chretien systems and that interferometric null tests are not?

Yes, indeed, we see what you mean.

I see what you mean. Your posts are frequently informative, but when you are
wrong, you persist due to the same twisted, warped psychological need as
Arny: the need to dominate, to pontificate.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:13:48 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"StuWelwood" wrote in message
...

Dick Pierce wrote:

Kind readers, witness Mr. Morein describing ME as a member of the
"bull**** club," when he a) quotes the mirror size quite incorrectly
(it's a 2.4 meter Ritchey-Chretien all-mirror system, that's 94 inches)
AND while he might be have passing familiarity with the term Focault
test, he is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that Focault knife-edge
testing was NOT used for figure verification.

The reason I mentioned it is your preposterous claim that it would be
impossible to test the optical system on the ground.

Caught with your ass in the wringer again, eh Bob? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering