"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.

As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first
"predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would
assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs
Instruments."

In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict
between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention
any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that
Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources,
I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to
the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant
measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none.

He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
evidence.

There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
be yet another.

But that was NEVER DONE!

So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
"instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
made ANY relevant measurement.

A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the
bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the
problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot,
you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with
that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs.
Ear"?

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?