Gedlee on distortion

[monkish54]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

That escalated quickly....

Jeff, sorry to hear about your situation! Do you have a transplant lined up? Feel free to PM me.

[hongrn]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Seems like every thread on this forum has to be poisoned by some anal orifice lacking manners or communication skills. In this case, it's you blur.

[kenny_k]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Sorry my organs are ear-marked for good people.

I can suggest a transplant for that space between your ears.

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Sorry my organs are ear-marked for good people.

What an A$$.

[Face]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

He's the same troll that stated Jeff shouldn't enter PE's designer competition. Pay no mind.

[blur]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

What an A$$.

Come on it was a joking response to what was obviously a joke saying I should be cut up for Jeff B. No one was serious, and taking seriously is just plain ignorant.

[blur]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

He's the same troll that stated Jeff shouldn't enter PE's designer competition. Pay no mind.

Only because Jeff B already had has his break into the industry and it would be nice to allow others a chance as well. It wouldn't do much for Jeff B but could open doors for someone else. Not because I have an axe to grind with Jeff, or anyone, because I don't.

[czag]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Come on it was a joking response to what was obviously a joke saying I should be cut up for Jeff B. No one was serious, and taking seriously is just plain ignorant.

Joke or not, it was a horrible statement and you know it. BTW, no one said you should be cut up for Jeff, only type-matched.

Instructions for trolling:
1. Stir the pot fairly regularly.
2. Fairly regularly claim you are not stirring the pot fairly regularly.

[Sydney]

Bad thread

This thread became unpleasant very quickly.

[bret191]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Only because Jeff B already had has his break into the industry and it would be nice to allow others a chance as well. It wouldn't do much for Jeff B but could open doors for someone else. Not because I have an axe to grind with Jeff, or anyone, because I don't.

Your hole way of thinking is off! Its not that Jeff has all ready has had his chance or to let someone else have there chance at all it's all about what it does for everyone else in the DIY community and NOT the designer! Any one at anytime can start a thread and publish there design and have there so called chance at anytime "the door has always been open" so that's just nonsense!

[Pallas]

Gedlee on distortion

First, here's hoping Jeff is soon matched to the kidney he needs.

As for harmonic distortion generally, the scientific consensus is as I quoted from Toole above. Just because DIYers can measure it doesn't mean it means anything.

;2076734]I'd like to know what makes Geddes "our obvious better?"

As I previously wrote, "one of the most important parts of reading comprehension generally is to understand the scope of a text."

Here, my phase you quoted was expressly limited in scope to describe those "tritely dismissing important contributors rather than engaging them and probing them for truth."

If one wishes to self-select into that group...OK I guess. But it's an insult to Jeff to unjustifiably lump him in with such wretches.

Scope is an interesting thing. I taught LSAT classes and did private tutoring for about 6 or 7 years. I found the main difference between the people who performed well (say 165-180) and the people who did poorly (say under 160) was that the people who did well intuitively grasped the scope of a text in the Logical Reasoning section, whereas the low scorers did not. Other aspects of the test could be taught, but scope identification seemed to be a function of basic intelligence.

[isaeagle4031]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

First, here's hoping Jeff is soon matched to the kidney he needs.

As for harmonic distortion generally, the scientific consensus is as I quoted from Toole above. Just because DIYers can measure it doesn't mean it means anything.

So are we to assume by your text that the rest of us are the

As I previously wrote, "one of the most important parts of reading comprehension generally is to understand the scope of a text."

Here, my phase you quoted was expressly limited in scope to describe those "tritely dismissing important contributors rather than engaging them and probing them for truth."

If one wishes to self-select into that group...OK I guess. But it's an insult to Jeff to unjustifiably lump him in with such wretches.

Scope is an interesting thing. I taught LSAT classes and did private tutoring for about 6 or 7 years. I found the main difference between the people who performed well (say 165-180) and the people who did poorly (say under 160) was that the people who did well intuitively grasped the scope of a text in the Logical Reasoning section, whereas the low scorers did not. Other aspects of the test could be taught, but scope identification seemed to be a function of basic intelligence.

So are we to assume by your statement that the rest of us are the "wretches". Do you assume yourself to be of so much higher intellect than the rest without having a quantifying factor? Is this simply based on some obtuse test score or simply your own arrogance? Either way, maybe you should change your name from Pallas to Appaling. It seems to fit much more closely.

[carlspeak]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

A quote from an earlier post....

"Instructions for trolling:
1. Stir the pot fairly regularly.
2. Fairly regularly claim you are not stirring the pot fairly regularly."

I think we now have two trolls on board

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

But back to Geddes . . . he and his wife actually developed a distortion metric that is claimed to be more useful than the crude, useless THD.

His agreement with Toole in this is certainly notable, and I found the "distortion" chapter in "Audio Transducers" quite on point. The idea that all distortion measurements need to be weighted for audibility to have value seems obvious, and is clearly backed by experiment and experience (see Toole again) as well. The key with Geddes is to hear and understand what he is saying, and ignore his (granted sometimes rather abrupt) manner in saying it. He's right more often than he's wrong . . .

[craigk]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

First, here's hoping Jeff is soon matched to the kidney he needs.

As for harmonic distortion generally, the scientific consensus is as I quoted from Toole above. Just because DIYers can measure it doesn't mean it means anything.



As I previously wrote, "one of the most important parts of reading comprehension generally is to understand the scope of a text."

Here, my phase you quoted was expressly limited in scope to describe those "tritely dismissing important contributors rather than engaging them and probing them for truth."

If one wishes to self-select into that group...OK I guess. But it's an insult to Jeff to unjustifiably lump him in with such wretches.

Scope is an interesting thing. I taught LSAT classes and did private tutoring for about 6 or 7 years. I found the main difference between the people who performed well (say 165-180) and the people who did poorly (say under 160) was that the people who did well intuitively grasped the scope of a text in the Logical Reasoning section, whereas the low scorers did not. Other aspects of the test could be taught, but scope identification seemed to be a function of basic intelligence.

another lawyer, this explains everything.