In Reply to: RE: Better duck under that desk; posted by Werner on August 2, 2009 at 06:48:18:
werner wrote:Please go back to the Kunchur papers. He did NOT demonstrate that.
Thank you for the advice. By the same token, do please read what I wrote slightly more carefully.
Immediately after the phrase you quote (one, from a lengthy, perhaps over-lengthy, post), I said "Whether, in practice, on the kit most of us use, this matters (or even whether he is right) [emphasis added] is a proper debate".
By that I meant (and I'd have thought it pretty obvious though I apologise if it isn't), "I am not at this point saying either that he was right or that he was wrong - I am now dealing with other matters".
I've already said that I'd reply to your points later and, if you stop jumping down my throat, I will. I was suggesting here only that it was silly to say the Kunchur study is irrelevant.
But my post was essentially about the Meyer and Moran paper. Due to a sloppy oversight, I had previously argued that it was not totally worthless. Having "gone back to the paper" and spotted the howler I described, I now think it is.
Am I right or am I wrong? As the paper is regularly used to discredit Kunchur and undermines the case for publishing hi-res recordings, it matters.
Dave
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 08/2/0907:16:17 08/2/09 (24)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 18:22:52 08/2/09 (23)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 01:05:50 08/3/09 (22)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 04:06:20 08/3/09 (21)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 04:40:30 08/3/09 (20)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:08:53 08/3/09 (19)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 07:56:07 08/3/09 (18)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 12:09:11 08/3/09 (17)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 14:42:51 08/3/09 (16)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 18:27:33 08/3/09 (15)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 19:46:06 08/3/09 (14)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:24:51 08/4/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 02:55:41 08/4/09 (12)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Tony Lauck 17:29:58 08/5/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:05:49 08/4/09 (7)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 19:12:49 08/5/09 (4)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 19:46:58 08/5/09 (3)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 20:00:35 08/5/09 (2)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 03:56:22 08/6/09 (1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 07:50:41 08/6/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Tony Lauck 17:40:32 08/5/09 (1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 19:17:37 08/5/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 04:13:36 08/4/09 (2)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 07:59:20 08/5/09 (1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 23:19:23 08/5/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 06:26:29 08/10/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 06:50:25 08/10/09 (0)