On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:28:31 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:03:51 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".

But having looked at

http://www.russandrews.com/downloads...estPremRes.pdf

[above file size 700K]

I can't say I agree with that belief simply on the basis of what the above
contains. But that may in part be because I've examined a past set of
measurements by Ben Duncan and come to rather different conclusions to the
ones he and a co-author asserted about them at the time.[1] I would
therefore like to know all the measurement systems/proceedure details that
are sadly omitted from the above.

I thought others here might be interested to read the above pdf and
consider it for themself.

I am curious to know if the reactions of others agree with my own. In
particular, if others can spot 'The dog that did not bark in the night'.

From the preamble:
"...we set about conducting a series of robust
scientific tests to back up the claims we have always made
for our products’ abilities."

He doesn't know the difference between science and theology. Do we
really need to read further?

I just looked at the last bit - the measurements. I know the Cyrus II
very well (I have one), and its distortion characteristic is the same
as every other amplifier on the planet - it rises at high frequency.
According to his measurement it falls. That is actually a quite
embarrassing article.

Peer review will either be revealing or not. If his peers are anything
like him in ability, it will presumably pass.

d