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.


It's difficult for me to tell. Everything Ben Duncan claims on his web
site is not substantiated or qualified (international reputation,
unique, expanding, holistic, world class and so on) and his
qualifications appear worthless in the sense I think I could get them by
filling out a form and paying. Following the link to his publications
leads me to a shop. Searching the shop for his name brings up electronic
things to buy and a series of collections of articles.

He may well be a jolly good bloke but I simply wouldn't trust anything
he has to say from the impression I get from his web site. Maybe poor
self-publicity is a characteristic of scientific types, present company
excepted :-)

So, from a lay point of view, it means very little to me. I wouldn't buy
anything off the back of it, put it that way. Or at least I'd hope I
wouldn't . . .

Rob