"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49b9af3e.963105140@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Andy Evans
wrote:

http://www.newformresearch.com/fidel...tial-index.htm

Something for you to play with!

Very silly. In his calculation method he has got the bits per second
sum wrong - he has omitted x2 for stereo.

He also omitted 5x for Dolby Digital.

And his method of defining Fidelity Potential index (what this is really
all about) is actually
laughable.

Or very sad.

An analogy using his method. I need to measure something 11 inches
long. A yard rule will measure it three times as accurately as a foot
rule.

Yet another example of the blind trying to mislead the blind. He's not
going to impress anybody with his technical abilities with this sort of
monumental dust up.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49b9af3e.963105140@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Andy Evans
wrote:

http://www.newformresearch.com/fidel...tial-index.htm

Something for you to play with!

Very silly. In his calculation method he has got the bits per second
sum wrong - he has omitted x2 for stereo.

He also omitted 5x for Dolby Digital.

if nothing else, Andy kindly posting this has reminded me that I've been
meaning to do a decent analysis of this topic. Hopefully to:

A) Actually present the methods and the measurements upon which any such
'index' sic is based. Not just to pluck some values out of the air.

B) Then produce somewhat more meaningful results. :-)

As has already been said, some of this results do seem to not make sense on
the ostensible 'like for like' basis. The implication is that some of the
methods for some figures is quite different than for others in the same
column...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html