Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkjohnsen  What needs to be pointed out, if not spelled out, is that the device does indeed work. I have used it, as have others. Have you? I must assume not, because when you write "complex/arbitrary signal" you pick the worst case; in fact, in many if not most musical presentations there are instruments exposed that give a true reading. (Granted one must know which few by nature create rarefactive transients.)
The device, au contraire, is fully capable of providing reliable results. Try it, you'll see.
clark |
If this device actually worked then you would not be seeing 50-50 results on "most CDs". You're preaching wrong information to this crowd and misinterpreting your
"measurement instrument". After having studied thousands and thousands of combined waveforms, as we do every day, mastering engineers on this forum could easily tell you that polarity ambiguity of a composite waveform is a fact of life: the combinations of output of the various musical instruments CAN NEVER be "in phase" because by their nature they are separate and distinct instruments. In viewing composite DAW waveforms, I find it EXTREMELY rare to discover in any recording an isolated single instrument whose unique waveform is observable and not tainted by the room acoustics or the residuals of other instruments. In addition, I strongly doubt that a "go-no go" polarity tester could react to such a complex (non-standard) wave and produce consistent results. And in fact if you were to edit a portion of any recording so as to find (hopefullly) an isolated instrument, even the point at which you begin and end playing this non-standard test signal would confuse your instrument which is designed to detect a standardized test signal. All you have to do is start looking at actual waveforms of the CDs you have been testing and discover the near-impossibility of your measurement task with your "test instrument".
Again Mr. Johnsen will turn these words around and attempt to put them to his advantage by using propaganda and repetition. His modus-operandi is to use repetition instead of argument and conveniently disregard any arguments that do not serve his cause. For example, statements in this thread confirming that acoustical-electrical polarity standards do exist. He disregards them, uses propaganda and repeats his own position. Unfortunately, "Reiteration" is not the same as "argument". Repetition is the sign of a propaganda artist, or someone who will never learn, or someone who simply likes to argue for argument's sake, or more likely, someone who always needs to bolster his own position for his own comfort and never will see the light.
Game, Set, Match. It's over.
BK