On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"ScottW" wrote in message
roups.com...

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:



In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two hard,
imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact
points?"
The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers of
this
newsgroup.


I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put two
surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs).
Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-)


3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as non-flat
(does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat.

He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired
answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres).
His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't
close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into
play.

Sander has given the correct answer.


Only if you make an assumption.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message


For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into
consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled
relays.

Wrong.

For speaker-level signals, a combination of both
silver-plated and gold-plated heavy duty contacts with
strong spring action (meaning contact pressure) are a
good choice (if one has to switch speaker-level signals
at all, something I don't like to do at all).

Wrong.

Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono
cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering
from signal degradation.

Wrong.

Keep up the good work, Sander!

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:24:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Remember that line level audio, at the
zero crossing, involves nanoamps and microvolts.

You are making this up.. again. The voltage at the (voltage) zero
crossing is zero. Not only that but the time taken to cross zero is
zero, so any energy loss or distortion is also zero. This can be
heard by audiophools, we will note.

You take my words to literally. Please substitute, "in the neighborhood of
the zero crossing" for "at the zero crossing".

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"ScottW" wrote in message
roups.com...

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:



In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two
hard,
imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact
points?"
The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers
of
this
newsgroup.


I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put
two
surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs).
Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-)


3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as non-flat
(does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat.

He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired
answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres).
His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't
close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into
play.

Sander has given the correct answer.


Only if you make an assumption.
Yes.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of
ruthenium
important.

Prove it makes an audible difference.

Prove it doesn't.

Can't prove a negative.

You still have the burden of proof.
You made the claim, you supply the proof.

Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such time as
it
is proven to be transparent.

The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.

We will not permit adoption of this technique
by the public until this is done.

It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
the world over.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:33:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"ScottW" wrote in message
roups.com...

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:



In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two
hard,
imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact
points?"
The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers
of
this
newsgroup.


I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put
two
surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs).
Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-)


3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as non-flat
(does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat.

He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired
answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres).
His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't
close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into
play.

Sander has given.


Only if you make an assumption.
Yes.

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
: wrote:
:
:
: "ScottW" wrote in message
: roups.com...
:
: Sander deWaal wrote:
: "Robert Morein" said:
:
:
:
: In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two hard,
: imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact
: points?"
: The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the readers of
: this
: newsgroup.
:
:
: I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put two
: surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs).
: Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-)
:
:
: 3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as non-flat
: (does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat.
:
: He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired
: answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres).
: His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't
: close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into
: play.
:
: Sander has given the correct answer.
:
:
: Only if you make an assumption.

Yep, what's a point (the point?), for instance ? define 'contact'
Better make that several. Say the surface could be polished to
the atomic level (yeah, right, so we'd have three atoms stickin' out
making the contact. The pressure on those atoms would be gigantic
(try working out grams on nanometers squared and they'd be
pressed back into the metallic lattice for sure. The 'mountains' are
leveled, then some other atoms will make contact, reducing
the pressure, etc. etc. Three points would be a mathematical, not a
physical maximum, it'd rather be the absolute minimum (say if one
has some (metal) surfaces stacked in zero gravity)
I guess a springloaded ballbearing transport table with a slab of metal
on it would make for an adequate mental model.
make that two tables, one overturned, on top of each other
for Robert :-)

Rudy

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?

....after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
three contact geometry *are*...

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:43:45 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:24:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Remember that line level audio, at the
zero crossing, involves nanoamps and microvolts.

You are making this up.. again. The voltage at the (voltage) zero
crossing is zero. Not only that but the time taken to cross zero is
zero, so any energy loss or distortion is also zero. This can be
heard by audiophools, we will note.

You take my words to literally. Please substitute, "in the neighborhood of
the zero crossing" for "at the zero crossing".


For someone who considers himself to be a bit of a scientist and
writer one wonders if the problem sloppy writing, fuzzy thinking or
plain old "debating trade" The agument that a big signal that passes
through zero is really a little signal after all does not appeal to
me..

Is it just me or is Bob getting on one's tits?

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of
ruthenium
important.

Prove it makes an audible difference.

Prove it doesn't.

Can't prove a negative.

You still have the burden of proof.
You made the claim, you supply the proof.

Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such time
as
it
is proven to be transparent.

The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.

We will not permit adoption of this technique
by the public until this is done.

It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
the world over.

As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real audio
professionals" do not use it either.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:33:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"ScottW" wrote in message
roups.com...

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:



In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two
hard,
imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact
points?"
The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the
readers
of
this
newsgroup.


I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put
two
surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs).
Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-)


3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as
non-flat
(does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat.

He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired
answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres).
His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't
close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into
play.

Sander has given.


Only if you make an assumption.
Yes.

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?
That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
surface".

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?

...after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
three contact geometry *are*...

Not necessary, because the question asks for the maximum number of contact
points for two nonflat surfaces. If the moments are insufficient to align
the surfaces, then the number of contact points can be less than three.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
Is it just me or is Bob getting on one's tits?

Why would I be interested in your tits? Is that some kind of English fag
expression?
Here we say, "pulling my chain".

If your tits are somehow representative of a nonflat surface with a maximum
of three contact points, I'll sleep somewhere else.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message


For line levels, for me, nothing else comes into
consideration but thoroughly gold-plated, gas filled
relays.

Wrong.

For speaker-level signals, a combination of both
silver-plated and gold-plated heavy duty contacts with
strong spring action (meaning contact pressure) are a
good choice (if one has to switch speaker-level signals
at all, something I don't like to do at all).

Wrong.

Switching an audio signal at microphone- or phono
cartridge levels is almost not possible without suffering
from signal degradation.

Wrong.

Keep up the good work, Sander!

Keep up the repetition, Arny. Train them 'dogs!

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:43:45 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:24:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Remember that line level audio, at the
zero crossing, involves nanoamps and microvolts.

You are making this up.. again. The voltage at the (voltage) zero
crossing is zero. Not only that but the time taken to cross zero is
zero, so any energy loss or distortion is also zero. This can be
heard by audiophools, we will note.

You take my words to literally. Please substitute, "in the neighborhood
of
the zero crossing" for "at the zero crossing".


For someone who considers himself to be a bit of a scientist and
writer one wonders if the problem sloppy writing, fuzzy thinking or
plain old "debating trade" The agument that a big signal that passes
through zero is really a little signal after all does not appeal to
me..

It doesn't appeal to me either, but this is the world we live in. In fact,
audio equipment exhibits a well known quantum effect, in the form of
background hiss. The purpose of my questions is to illuminate the fact that
we have a tiny signal that passes through a complex interface. According to
the literature, the interface is composed of "nanowires", a term coined to
denote conductors, and the current flow through these is quantized.

I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these devices into hifi
equipment. But Arny Krueger is pushing his device like the NBS platinum
meter. An interesting discovery was made about that bar afew years ago, now
that it is a secondary standard to the atomic meter. The bar is shrinking.
Either it is evaporating, or internal stresses are causing it to change
shape.

So what I'm saying is, we cannot bank on relays for ABX comparison. They
seem comfortably simple, but they are not.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:24:05 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?

...after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
three contact geometry *are*...

Not necessary, because the question asks for the maximum number of contact
points for two nonflat surfaces. If the moments are insufficient to align
the surfaces, then the number of contact points can be less than three.

Ok, I only read answers and the answer was a three legged stool.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:22:55 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:33:40 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:07:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"ScottW" wrote in message
roups.com...

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:



In order to introduce the subject, I asked the question, "For two
hard,
imperfectly flat surfaces, what are the maximum number of contact
points?"
The purpose was to invite some discovery on the part of the
readers
of
this
newsgroup.


I said 3 contact points, 3 points being the most stable way to put
two
surfaces together (think about a table with 3 legs).
Applying more contact pressure won't change that :-)


3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as
non-flat
(does he mean non-planar?), non parallel, and now imperfectly flat.

He keeps playing the words in a feeble attempt to get his desired
answer of 1 (consider 2 spheres).
His whole point is irrelevant as the materials in question aren't
close to the level of hardness required for his theory to come into
play.

Sander has given.


Only if you make an assumption.
Yes.

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?
That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
surface".

Who would have thunk. What was your assumption?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
:
: 3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as
: non-flat

: Only if you make an assumption.
: Yes.
:
: So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
: answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
: perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
: contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
: three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
: within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
: to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
: taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
: none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
: extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
: ?
: That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
: surface".
:
A specification you get to make :-)
However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
possible with a three atom contact ? Lookin' forward for a reply,
Rudy
BS watchdog

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:25:55 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
Is it just me or is Bob getting on one's tits?

Why would I be interested in your tits? Is that some kind of English fag
expression?

You mean Queen's.. English? No.

Here we say, "pulling my chain".


Not equivalent.

If your tits are somehow representative of a nonflat surface with a maximum
of three contact points, I'll sleep somewhere else.

One's man boobs are hard, note,

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
devices into hifi equipment.

Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
components in quality equipment for audio production for
decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
manufacturer of studio mixing boards.

Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
and audio in general.

But Arny Krueger is pushing
his device like the NBS platinum meter.

This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?

However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.

" wrote in message
hlink.net...


..

It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
the world over.


That should read "professional audio clowns".

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:32:42 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message

Snip preamble.

For someone who considers himself to be a bit of a scientist and
writer one wonders if the problem sloppy writing, fuzzy thinking or
plain old "debating trade" The agument that a big signal that passes
through zero is really a little signal after all does not appeal to
me..

It doesn't appeal to me either, but this is the world we live in.

What can I say.

Snip irrelevance

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news
" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:7eh2f.3085$jw6.1293@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
From http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for platinum
and
palladium, and is alloyed with these metals to make electrical
contacts
for
severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since perfect
flatness
cannot be achieved in relay contacts, such contact is limted to
a
discrete
number of points.

Really? How hard is extreme hardness? Ever occur to you the
harder
the
contact the smoother it can be polished? Which factor takes
precedence
in
determining contact resistance, smoothness or malleability?

Failure to answer the questions noted.

Yep, you failed again, sock puppet Morein.


How can you call him a sockpuppet?

Like this, he's a sock puppett.

You know his name, his phone number, his
address, and his academic history (such as it is).

It may in fact belong to a Robert Morein, but that doesn't mean he's
the
guy posting here.

Besides, it's as valid as the statements he's been making about why he
doesn't have to offer proof on various subjects, like the ABX relays,
or
his claimed ability to be immune from bias in sighted listening.

I know lots more about him than I know about you,
and I don't call you a sockpuppet, because you are not,
And he is either someone just pulling people's chains with his
anti-scinetific bull ****, or he's a sock puppet who actually believes
the crap he says.

Of course it is possible that there is a 3rd explanation, he is the
Robert Morein that went to the Supreme Court AND he's an idiot on
electronics as well.

None of the possiblities speak well for him.



Anybody posting here could be someone other than who they claim to be.
Your theory can be applied to you, as well as to anyone else.


As I said there are 3 possibilities.

Of course, it is impossible to know whether I am a sockpuppet or not.
That is why I post my phone number: (215) 646-4894.

So I guess this possibility is correect.

Of course it is possible that there is a 3rd explanation, he is the
Robert Morein that went to the Supreme Court AND he's an idiot on
electronics as well.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of
ruthenium
important.

Prove it makes an audible difference.

Prove it doesn't.

Can't prove a negative.


BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't prove that there are not differences.
Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or
not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person,
they don't exist.

My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in sighted
listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect subtle
differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of
ruthenium
important.

Prove it makes an audible difference.

Prove it doesn't.

Can't prove a negative.

You still have the burden of proof.
You made the claim, you supply the proof.

Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such time
as
it
is proven to be transparent.

The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.

We will not permit adoption of this technique
by the public until this is done.

It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio professionals
the world over.

As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real audio
professionals" do not use it either.

That must be why it is the standard.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is
in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of
ruthenium
important.

Prove it makes an audible difference.

Prove it doesn't.

Can't prove a negative.

You still have the burden of proof.
You made the claim, you supply the proof.

Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such
time
as
it
is proven to be transparent.

The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.

We will not permit adoption of this technique
by the public until this is done.

It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
professionals
the world over.

As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real audio
professionals" do not use it either.

That must be why it is the standard.

ABX = A Bull**** Xperimeint

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
:
: 3 points define a plane. Robert has stated his problem as
: non-flat

: Only if you make an assumption.
: Yes.
:
: So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
: answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
: perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
: contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
: three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
: within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
: to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
: taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
: none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
: extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
: ?
: That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
: surface".
:
A specification you get to make :-)
However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
possible with a three atom contact ?

No. It has been discovered that the number and configuration of the
nanowires varies with the current.
Within each nanowire, the current is quantized.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: ...
: : That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
: : surface".
: :
: A specification you get to make :-)
: However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
: Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
: possible with a three atom contact ?
:
: No. It has been discovered that the number and configuration of the
: nanowires varies with the current.
: Within each nanowire, the current is quantized.
:
So, once again, what was the _3 point_ pointe ?
a point is not a wire, you will note ;-)
Rudy

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
devices into hifi equipment.

Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
components in quality equipment for audio production for
decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
manufacturer of studio mixing boards.

Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
and audio in general.

But Arny Krueger is pushing
his device like the NBS platinum meter.

This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?

However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.

Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device. Even if it
were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have the
same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.

You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us, deep
suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the difference
between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning for
us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible equivalence
classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the same
as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that reliance
on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the latter
is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion, but,
unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small club
of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it hits
us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.

You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very intelligent
person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results. Science
always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It always
suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the principal,
not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."

I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are on
the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence. By
promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern with
commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is reliant on
this very troubled industry.

A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the job,
yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote your
device, or others like it as a standard, it requires scrutiny far above the
norm. In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
No one expected that either.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: ...
: "Robert Morein" wrote in message
:
:
: I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
: devices into hifi equipment.
:
: Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
: components in quality equipment for audio production for
: decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
: we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
: manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
:
: Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
: of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
: and audio in general.
:
: But Arny Krueger is pushing
: his device like the NBS platinum meter.
:
: This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
: all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
:
: However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
: published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
:
: Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device. Even if it
: were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
: obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have the
: same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.
:
: You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us, deep
: suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the difference
: between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning for
: us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible equivalence
: classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the same
: as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that reliance
: on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
: appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the latter
: is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
: through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion, but,
: unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
: people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small club
: of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it hits
: us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.
:
: You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very intelligent
: person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results. Science
: always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It always
: suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the principal,
: not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."
:
: I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are on
: the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence. By
: promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern with
: commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is reliant on
: this very troubled industry.
:
: A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the job,
: yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
: colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote your
: device, or others like it as a standard, it requires scrutiny far above the
: norm.

Fact is that the pressure variations as a result of speaker driver
movement are used to qualify the amplifier 'resolution'. Rather begs the
question, which i previously highlighted by giving the example of using
subwoofers to find out differences between amplifiers :-)

Then there is the problem of the driver mechanically always lagging the
electrical power supplied and hence feeding back energy to the amp
time delayed. The woofer will 'smear' the mid-frequencies.
Much better to use an active XO in a multiple driver speaker.

Good posting for a change there, R.
Rudy

: In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
: No one expected that either.

...maybe the guard isn't paid very well and makes an extra buck with a
nail file operation? :-)
:

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: ...
: "Robert Morein" wrote in message
:
:
: I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
: devices into hifi equipment.
:
: Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
: components in quality equipment for audio production for
: decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
: we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
: manufacturer of studio mixing boards.
:
: Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
: of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
: and audio in general.
:
: But Arny Krueger is pushing
: his device like the NBS platinum meter.
:
: This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
: all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
:
: However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
: published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.
:
: Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device. Even if
it
: were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
: obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have
the
: same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.
:
: You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us,
deep
: suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the
difference
: between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning
for
: us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible
equivalence
: classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the
same
: as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that
reliance
: on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
: appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the
latter
: is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
: through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion,
but,
: unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
: people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small
club
: of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it
hits
: us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.
:
: You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very
intelligent
: person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results.
Science
: always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It
always
: suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the
principal,
: not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."
:
: I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are
on
: the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence.
By
: promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern
with
: commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is
reliant on
: this very troubled industry.
:
: A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the
job,
: yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
: colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote
your
: device, or others like it as a standard, it requires scrutiny far above
the
: norm.

Fact is that the pressure variations as a result of speaker driver
movement are used to qualify the amplifier 'resolution'. Rather begs the
question, which i previously highlighted by giving the example of using
subwoofers to find out differences between amplifiers :-)

Then there is the problem of the driver mechanically always lagging the
electrical power supplied and hence feeding back energy to the amp
time delayed. The woofer will 'smear' the mid-frequencies.
Much better to use an active XO in a multiple driver speaker.

There are so many problems, it's a mistake to consider amplifiers a
cut-and-dried affair.

Good posting for a change there, R.
Rudy

Thank you. Now watch Arny bite. He has the personality of an alligator.

: In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
: No one expected that either.

..maybe the guard isn't paid very well and makes an extra buck with a
nail file operation? :-)
:

There are little mysteries under the surface of many things.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: ...
: : That is correct. Much of this is covered by the specification "hard
: : surface".
: :
: A specification you get to make :-)
: However, in the real world, that's a figment of the imagination.
: Looking at this another way, say we have a 1mA current, is that
: possible with a three atom contact ?
:
: No. It has been discovered that the number and configuration of the
: nanowires varies with the current.
: Within each nanowire, the current is quantized.
:
So, once again, what was the _3 point_ pointe ?
a point is not a wire, you will note ;-)
Rudy

It was to get people to think about the nature of the contact surface.
Perhaps people assume that the contacts slap together to form a cold weld
with the characteristics of the bulk material. But it's not true.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is
in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity
of
ruthenium
important.

Prove it makes an audible difference.

Prove it doesn't.

Can't prove a negative.

You still have the burden of proof.
You made the claim, you supply the proof.

Mikey, we reject ABX, and we reject Arny's ABX device, until such
time
as
it
is proven to be transparent.

The rest of the world doing audio research already has done so.

We will not permit adoption of this technique
by the public until this is done.

It's not up to you. It's already been adopted by real audio
professionals
the world over.

As I said, we will not allow it to be adopted by the public. "Real
audio
professionals" do not use it either.

That must be why it is the standard.

ABX = A Bull**** Xperimeint

Only when done by someone who doesn't know the difference between 40 inches
and 2.4 meters.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

So is that a "Please substitute, 'in the neighborhood of the correct
answer if the said contact or contacts are able to rotate about two
perpendicular axes and there exist three high points on the contact or
contacts such that the said contacts might contact each other at the
three said points on closure and there exists a residual closing force
within the triangle formed by said points after the moments required
to rotate the said contacts to the said three contact geometry is
taken into account in calculating the said resultant closing force and
none of the said contact points are deformed by the said force to the
extent that further contact points result from the said deformation'"
?

...after the moments required to rotate the said contacts to the said
three contact geometry *are*...

Not necessary, because the question asks for the maximum number of contact
points for two nonflat surfaces.

Really... that appears to be at least the fourth evolution of this
question.

ScottW

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
devices into hifi equipment.

Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
components in quality equipment for audio production for
decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
manufacturer of studio mixing boards.

Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
and audio in general.

But Arny Krueger is pushing
his device like the NBS platinum meter.

This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?

However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.

Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device.

Here's where you can get the schematic to build one of your own, use parts
of whatever quality you chose.
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm



Even if it
were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have the
same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.

You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us,
deep
suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the difference
between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning for
us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible
equivalence
classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the same
as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that reliance
on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the
latter
is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion, but,
unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small
club
of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it
hits
us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.

You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very intelligent
person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results.
Science
always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It
always
suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the principal,
not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."

I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are on
the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence. By
promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern
with
commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is reliant
on
this very troubled industry.

A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the job,
yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote your
device, or others like it as a standard,

It's not him doing the promoting, DBT IS the standard.

it requires scrutiny far above the
norm.

Which has been done by many of his peers and people more involved in audio
research than Arny ever was. That is how it became one of the accepted
protocols.

Robert Morein wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:cOm2f.3102$jw6.2510@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of
ruthenium
important.

Quantify the contact area and demonstrate through specs that
ruthenium contacts have significantly greater resistance than relays
of
comparable size contacts. I look forward to you providing more than
just
idle speculation from your extremely poorly thought out and
fundamentally
flawed theories.

ScottW

Answer the question, Scott: Two hard and nonparallel surfaces can have a
maximum of how many contact points?

Why are you changing the question, Bob?

Anyway, it still depends on their shape.....and we're not talking
diamond hard here so your inference that there is no conformance is
just hogwash.

Sander has given the correct answer. You simply didn't have the smarts to
figure it out.

Show us how spheres fall outside the set of shapes you specified. Show
us how spheres can have 3 points of contact.

and finally... show us why your assumption of perfect hardness is
valid.

ScottW

" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I do not give much concern to the incorporation of these
devices into hifi equipment.

Good idea because reed relays are common signal-handling
components in quality equipment for audio production for
decades. As I said before, the ruthenium plated reed relays
we used had been recently used by a widely-respected
manufacturer of studio mixing boards.

Morein's vendetta against reed relays is yet another example
of his lack of familiarity with audio production equipment,
and audio in general.

But Arny Krueger is pushing
his device like the NBS platinum meter.

This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?

However, no matter what Morein says - Stereophile never
published a review of the ABX RM-2 relay module.

Arny, permit me to clarify. I would love to have an ABX device.

Here's where you can get the schematic to build one of your own, use parts
of whatever quality you chose.
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm



Even if it
were one of yours, I would treat it as a treasured resource, unless it
obviously contradicted certain observations about amplifiers that have
the
same certainty of audibility as you have with speakers.

You reached conclusions about amplifiers that arouse in a number of us,
deep
suspicion. Even if someone was incapable of distinguishing the
difference
between a Pass single ended design and a Yamaha, it has little meaning
for
us. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge that there may be audible
equivalence
classes that transcend price and construction. Still, this is not the
same
as declaring an axiom. Speaking again for myself, it appears that
reliance
on current methods of measuring amplifier specifications produces the
appearance of technical equivalance, or "proper operation", while the
latter
is not a properly defined term. I know that you are convinced of this
through your studies of the audibility of harmonic and IM distortion,
but,
unfortunately, this contradicts the common experience of a great many
people. It does so even when one admits imagined differences. My small
club
of audio buddies only acknowledge differences in amplification when it
hits
us on our heads, just like speakers can and do.

You are, to me, a tantalizing paradox, because you are a very
intelligent
person who has succumbed to a personal need for definitive results.
Science
always benefits when the investigator is detached from the result. It
always
suffers from personal involvement. A good scientist serves the
principal,
not the end. Or, as Jobs says, "The journey is the reward."

I make a lot of noise about this, because the finer points of hifi are
on
the verge of extinction. The endeavor is not immune to your influence.
By
promoting the idea that quality of reproduction is no longer a concern
with
commercial offerings, you do a disservice to the consumer, who is
reliant
on
this very troubled industry.

A possibility to consider is that your ABX design is adequate to the
job,
yet, in your investigations, you made other errors. I have written in a
colorful style, to bring attention to the issue. Because you promote
your
device, or others like it as a standard,

It's not him doing the promoting, DBT IS the standard.

it requires scrutiny far above the
norm.

Which has been done by many of his peers and people more involved in audio
research than Arny ever was. That is how it became one of the accepted
protocols.

But not for hifi, Mikey.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
: : But Arny Krueger is pushing
: : his device like the NBS platinum meter.
: :
: : This is nuts. I'm not pushing the ABC RM-2 relay module at
: : all. RM-2 has been out of production for what, 20 years?
: Now watch Arny bite. He has the personality of an alligator.
:
: : In another post, I mentioned that the NBS platinum bar is shrinking.
: : No one expected that either.
:
: ..maybe the guard isn't paid very well and makes an extra buck with a
: nail file operation? :-)
: :
:
: There are little mysteries under the surface of many things.

Kreuger on ruthenium :
http://ivarkreuger.proboards32.com/i...=display&threa
d=1089108518

(better get some Rhodium stockpiled :-)
:
:

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


From
http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/ruthenium.html

"The metal is one of the most effective hardeners for
platinum and palladium, and is alloyed with these metals
to make electrical contacts for severe wear resistance."

The extreme hardness of these contacts means that since
perfect flatness cannot be achieved in relay contacts,
such contact is limted to a discrete number of points.

Would anyone care to guess how many points of contact can
exist between two nonflat surfaces that are not soft
enough to conform?

Irrelevant to the relay contacts used in the ABX RM2
comparator, because those contacts are not solid ruthenium.
Instead, the ruthenium is a thin plated layer desposited
over softer copper contacts.

Since the question is irrelevant, there is no logical
purpose in answering it.

Besides, its rhetorical. That would make two good reasons
not to answer it.

It is very important, because the actual surface area that is in
physical
contact is extremely small. This makes the bulk conductivity of
ruthenium
important.

Prove it makes an audible difference.

Prove it doesn't.

Can't prove a negative.


BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't prove that there are not differences.
Never said it was possible, what is possible is demonstrating whethere or
not a given individual can hear them. If they can't then for that person,
they don't exist.


all you can say is that they don't exist under those certain test
conditions,
given that you have such test results for the given individual.

My bet is that the vast majority of people who claim differences in
sighted listening, which is the most unrelaible way to try and detect
subtle differences, can't hear any in a blind, level matched, comparison.


"If" that were the case, then you can say that they hear them sighted, but
don't hear them
under test conditions.
The really interesting thing to see would be this:
a) person hears differences sighted (According to you
supposedly from expectation effects)
b) person does not hear differences during DBT tests
c) person is told of his negative test results (therefore removing
supposed future expectation effects)
d) person listens sighted again, now without expectation effects. Does he
still hear differences, or did they go away with
removal of the supposed expectation effects?