I hope you don't mind, after my fit of laughter has passed, that I poke my nose once more into the door, before shutting it finally tight:
In reading Rogers texts carefully, and I have been trained to do so and have used this training in all of my professional life, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his sincerity. Roger truly believes that he is up to something valid and he very well may be. Possibly he is one of those people, who out of intuition have come across something which is valid and valuable but- as is the case with all intuitive findings - they cannot at first explain in reasonable terms. This generally causes wrinkled brows from the mainstream, who - especially if they are interested and curious - want some sort of proof and if they don't get to their satisfaction the originator will get flak. The history of scientific progress is full of such cases and if we have one of those here, well, as I have said right from the beginning, the proof lies in the listening.
Thre is another thing typical in the unfolding of our discussion here:
Originators who seem to have something new in the sense of a break-through - and it does not matter in what field of human endevour this may happen - generally have supporters,disciples, prophets if you like, who are out to find proselytes for their cause. They are usually much more fervent, glowing, emotional in defending the cause than its originator. These people will easily join battle with emotions flying high and because of this fact, rationality, the careful considering of the "disbelievers" argument is neglected. Case in point here: This has never been an argument of measurement *against* sound, rather an argument of measurement *for* sound, which has suddenly been twisted from the latter into the former, which it never was, neither in Duke's nor Atmasphere's posts. Both gentlemen, as most of us here, are very well aware of the fact, that good measurements do not guarantee good sound. So before things get more ugly and distorted, I think we should stop and ponder what we are doing here and I certainly do not take my own person out of this equation.
I suggest we stop right here. Norm's efforts do not seem to satisfy the skeptics, he might even do Roger's cause a disservice.
On the other hand, I find Nil's suggestion great, that Roger would give a loan of his gear to a carefully considered neutral person who then could report back to us.
Again let us stop here, and that certainly goes also for myself, before it gets more ugly, irrational and out of joint. Just my final 2 cents.
