The Black Hole......

Fair enough, and I realize I'll rub plenty of people the wrong way. I'd certainly be lying if I said I don't hold an absolutely dismissive point of view to the character in question. This thread was dead for about 8 months until crap was stirred up about his pet project which is reiterating the same crap time and time again without bringing new insights nor understanding to the table. To be fair, I should just stay out of the lounge entirely because the SNR is terrible at best.

And, yes, if I were to restart a thread that went silent for a couple weeks with those questions (which are evocative) and zero context, especially using it as a bait to make a point, I'd call myself a troll as well. Let's be entirely clear, that wasn't to spur discussion because Joe provided ZERO answers and took no stand on the questions, just lobbed them out. Just asking questions - RationalWiki


2011-04-29 8:37 pm
That's fine, but to disparage someone's character for no reason is out of bounds for civilized people.
Joe seems sincere and well motivated to me. Just because he is not as technical as many here,
is not a bad thing at all. Sometimes the more general comments are more useful than a dense
bunch of equations that few, even here, will fully understand.

And I did not see those statements that way at all. Perhaps you have a preconceived notion
because of who it is? When it was disclosed that they were quotes from a well known, respected
authority, everyone stopped dissing the content. What a coincidence. I don't recall him ever
claiming to have all the answers, by the way, more a way of seeing things from other viewpoints.

Many highly accomplished scientists have taken such an approach in their own fields (as you well know),
such as Einstein, Dirac, Mach, Newton. Nothing wrong with that, or do those here think there is?
Last edited:


2011-04-29 8:37 pm
I do much the same thing for myself, to loosen up the calcified thinking, which gets harder
and harder as time goes on. Anybody can crank out equations, but without the overall depth
of understanding that is needed to make them actually useful.

If we cannot be civilized even just on a forum like this, how can there be any hope for raising the
level for our country and the rest of the world, which is in such a sad state of affairs?
Last edited:
rayma makes some fair points, IMHO. Joe might be a little bit of an annoyance for some, but he's just fixated on trying to figure something out in his own way. He's not evil.

I'm dropping it after this -- to be clear 100% not saying evil. I am saying keen on controversy. They were leading, controversial questions, regardless of who said them, and dropped in like that with nothing else is literally trolling and hoping someone takes the bait. In a very real way I am that person.

So, yes, I'm dissing the content as laid out. Bruno, Joe, Ray, Mark, Daniel, Bill, Stein, other folks who's names aren't obvious, whomever. If it were part of a greater essay (as Bruno is wont to do), then selective quoting without citation is something I push back against.


2011-04-29 8:37 pm
" If it were part of a greater essay (as Bruno is wont to do), then selective quoting
without citation is something I push back against."

Disagree, that was a very good test, to see whether people here will think,
rather than just have a knee jerk reaction.

That was not a journal article, just a post in an internet forum, and it was intended to do
exactly what it did, to see whether people here react to the content, or to the person.
I think we all already knew the answer to that question anyway, right? Right.

Now I have to get back to helping a guy in France fix his receiver.
Last edited:
If you already know, you don't need an explanation. If you don't know, an explanation will not help.

Going to college was for learning how to learn, not for memorizing a bunch of stuff, much of which goes obsolete rather quickly anyway.

Now you are:

a) either questioning my good faith, or insult my intelligence, or both
b) you are insulting everybody that cares about education.

Do you mind if I consider these stances as offensive and call you a clueless troll? JR is offending my common sense only, you went far above and beyond.
I know some rather academically and professionally successful people who feel about the same way rama does about school. Others feel differently. One lady I knew at work had a PhD in theoretical physics and was teaching at University of Florida. She quit that, went back to school, became an MD, then a Radiation Oncologist. I asked her about her educational path and she described it this way: To be a physicist you have to be really smart and sit in front of a computer all day. To be a doctor you have to memorize a bunch of ****. "I think I like being a doctor better." So there is one other opinion.


Paid Member
2003-04-26 10:25 pm
So Bruno Putzeys is a troll? That's interesting.

I don't think so. I quoted him verbatim, word for word. Context is not questioned.

Still, trying to measure the intensity of a F by only using a detector for sulfide is really a bad idea as a F consists of "hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane combine with hydrogen sulfide and ammonia to give the gas its smell".

It would be like using one tone to characterise a speaker when its job is to reproduce many tones simultaneously (music, as it where).

Now, if one don't know what the behaviour of a function is and you would like to understand it, you should expose it do a broad band of stimuli and measure for a whole variety of output - all you can muster really. Or you wouldn't know, would you. Then you technically know it's function and it's output behaviour. If the output is to be consumed by a human and you would like to understand the impact of such consumer, other research need to be done. Any "masking" lies not in the characterised function (as the article seem to imply) but rather, in theis case, in human and it's ear-brain function - bar any phase cancelling mechanism in the characterised function (here the speaker).

The words in the referred article are probably by Risbo as he is the driver designer at Purify.

But for me it doesn't matter who said it - its still nonsens to me;

"We don’t so much hear distortion levels as distortion mechanisms."

- Nonsense / drama... (its not the smell you feel, its the fermentation)

"You need to understand the mechanism before you can design a test that will quantify it sensibly."

- This is a false statement. "Sensibly" indicates that there should be a psycho acoustical perception measurement. Thats not a scientific approach to perform characterisation/measurement of the behaviour of an unknown object. If you understand the mechanism, there is no need to measure it. (Quantify a mechanism - fuzzy right there. One quantify the level of distorsion caused by a mechanism - not the mechanism itself - sloppy written sales promotion for the gullible as I see it.)

But you reiterated this with a smug smile so I suppose you think it is OK?

Last edited:


Paid Member
2014-03-01 11:53 pm
Anyway onto some sort of audio track. The Purifi article is unsigned so could be any of them wrote it. The point of the article was that IMD is more audible than a 'pure' HD. I don't think anyone will argue with that as a broad brush statement?

As a chunk of the clever stuff the Purifi team has done is to reduce BL non linearity no one should be suprised they wanted to blog about it?

No contention case closed?


2011-04-29 8:37 pm
Well, look who wrote it.

"Raising the Bar for Loudspeaker Knowledge in Voice Coil August 2021...
...This month, Bruno Putzeys and Lars Risbo write about their speaker research for Purifi Audio..."

Low frequency harmonic distortion is almost inaudible. So what’s the point of low distortion drivers? - PURIFI

"...Transducer designers say that at high frequencies “the system is mass controlled” (further expanded on in another blog post about moving mass, “speed” and bandwidth). So, if Kms is the only cause of low frequency distortion, it will not cause distortion at higher frequencies. If BL is a cause of low frequency distortion, it will also amplitude modulate higher frequency components (i.e. produce IMD, intermodulation distortion).

We don’t so much hear distortion levels as distortion mechanisms.
You need to understand the mechanism before you can design a test that will quantify it sensibly...."

The quote is completely IN context. Too bad.

Looks like an apology to Joe is in order. But of course there won't be one.
Last edited:


2008-10-18 7:59 pm
I strongly doubt Putzeys wrote that.


I doubt so as well, but maybe some have found a sentence somewhere and are taking a quote out of context, it's a well known way to justify their own opinion.
The **** is that they are dragging others into the trash, without them knowing about it or having the opportunity to defend themselves if they do not read such silly posts.

Too bad.