Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

agear, I’m glad you asked about harmonics in the context of music. Before I made my last post above I checked my Musical Notes chart to see how out of tune various harmonics are. Here’s the chart which shows a tempered scale, though that’s what everyone plays so those are the appropriate frequencies to consider:

http://ethanwiner.com/misc-content/notefreq.gif

This analysis is easy if you use A at 110 Hz as a starting point because you can easily do the math in your head:

2nd harmonic: 220 Hz
3rd harmonic: 330 Hz
4th harmonic: 440 Hz
5th harmonic: 550 Hz
6th harmonic: 660 Hz
7th harmonic: 770 Hz
8th harmonic: 880 Hz
9th harmonic: 990 Hz

So looking at my chart it’s clear that the 2nd, 4th, and 8th harmonics are all perfectly in tune, and thus "consonant" (versus dissonant) with an A note because they’re perfect octaves. The 3rd harmonic at 330 Hz is very close to an E, which is in the key of A major and A minor, so we’re good there too!

Next is the 5th harmonic at 550 Hz. That’s a few Hz flat of a C# which is the major note in an A major scale. So that will sound a little off if it’s loud enough to hear. But what if the music is in the key of A minor? Now that 550 Hz is way out of tune because the deciding note for minor is the C natural at 523 Hz. Fortunately, harmonics usually (though not always) decline in level as you go higher, so with normal causes of distortion the 5th harmonic is pretty soft in any competent audio gear.

And now we get to the famous 7th harmonic, or is that infamous? LOL. Here 770 Hz falls between an F# and a G, being out of tune with both. So yeah, it would be a problem if it were loud enough to hear. But again, with competent gear it will be way down by the noise floor and thus inaudible due to both its low level and masking by the rest of the music. The claim that high-order distortion components are somehow magically audible even when they’re incredibly soft is itself incredible. And as we all know, the more outrageous the claim, the more compelling must be the proof. Though at this point I’d settle for even minimal proof, as opposed to "because John Curl said so." :->)

Of course, as I have pointed out literally dozens of times in my various articles and videos, whenever you have harmonic distortion (THD) you also have similar amounts of IM distortion (IMD). And IM distortion is usually out of tune with the music, and so is much more audible and damaging than most forms of THD including the 7th harmonic. Chasing increasing small amounts of high-order THD in the presence of large quantities of IMD is like chasing unicorns.

I don't know what a "bent" transfer function is, but I'd need to know the specifics of the test. What frequencies, what levels, what amounts of each distortion type, and so forth. I know you can do the opposite: create more IMD than THD using a "full wave" multiplier. But anything that changes the waveform enough to add THD will add similar amounts of IMD. Not that John Atkinson is what I'd call a reliable audio reporter anyway.

I notice that you quote people like JA and John Curl in lieu of providing evidence. If you read my many articles and watch my many videos, you'll see they all include lots of evidence. Microphones capturing the sound of different diffuser types, audio examples of both static and changing phase shift, measurements and audio recordings that let people hear exactly what to expect from acoustic treatment, and so much more. Versus literally zilch from your side of the aisle. :->)

I'm still hoping you'll tell me all about the tests you've done yourself that led you to your beliefs. Actually, I'm still hoping for a lot of things from this thread, such as what Tom's patents are for, and half a dozen things I've asked of you that you never answered.

Ralph incredibly said to me: " I recommend you get an oscilloscope and look at what waveforms look like. A 'scope allows you to do that."

LOL. Okay, I totally got it now, you win. :->)