Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

ethan_winer
Ralph said: " You can have a fair amount of THD and still have relatively low IMD figures."

I doubt it, though I'll be glad to be proven wrong

Juror #3 in 12 Angry Men: "You can't prove it!"

I doubt it, though I'll be glad to be proven wrong!

Cripes...

If you don't want to read through the whole thing, just scroll to the bottom

http://www.stereophile.com/content/lamm-ml22-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

Heck, I'll quote it:
(from Stereophile, measurements by John Aitkinson):

Whenever I measure one of Vladimir Lamm's amplifiers, I am always impressed by the quality of the engineering. Yes, the ML2.2 has a bent transfer function, which means that it produces higher-than-usual levels of second-harmonic distortion—but this is not accompanied by high levels of high-order intermodulation. And you have that low output impedance and very wide bandwidth!—John Atkinson

I did not add the emphasis on the word 'not'.

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.

Nathan_Winer wrote,

"I noticed 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.
:->)"

Pretty clever! You’ve changed your tune from demanding proof to demanding evidence. That’s a new wrinkle in an otherwise tepid and snooze-worthy exchange. Could Nathan be softening? Could Nathan be rethinking his position? Are we about to witness an epiphany? Don’t touch that dial! Talk among yourselves. Smoke if ya got em.

My patents are for the enhancement of musical instruments and their directional vibration transfer.. Tom