Allison on Soundfields

[kkantor]

My offer to you stands. In two weeks I'll be attending a reunion of my old alma mater Stevens Institute. One of the alums from my class is on the board of directors at Stevens and teaches Electrical Engineering at MIT. I'll try to enlist his help on your behalf as well if you think it will help.

Yes, the hippies, commies and engineers deliberately poisoned classical music, knowing it was one of the last vestiges of the European ruling class. I can reveal this plot now, since the socialists have won control of America. Believe me, once we round up your guns, we will smash your foolish, hollow instruments.

By all means, hook me up with your MIT contact. I know some Harvard shrinks, so we can trade.

-k

(Also, if the prof tries to have you arrested again, just give a call. I also know some good lawyers.)

[soundminded]

Yes, the hippies, commies and engineers deliberately poisoned classical music, knowing it was one of the last vestiges of the European ruling class. I can reveal this plot now, since the socialists have won control of America. Believe me, once we round up your guns, we will smash your foolish, hollow instruments.

By all means, hook me up with your MIT contact. I know some Harvard shrinks, so we can trade.

-k

(Also, if the prof tries to have you arrested again, just give a call. I also know some good lawyers.)

"Yes, the hippies, commies and engineers deliberately poisoned classical music"

Too bad you never listened to it...while you still had the chance.

"By all means, hook me up with your MIT contact. I know some Harvard shrinks, so we can trade."

I was referring to obtaining a refund of your tuition money. Then never earned it.

[soundminded]

And to think you could have saved it merely by dorking with Bose 901s for 35 years.

How sad....

No Zilch. I invented a novel method for analyzing acoustical phenomena. Figuring out what the shortcomings were of the flagship product that launched a billion dollar a year privately owned company and how to fix them was only one of several successful applications of that idea. There are others that are much more important.

[kkantor]

"Yes, the hippies, commies and engineers deliberately poisoned classical music"

Too bad you never listened to it...while you still had the chance.

"By all means, hook me up with your MIT contact. I know some Harvard shrinks, so we can trade."

I was referring to obtaining a refund of your tuition money. Then never earned it.

Oh, I've heard classical music. During my time as a Prisoner of War during California's second Cultural Revolution, I was tortured with it during the daily interrogations. I just don't want to think about those years. Horrible. Almost as bad as MIT.

-k

[Zilch]

No Zilch. I invented a novel method for analyzing acoustical phenomena. Figuring out what the shortcomings were of the flagship product that launched a billion dollar a year privately owned company and how to fix them was only one of several successful applications of that idea. There are others that are much more important.

Alas, they are not in evidence.

Oh, I've heard classical music. During my time as a Prisoner of War during California's second Cultural Revolution, I was tortured with it during the daily interrogations. I just don't want to think about those years. Horrible. Almost as bad as MIT.

It also induced Noriega to surrender, as I recall....

[soundminded]

Oh, I've heard classical music. During my time as a Prisoner of War during California's second Cultural Revolution, I was tortured with it during the daily interrogations. I just don't want to think about those years. Horrible. Almost as bad as MIT.

-k

Don't hold back Ken, tell us what you really think.

Should exposing children to classical music or even worse allowing them to study a musical instrument where they are forced to play it to learn the instrument be outlawed as child abuse? Maybe it should be added to the bans under the Geneva conventions. Do you think that's what they exposed prisoners at GITMO to? That's not what I've heard. And my last hearing test showed excellent and undiminished sensitivity right out to the limits of the test, 10 khz.

I've read and seen reports on TV that the Islamic terrorist prisoners were forcibly exposed to loud rock music....and I think blasted at them on NHT 3.3s. I didn't feel sorry for them until that last part. For me that's what put it over the top.

[kkantor]

That's the issue I'm attempting to resolve. If the near-wall first reflection has the same spectral content as the direct, is down 2 dB and delayed 2.7 ms (see Toole Fig. 8.5), what does that do in terms of coloration?

And alternatively, if the first reflection is contralateral instead, -6.3 dB and delayed 12.3 ms, with the same content, what does THAT do to the perceived spectral balance? Clearly, it has the low IACC desired for ASW enhancement, no, as in the Geddes alignment? Can I crank that one's SPL up to 0 dB without consequence?

See Toole Fig. 9.3 and also here:

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getf...1&doctype=3

I wrote you a comprehensive reply to the above, but it is not on the board. Either it got erased, or I failed to post it correctly. The gist of it was: all these things will tend to b e quite audible, depending on level, masking conditions, etc. However, predicting their exact effects is impossible, since that depends very much on the energy envelope and spectral content of the program, from moment to moment. One can start with a simple though experiment, involving only one speaker and a single sine wave. It becomes readily apparent just how complex the situation gets, just based on a few reflections.

-k

[speaker dave]

It might not have failed in the marketplace...had engineers who undertook the challenge of reproducing the sound of it done their jobs with sufficient insight to have made it sound the way it does to the relatively few who are fortunate enough to have access to hear it live. But sadly they failed so miserably that the best results they got were a pale caricature of the real thing. From their smug satisfaction with their handiwork standing on their piles of technical papers, mountains of measurements, and peerig from around the masses of test equipment they bought and acres of products they produced, you'd never guess that it all sounds like the people who conceived it were all half deaf...until you turned it on and actually listened to it. And then there would be no doubt remaining.

What a sadly miserable opinion you have of audio engineers. Although there are some high-end desigers out there (not all) that aren't as good as their reputation, I have constantly been impressed with the engineering level and the dedication of the engineers I've met in the industry. I don't know any that have chosen audio for a career that don't have a love of music, generally a love of all kinds of music, from pop to jazz to classical. I know a good number that are amateur musicians.

Much as I love classical music, and have over 500 LPs of classical piano alone, I think it is highly elitist to view only classical music as worthy of good reproduction.

We strive for perfection in audio and gradually get ever closer. The bar is very high because the perception of sound is a very complex issue. Oddly, nobody stands up in the middle of a movie and shouts: "It's not real, it's only flat pictures on a screen." (or, of the Van Gogh, "those aren't real sunflowers!") We can enjoy a reasonable facsimile even if the illusion isn't total. Certainly in my lifetime the quality of sound reproduction has improved dramatically. If the market had an interest in multichannel music it could elevate another significant notch.

David

[Steve F]

What a sadly miserable opinion you have of audio engineers. Although there are some high-end desigers out there (not all) that aren't as good as their reputation, I have constantly been impressed with the engineering level and the dedication of the engineers I've met in the industry. I don't know any that have chosen audio for a career that don't have a love of music, generally a love of all kinds of music, from pop to jazz to classical. I know a good number that are amateur musicians.

Much as I love classical music, and have over 500 LPs of classical piano alone, I think it is highly elitist to view only classical music as worthy of good reproduction.

We strive for perfection in audio and gradually get ever closer. The bar is very high because the perception of sound is a very complex issue. Oddly, nobody stands up in the middle of a movie and shouts: "It's not real, it's only flat pictures on a screen." (or, of the Van Gogh, "those aren't real sunflowers!") We can enjoy a reasonable facsimile even if the illusion isn't total. Certainly in my lifetime the quality of sound reproduction has improved dramatically. If the market had an interest in multichannel music it could elevate another significant notch.

David

I agree with this viewpoint. I could be mistaken and I don't purport to speak for others, but I have a feeling that something I said a few months ago probably holds true--to varying degrees--to most owners of 'hi-fi' music systems:

"So for me listening at home, I’m not trying to get the system to ‘fool’ me into thinking I’m at The Jazz Workshop. I know I’m not. Nor am I trying to get the system to ‘trick’ me into thinking that Horace Silver’s quintet is in my living room. I know they’re not.

I’m simply looking for the system to do a reasonable job of portraying the various instruments in what strikes me as a tonally-accurate facsimile of what I recall those instruments to sound like. And to reveal enough inner detail (the bass drum pedal squeaking, for example) so that on occasion, I smile and think, “Hey, how ‘bout that!” Or enough low-bass impact that my wife tells me to turn it down."

I have a 'sensitive ear,' good hearing, and all the rest. I like all of this and I take it very seriously--at least while I'm listening. But the paragraphs above are all that it takes to make me happy. It's just hi-fi. Then I have to go out and mow the lawn or hang a picture in my daughter's apartment. You know, real life and all that.

Steve F.

[Carlspeak]

I like all your points Steve F.

For me, I can narrow down your two quoted paragraphs to the following:

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC - not so much the sound of the music!

Oh, that reminds me, I do have to go out and mow the lawn.

[genek]

I agree with this viewpoint. I could be mistaken and I don't purport to speak for others, but I have a feeling that something I said a few months ago probably holds true--to varying degrees--to most owners of 'hi-fi' music systems:

"So for me listening at home, I’m not trying to get the system to ‘fool’ me into thinking I’m at The Jazz Workshop. I know I’m not. Nor am I trying to get the system to ‘trick’ me into thinking that Horace Silver’s quintet is in my living room. I know they’re not.

I’m simply looking for the system to do a reasonable job of portraying the various instruments in what strikes me as a tonally-accurate facsimile of what I recall those instruments to sound like. And to reveal enough inner detail (the bass drum pedal squeaking, for example) so that on occasion, I smile and think, “Hey, how ‘bout that!” Or enough low-bass impact that my wife tells me to turn it down."

My take on this - also previously posted - is that listening to recordings that are similar to real performances I have attended is a mnemonic device that helps me to pull the original experience out of memory or to construct it out of my imagination, which is more powerful than any sound processing system yet devised. A "reasonable facsimile" means no obvious boosts or cuts in various portions of the sound, and virtual performers who stay in one place and don't undergo a change in their sound when I get up from my chair for something.

For recordings that of things I've never heard real-life, the recording itself is the "original performance."

[speaker dave]

Back to an earlier topic:

That's the issue I'm attempting to resolve. If the near-wall first reflection has the same spectral content as the direct, is down 2 dB and delayed 2.7 ms (see Toole Fig. 8.5), what does that do in terms of coloration?

And alternatively, if the first reflection is contralateral instead, -6.3 dB and delayed 12.3 ms, with the same content, what does THAT do to the perceived spectral balance? Clearly, it has the low IACC desired for ASW enhancement, no, as in the Geddes alignment? Can I crank that one's SPL up to 0 dB without consequence?

See Toole Fig. 9.3 and also here:

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getf...1&doctype=3

A good question and hard to answer. You can certainly model the combination of the direct response and the delayed/reduced level reflection. Use the off axis response curve at the angle the reflection emanates from the speaker, for a more accurate simulation. Of course the question of coloration brings in the perceptual questions. Generally we are pretty immune to lateral reflections because binaural hearing allows us to differentiate between direct sound and side reflections. Floor and ceiling bounces are very hard to seperate out because our vertical discrimination is very poor. The end result is that what we hear and what we measure is similar if caused by floor bounces. Side wall bounces aren't nearly as obvious as the measurements might suggest.

Read the papers of Soren Bech on this. He simulated many of the early reflections in a typical room and compared their threshold of audibility to their typical levels. His conclusion was that, of the initial reflections, floor bounces were the most likely to be audible.

Regards,

David

[speaker dave]

I like all your points Steve F.

For me, I can narrow down your two quoted paragraphs to the following:

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC - not so much the sound of the music!

Oh, that reminds me, I do have to go out and mow the lawn.

Remember to wear your earplugs, guys.

David

[Zilch]

Read the papers of Soren Bech on this. He simulated many of the early reflections in a typical room and compared their threshold of audibility to their typical levels. His conclusion was that, of the initial reflections, floor bounces were the most likely to be audible.

What I'm getting out of this is that there is a neuro-physiologically based psychoacoustic time window, somewhat shorter than 20 ms, and perhaps less than 10 ms, Ken's "fusion/coloration" zone, during which high IACC early reflections are best minimized as opposed to maximizing them with wide dispersion, particularly if they are not essential to ASW enhancement. Howard affirms that very wide dispersion "messes" with the imaging, and it's not difficult to appreciate how it might also impact the spectral balance.

Geddes teaches that controlled directivity easily accomplishes the objective, though the floor and ceiling reflections remain an issue with his axisymmetric waveguides. Parham demonstrates how those may be mitigated via axiasymmetric waveguides and punctuating their controlled vertical dispersion pattern with nulls in the crossover region. Geddes gives that argument short shrift and instead diffuses and /or damps the ceiling and floor to attenuate their dominant early reflections. It's a good bet that once Geddes is able to make asymmetric elliptical waveguides in his garage, the mantra will be suitably amended....

[speaker dave]

In my case (with my own personal systems) I employ a steered center speaker to tighten up the image to a much more focussed degree than what we get with even the best of the focussed stereo-only pairs. The result is the best of both approaches.

What relative level do you set the center at? The early Klipsch/Eargle papers talked about -6dB working well for a derived center.

I do find that wider rooms that allow for the mains to be a significant distance from the side walls manage to deliver the spaciousness and envelopment results better than narrower rooms that have the mains close to the side walls. (My own IC-20 mains are centered five feet each from the side walls on a 22-foot wide front wall. (For those lacking math skills, this centers the main speakers 12 feet apart.) If somebody is faced with the narrow-room scenario with the speakers having to be close to the side walls, I suggest that they opt for more directional speakers (like some of the Dunlavy models I have reviewed, or perhaps even some of Zilch's favored GedLee models) and toe them inward. This makes the best of a bad situation.

Howard Ferstler

That makes sense. A wider room gets you close to the ideal of the MGC-1 (lateral reflections with 20 plus mSec delay).

[Zilch]

I have never seen how reflections can impact spectral balance all that much.

The early reflections, the ones that most count, in my view, come from well off-axis; see Toole Fig. 16.6. As Speaker Dave suggests, you must look at the spectral content at those specific angles which converge via reflection and sum with the on-axis response at the listening position. To the extent that the reflected spectral content differs from the direct, and to the extent that their delay generates interference, the perceived spectral balance IS altered, and differs from that of the direct source alone.

They might if the room is really reflective and of course a padded-cell style room will obviously not only roll off the highs but also cut into the above-mentioned lateral spaciousness.

We have had this part of the debate before. If the room is a padded cell, there are no reflections to interfere with the direct source and roll off the highs, and thus, the direct is dominant. It is as if the dispersion has been narrowed. If there is one thing that Allison and Berkovitz most unequivocally demonstrated it is that the "reverberant" field does NOT prop up the HF response as they postulated, rather, it instead rolls it down. That was their "UT, oh" moment. The room does not do what they thought it did; there is no dominant, isotropic, integrating, reverberant field in small rooms; their differential absorptive characteristics rule reflections above the transition frequency.

You cannot generate envelopment in a small room with just two sources. As you have found, only surround speakers with the appropriate long delays can do it, and neither is the apparent source width artificially enhanced by high-IACC reflections from the near wall....

[soundminded]

"The early reflections, the ones that most count, in my view, come from well off-axis; see Toole Fig. 16.6. As Speaker Dave suggests, you must look at the spectral content at those specific angles which converge via reflection and sum with the on-axis response at the listening position. To the extent that the reflected spectral content differs from the direct, and to the extent that their delay generates interference, the perceived spectral balance IS altered, and differs from that of the direct source alone."

Congratulations, you win a cupie doll. You finally got something right. Well almost right. The interference pattens don't really occur because the direct field and the corresponding reflections arrive at different times...except for sustained notes. The interference patterns are so complex and vary so greatly at most frequencies with even the slightest movement of your head they are inaudible. Also, reflections off the wall behind the speaker can count. Not only Bose 901 but all speakers with rear firing tweeters like Vandersteen V and Snell AIIIi for example demonstrate this. BTW, the same is true for real musical instruments in the same room. Exactly the same thing happens for the same reason.

"We have had this part of the debate before. If the room is a padded cell, there are no reflections to interfere with the direct source and roll off the highs, and thus, the direct is dominant. It is as if the dispersion has been narrowed."

You speak from authority...like you've had first hand experience.

"If there is one thing that Allison and Berkovitz most unequivocally demonstrated it is that the "reverberant" field does NOT prop up the HF response as they postulated, rather, it instead rolls it down. That was their "UT, oh" moment. The room does not do what they thought it did"

That is because the reflected sound is poor in high frequencies due to 1; most of the indirectly radiated energy being HF poor due to the dispersion of the drivers and 2; the boundaries selectively absorb sound being more absorbant of high frequencies than middle and low frequencies. That being said, the strategy of trying to kill off the room reflections altogether doesn't work. All you do is shift the spectral distortions of the reflections to different frequencies. Therefore, I have called this phenomenon "spectral reflection distortion." It is a major factor in why loudspeakers that seem to measure the same don't sound the same and why they don't sound like musical instruments. Now go try to figure out how to engineer a solution to the problem.

"there is no dominant, isotropic, integrating, reverberant field in small rooms; their differential absorptive characteristics rule reflections above the transition frequency."

"You cannot generate envelopment in a small room with just two sources. As you have found, only surround speakers with the appropriate long delays can do it, and neither is the apparent source width artificially enhanced by high-IACC reflections from the near wall...."

You mean low IACC but your point is understood. That last statement may not exactly be true. Sometimes the requisite opposite channel delays are in the recordings. Having them arrive laterally from reflections can sometimes work to widen the ASW. Not of particular interest to me but I've noticed it.

I must say Zilch, I've brought you a long way in a short time. You've shown that you are learning much more and much faster than I'd hoped for. Keep up the good work and you may one day actually begin to understand this thing. Damn I'm a good teacher.

[Zilch]

Also, reflections off the wall behind the speaker can count. Not only Bose 901 but all speakers with rear firing tweeters like Vandersteen V and Snell AIIIi for example demonstrate this. BTW, the same is true for real musical instruments in the same room. Exactly the same thing happens for the same reason.

The primary purpose of rear-wall reflections in Bose 901 is to generate longer-delayed lateral ones, and a common criticism of the result is that they over-enhance ASW, rendering the performance overtly "fake." See the Holt 901 review.

You mean low IACC but your point is understood. That last statement may not exactly be true. Sometimes the requisite opposite channel delays are in the recordings. Having them arrive laterally from reflections can sometimes work to widen the ASW. Not of particular interest to me but I've noticed it.

The ones from the near wall are high IACC, and we don't want them; all they do is screw up both the spatial and spectral quality. They're why wide dispersion is sub-optimal.

The ones from the far wall are low IACC, and form the basis of the thesis @ #101 , above.

Ken generated spaciousness from the near wall reflections by delaying them 20 ms. I'm suggesting ASW may be effectively enhanced without resorting to such measures, once we give up the near-wall first reflection, which we don't want, anyway. We can get a low IACC contralateral first reflection from the far wall as strong at the listening position as the direct source itself and NOT mess with everything else, because the delays are longer than 10 ms....

[soundminded]

"The primary purpose of rear-wall reflections in Bose 901 is to generate longer-delayed lateral ones, and a common criticism of the result is that they over-enhance ASW, rendering the performance overtly "fake." See the Holt 901 review."

I've redesigned mine as a two way bi-amplified system and re-equalized it so that the upper bass peak is eliminated and the lower bass is further boosted to put in in proportion with the midrange. The speaker now can reproduce the top octave easily with six 3/8" polys per channel. The overly wide image of a solo piano is gone, it's now about what a real piano would sound like in that room. Some symphonic recordings can have very wide ASW but most recordings of groups are just the width of the room 14 feet. Soloists are little more than point sources except large ones like pianos. One problem I've noticed on some recordings that makes a centered soloist seem too large is a difference between the spectral balance of the left and right channel signals. I can fix that now. The additional 8 db boost at 30 hz causes the speaker to eat up 138wpc easily. I have to be careful not to clip the main amplifier which in this case is a Marantz 930 receiver. I think it's the most powerful amplifier I've got now. Perhaps a Crown or QSC and another pair or two in parallel would give the AR9s a run for their money at low frequencies.

In some important ways it is now the best speaker I've heard. Hard to say which is better now AR9 or Bose 901. Neither sound anything like the way the manufacturer intended. They are much close to each other. That may sound hard to believe but it's true when recordings are carefully adjusted. Once you've become accostomed to the bass of AR9, it's hard to think of anything else as better than second best in that regard. AR9 still has this peculiar ability at times to dominate a 4000 cubic foot room. Kind of uncanny, I don't really understand how or why.

[speaker dave]

My experience with writing a variety of speaker reviews is that wide (really wide) dispersing speakers cannot create the kind of tight central image we get with more focussed speakers, at least when listening from the sweet spot. However, wider dispersion models, because they are bouncing so much sound off of the side walls (the strength of those bounces will obviously vary from room to room if we are talking about extreme situations) tend to spread the sound outwards from the left and right mains and add not only a degree of width spaciousness and hall-space envelopment, but also an increased sense of front-to-back depth.

Howard Ferstler

Howard, not an admission that speaker dispersion is a trade off! I'm shocked!

Seriously, this is the tradeoff, with Zilch's CD horn systems at one extreme and Bose 901s defining the other. Wider dispersion or lower directivity index gives a more diffuse sound, sound outside the box, a soundfield beyond the speakers, etc., but with a less well defined central image and less specific imaging overall. I think it was a HiFi News, John Crabbe review that talked about the 901 making even mono sound like stereo and "10 ft. wide pianos".

The real cure is more channels (than 2), then you can replicate a diffuse space and have high imaging precision, both at the same time.

David

[Zilch]

Wider dispersion or lower directivity index gives a more diffuse sound, sound outside the box, a soundfield beyond the speakers, etc., but with a less well defined central image and less specific imaging overall.

Which brings me back to the other key point I have made (or attempted to make) here: despite all the hype, AR3a's do NOT have wide dispersion. Wider than beamy cone MF and HF transducers? Yes. Wider than a typical (and common) 90° constant-directivity waveguide? Nope. Medium dispersion. And when subsequent designs pursued wider dispersion, that tradeoff subverted the objective.

I'm still waiting for someone to plot the effective DI of AR3a from the Allison and Berkovitz data.

Edit: SOMEBODY's paying attention, apparently:

[Zilch]

Obviously, the interference effects that Allison and Berkovitz noted do not allow the speaker to have wide dispersion at some angles. However, at other angles the system does, and the combined output at all angles is genuinely wide dispersing.

It is not. There IS no integrating reverberant field, and even if we DID listen with 22 ears spread around the room, the highs are going, going, gone, as the Allison and Berkovitz data shows.

Plot the effective DI of AR3a from that data, Howard. You know how to do that, right?

[Zilch]

DI, Zilch? Just what would you base that info on as it relates to the AR-3a, and what does it have to do with anything, since your conclusions about directionality, sound power, and the reverberant field and those of Allison and Berkovitz are at odds, anyway?

The data, Howard, the DATA, and there's enough in Allison and Berkovitz to provide an answer as to what AR3a's directivity actually is. I am not going to do it. If you won't, there are others here who can, and it's quite clear you don't want to know the truth.

How can anybody take you seriously when you misinterpret conclusions by experts that most other experts would say are at odds with yours?

Thus far, Howard, you're the only "expert" agreeing with you; even Allison has apparently backed off to 30 ms.

I certainly hope so, since, excusing the GedLee speaker line, your world seems to revolve around the AR-3a.

Your bag running out of gas again, is it, Howard?

Incidentally, I do hope you have been able to download some of the graphs and photos I have been posting. I know that dial-up of yours may slow the downloading work, of course, but you have plenty of time to do even slow tasks, right? You will be glad to know that I can downloade the diagrams and pictures you have posted in a flash. Hey, I have cable, whereas you appear to be in the 1990s when it comes to computer links.

I have "workarounds," Howard; your nefarious intent remains sadly unfulfilled. The REAL problem here is that your understanding of loudspeakers is still stalled in the '70s, alas....

[Zilch]

It involves curiosity about a professed expert who claims to know how speakers should sound when located in good rooms.

It is inconceivable that anybody who so openly as yourself would claim to know how loudspeakers should sound would not have a top-tier listening room to subjectively review their measurements findings and conclusions. It is one thing for hobby enthusiast to love his speakers and tell fellow enthusiasts that he loves them, even though his listening room is the size of a shower stall, and quite another thing for a professed audio guru who gives advice to others to pontificate about speaker sound and not have a superb listening space from which to better refine his subjective, post-measurement impressions.

WAY transparent, Howard. I profess only to being Zilch.

Given you propensity to highlight your accomplishments (20,000+ posts, etc.), there is no doubt in my mind that you would happily post pictures of your cutting-edge listening area if you had such a space on hand.

You asked, I answered, exposing your obvious purpose merely to ridicule. I'll have an update for you later today.

Zilch, I finally figured you out.

COOL! Perhaps now you'll stick to the issues at hand:

What are the names of the Beanie Babies, please? I want a listening space JUST like yours!

If you go to the address below you will find BNET references to only 142 "published" articles that I wrote. There are actually more than this, but, hey, what the hell, 142 reprints of published articles now available on line ain't half bad. The salient characteristic of this listing, by the way, is that they are all editor-approved, "published" articles and not some internet stuff that anybody with a computer can do.

I am confident the forum is pleased that a single link will now suffice for you to impress readers with your previous work....

[Zilch]

Damn, even with over 8,000 book, article, and commentary hits I cannot match your internet quantities, Zilch.

Yeah, you'll need more gist.

Update, as promised: just over a quarter-million views today, 5710 posts.

You can stop clicking now, Howard; it's gone well beyond the pale.

[i'll let you know when we get to a half-million; count on it.... ]