Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[Al M.]

In that regard, I call THD psychoacoustically blind measurement. Even the Wiki gets that right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_harmonic_distortion

"For many purposes different types of harmonics are not equivalent. For instance, crossover distortion at a given THD is much more audible than clipping distortion at the same THD, since the harmonics produced are at higher frequencies, which are not as easily masked by the fundamental.[23] A single THD number is inadequate to specify audibility, and must be interpreted with care. "

Which is precisely what the link says that I posted.

 

[jkeny]

And yet you cited a paper by Clarke which used 2.5%THD as some measure of how long term listening was ineffective at picking it out compared to blind A/B listening.

This is exactly why I criticised the paper - it makes a seemingly simplistic comparison which needs careful analysis.

Many would look at the paper & conclude that long-term listening is a bust of it can't discern 2.5%

Well, THD fails in almost every manner to predict audibility of distortions. And the way we know that is not by reading a claim of 0.1% audibility in that web site but listening tests. Here is one from the presentation/paper published in AES, MEASUREMENT OF HARMONIC DISTORTION AUDIBILITY USING A SIMPLIFIED PSYCHOACOUSTIC MODEL - UPDATED:

Focus on the graph on the left. The horizontal axis is amount of THD distortion. The Vertical is listener detection of the same. One means it was not detected. Five means it was obnoxious. the circles are results of listening tests at those THD distortion levels.

If THD predicted the audibility of distortion, then all the circles would all line up on the blue line. As is clearly seen, it does not do that. Studies show correlation of about 30%. Not good. The reason it is not good is because THD sums all the distortion products and gives you one number. But audibility of those distortion products is not the same due a psychoacoustics principal called "masking." Low order distortions are less audible than high order. In that regard, I call THD psychoacoustically blind measurement. Even the Wiki gets that right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_harmonic_distortion

"For many purposes different types of harmonics are not equivalent. For instance, crossover distortion at a given THD is much more audible than clipping distortion at the same THD, since the harmonics produced are at higher frequencies, which are not as easily masked by the fundamental.[23] A single THD number is inadequate to specify audibility, and must be interpreted with care. "

So the question of whether 0.1% THD is audible is wrong as is the answer. Except in gross amounts where we know it is audible, it is not a metric to be used.

The graph on the right is the proposal from the authors to use psychoacoustics to add weighting to the distortion products according to how we hear. When we do that, the correlation improves drastically. The listening test result circles now track the line much more closely than THD although still not perfectly. There have been a number of such proposals but unfortunately the audio industry continues to use the stale THD because it is easy to measure and it is what people know.

Hopefully members see how there is proper audio science that has evaluated such things (see more here: http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm). And that the knowledge there, is the proper one, based on listening tests and how we hear. In that regard, we better embrace it if what matters is what we hear .

 

[PeterA]

For the last year or so I have been turning the amps off when I go to bed, and then on a few hours before music time. This thread caused me to revisit the result of leaving them on overnight. Yesterday, Friday, I turned them on about 2PM, and they have been on since then. While I have amped up my electric bill with them being on, idle, and the AC constantly running because of that, this is a rigorous, scientific experiment, so I will absorb the cost.

Anyway, at 11PM Saturday night, they sound awesome. Using my calibrated and tuned ears, the background noise is non-existent, or at least lower, the music is clearer and more defined, and appears a tad (technical term) louder.

Yes, warmup does exist.

Bud, I also have Pass amps and do the same on weekends, except during the Summer, if I know I will be listening. I turn them on after work on Friday, and turn them off when I go to bed on Sunday. They sound better that way to me also.

 

[amirm]

Which is precisely what the link says that I posted.

It also went on to say this: "While early experiments had determined that 0.1% THD (-40dB) was the very minimum that could be heard, it soon became apparent that this was not the case for transistor power amplifiers, where 0.01% or less could be heard as harshness on the sound."

The Wiki warns one to not attempt to interpret single value THD numbers yet that is precisely what he is attempting to do above.

And what experiments is he referring to? Would you all believe me if I put forward claims like that without giving any back up? Heck, I am putting forward the back up and folks still don't want to believe. But here, when a metric is not useful, the back up is not even needed????

 

[amirm]

And yet you cited a paper by Clarke which used 2.5%THD as some measure of how long term listening was ineffective at picking it out compared to blind A/B listening.

And perfectly fine to do so. Whatever profile of distortion that THD number included, was audible in fast switching listening tests, but not in long term listening. Nothing about that is inconsistent with what I post now.

This is exactly why I criticised the paper - it makes a seemingly simplistic comparison which needs careful analysis.

Nope. In the other case the situation is quite simple. Exact same distortion that was heard in fast switching, was not in long term listening. Since fast switching showed that the specific distortion in the black box was audible, we were in no need of psychoacoustics analysis. The real deal, listening tests with fast switching, showed that it was. Note also that the fast switching group also heard distortion at even lower level demonstrating higher ability to hear distortions when switching time is much shorter.

Many would look at the paper & conclude that long-term listening is a bust of it can't discern 2.5%

That would be wrong. But the right summary, that fast switching was far superior to long term listening, is strongly supported in that study. And pretty damning of the position that long term listening is better. It simply is not unless someone has some listening test results they can put forward to demonstrate it as the other group has.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, if you and friends have not a care in the world about science when subjectively enjoying music on your stereos, why the dire need for what you hear as you watch/know/read manual/etc, etc. your system warming up, to have a scientific objective explanation?
Clearly not a subjectivist, so what do you consider yourself to be?


Another paradox, given your acceptance of (incorrect) science explaining what you "hear" after hours/days/weeks.

cheers,

AJ

AJ, you keep making assumptions and trying to polarize the membership. It is not always an either/or thing. I really think that most WBF members have an interest in enjoying there systems sound playing their favorite music and knowing a little about how things work. Sure some are more interested in one than the other, but most of us are not as extreme in our focus as you suggest.

I think there is room to both appreciate how things work and also to enjoy simply listening to music. I tend to do those activities separately. It should be clear to anyone who has read my virtual system thread, that I spend a lot of time fine tuning my analog set up and trying to optimize the sound of my system. That is one reason I participate in this forum, after all. I try to understand how and why certain changes effect the accuracy of the sound of my system. I am interested in both knowing things about audio science and the gear side of the hobby and also enjoying the music and result of the effort it takes to assemble and set up a great sounding system.

You make a lot of assumptions about me. That is fine, but I assure you there is no "dire need" to know why some of this happens. I'm interested for sure, but that is as far as it goes.

I also don't see the paradox you describe. I hear something changing in the sound of my amps, and then someone provides a scientific explanation of what is occurring. If you consider that incorrect science, please explain why it is so. This is a discussion thread, and I appreciate reading these explanations and why or why they may not be correct. My single biggest learning experience in this hobby occurred when Jim Smith came to do his RoomPlay service at my house. He used both measurement equipment and his ears to transform the sound of my system. It was a long process and very educational with superb results.

I think you should modify your extreme view of me and consider simply that I started this thread to learn a little more about this wonderful hobby.

 

[Orb]

I think you guys are getting hung up on THD in the wrong way, and seems part of this happened with dismissive view of crossover distortion and maybe very subtle measurements showing distortion changing for some amp designs from cold to warmed-up.
The problem with THD is that it is a summary of actual harmonic distortion pattern-behaviour, which is what should be considered and also type, anyway all of this is digressing from what started the whole debate in recent posts.
Another problem with the recent posts is now trying to tie THD to both audibility and short-long term listening, however this is confusing two separate focuses of JND testing and tolerance-threshold-preference, at a certain threshold it may not be possible to reliably identify it as distortion, but it may still influence listeners.
Case in point why music/sounds need to be matched to at least 0.2db, one may not reliably identify the louder music at say just under 0.2db in a full dbt abx trial but it is known to still influence our perception on sound.
The same could be said about phase, where reliably identifying this at a certain threshold in an ABX is pretty damn tough but it will still influence our perception of the music image and some instruments being more diffused.

Anyway why has no-one mentioned how great the THX AAA amplifier design is and how wonderful it measures (top in some areas) in its 1st outing in the Benchmark AHB2, great that it resolves crossover distortion (and other factors)

Sorry I would make this more succinct but losing interest and enthusiasm, I feel another Abandon Thread gif coming on
CHeers
Orb

 

[PeterA]

In what way do you think Al's answer contributes to your cause?

Amir, what cause are you attributing to me?

 

[Tony Lauck]

In what way do you think Al's answer contributes to your cause?

Cause? As someone who is searching for truth I find this polarizing language objectionable.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ, you keep making assumptions and trying to polarize the membership.

No sir, I quote you verbatim every time for brevity and audiophile sites will always be "polarized" between rational folks and believers. 'Tis the way of the world long before my involvement and not of my doing, thank you.

You make a lot of assumptions about me. That is fine, but I assure you there is no "dire need" to know why some of this happens.

Yet in one sentence you claim you/friends have no care of science when listening and in the next, ack/Als very amusingly incorrect posts are "good" scientific explanations for you "hearing" amp warm up.

I hear something changing in the sound of my amps, and then someone provides a scientific explanation of what is occurring.

No. You think you hear something and assume/believe it is attributed to your amps. Now whatever "science" is put forth, even completely incorrect, is accepted as "good". By you in your posts, no assumptions needed.
I'll ask you the same as Bud. When you hear this change over the weekend, how did you eliminate:
SME 30/12, SME V-12, MSL Signature Gold, AirTight Supreme, VDH Colibri Platinum, XP-20, XP-25, Transparent REF XL, 3 Vibraplanes, Dedicated circuits, wall outlets....and your vision, knowledge, expectations, owners manual, website chats, etc, etc, etc, etc.....as the source? How did you isolate this change you believe you hear, to the amps?

cheers,

AJ

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Cause? As someone who is searching for truth I find this polarizing language objectionable.

Objection sustained! No wait, overruled!
How ya doing Tony? I don't think this is a trial of any sorts (at least that I'm aware of), just a bit of internet chit-chat. Tony, you familiar with the term "Discussion Forum"?
Searching for "Truth" eh? The one and only? Like Spock?
Glad to know you're still ok and in good spirits as ever, been a while.

cheers,

AJ

 

[steve williams]

Peter, Al, ack, Tony et al

IMO AJ is a perfect reason for everyone to hit their "ignore"button and let him talk to himself

In medicine we call that ilk "shifting dullness" and it's best ignored

 

[KBK]

Here's one about cognition, OB:

Think Your Conscious Brain Directs Your Actions? Think Again

The ass monkey lives! Thinking as an afterthought, a systems notification artifact.

In a provocative new paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, a team led by Dr. Ezequiel Morsella at San Francisco State University came to a startling conclusion: consciousness is no more than a passive machine running one simple algorithm — to serve up what’s already been decided, and take credit for the decision.

Rather than a sage conductor, it’s just a tiny part of what happens in the brain that makes us “aware.” All the real work goes on under the hood — in our unconscious minds.

The Passive Frame Theory, as Morsella calls it, is based on decades of experimental data observing how people perceive and generate motor responses to odors. It’s not about perception (“I smell a skunk”), but about response (running from a skunk). The key to cracking what consciousness does in the brain is to work backwards from an observable physical action, explains Morsella in his paper.

If this isn’t your idea of “consciousness,” you’re not alone.

Traditionally, theorists tried to tackle the enigmatic beast by looking at higher levels of human consciousness, for example, self-consciousness — the knowledge that you exist — or theory of mind — that you and others have differing beliefs, intents, desires and perspectives. While fascinating on a philosophical level, this approach is far too complex to explain on a fundamental level what consciousness is for.

Instead, Morsella believes that studying basic consciousness *— the awareness of a color, an urge, a sharp pain — is what will lead to a breakthrough.

“If a creature has an experience of any kind — something it is like to be that creature * — then it has this form of consciousness,” Morsella said in an email to Singularity Hub. It doesn’t have to be high-level, and “ it’s unlikely to be unique to humans.”

The Passive Frame Theory goes like this: nearly all the decisions and thoughts that need to be made throughout the day are performed by many parts of the unconscious brain, well below our level of awareness.

When the time comes to physically act on a decision, various unconscious processes deliver their opinions to a central “hub,” like voters congregating at town hall. The hub listens in on the conversation, but doesn’t participate; all it does is provide a venue for differing opinions to integrate and decide on a final outcome. Once the unconscious makes a final decision on how to physically act (or react), the hub — consciousness — executes that work and then congratulates itself for figuring out a tough problem.

In a way, the unconscious mind is like a group of talented ghostwriters working on a movie script for a celebrated screenwriter. If all goes smoothly, they bypass the screenwriter and deliver the final product straight to the next level. If, on the other hand, conflict arises — say the ghostwriters differ in their ideas on how the story should unfold — their argument may reach the ears of that famous screenwriter, who becomes aware of the problem, but nevertheless sits and waits for the writers to figure it all out. Once that happens, the screenwriter hands off the script, and gets all the credit.

Similar to the screenwriter, consciousness doesn’t debate or solve conflict in our heads; consciousness needs to be “on” in order to relay the final outcome — so it is essential — but it doesn’t participate in the nitty-gritty of decision-making.

Why did consciousness emerge in this way? Morsella thinks the answer is evolution.

Like all animals, humans try to conserve mental energy and automate our biological processes. Most of the time we run on instincts, reflexes and minute-to-minute immediate thoughts. Take breathing as an example — it’s completely automated, to the point that consciously trying to maintain a steady rhythm is surprisingly hard. In this case, conscious thought just bogs the process down.

Unlike most animals, however, humans gradually evolved into complex social beings capable of cultivating our intelligence for language and other higher faculties. Faced with increasingly difficult decisions on how to act, we suddenly needed a middleman to slow our unconscious mind down.

Say you find yourself underwater; your instinct is to breathe, but better judgment — delivered by an unconscious cry of alarm (“don’t breathe!”) — tells you that you would drown. Your unconscious mind orders your consciousness to activate the muscles that will allow you to hold your breath and keep you alive. Consciousness triggers an adaptive motion.

The power of our unconscious mind doesn’t stop at basic bodily functions. In the paper, Morsella cites language — a high-level, complex and perhaps distinctively human faculty — as another product of the unconscious mind.

When you speak, you’re only consciously aware of a few words at a time, and that is only so you can direct the muscles around your mouth and tongue to form those words. What you’re saying is prescribed under the hood; your conscious mind is simply following a script.

Morsella acknowledges that his theory is unconventional and difficult to accept.

"The number one reason it's taken so long to reach this conclusion is because people confuse what consciousness is for with what they think they use it for," Morsella said in a press release accompanying his paper.

But none of this theory takes away our treasured qualities as sentient human beings — our imagination, our language, our sense of self and others — it just points to the unconscious mind as the main player on our brainy fields.

In fact, Morsella hopes his theory could lead to new ideas about intrusive thoughts or obsessions that often occur in mental disorders. “The passivity of consciousness explains why we are aware of urges and thoughts that are maladaptive," Morsella said to Singularity Hub, because it doesn’t know that it shouldn’t be thinking about these thoughts.

“The system is less all-knowing and purposeful than we thought.”

When we add in variation in neural capacities, in hearing and cognition, we can get to the level of dogmatic projection as a substitute for logic, capacity and cognition. Where a person's capacity is exceeded and projection of the hind brain becomes a fear push into a averaged reality... to be pushed onto others, in order to hold the mirrored life as real, in the face of the given fearful unknowns.


Projection as a fear, a pushing of the unconscious ...into a forced reality. All hidden behind the deeper reality of the conscious internal voice....as an afterthought reporting system.

Essentially, when people reach their cognitive limits in logic and hearing, as related to their capacities for logic tied to these things -----they project.

Plain and simple. Fear and limits becomes dogma and persecution. Literally, a barking dog. No joke.

And then we get to the manipulation of such truths.... like.... fox news. And so on. Better yet, the the mindset of engineering and linear thinking 'turned out' as brainwashed footsoldiers for the purposes of control of the societal and scientific discussion on the true nature of reality.

The great mistake was starting science on the premise of the statement of Descartes. Descartes statement was a stating point for that analysis, to go deeper, not less deep. Descartes statement was analysis point one (ie, day one in Buddhism school), on the surface. Not a place to fire a stake into the ground and begin all scientific inquiry from there.

Maybe a good place for engineering to begin... but engineering must be in it's own circle, like it's logic. Circular and limited.

If engineering and linear thinking steps outside of it's corral, it gets properly sent scurrying back. It keeps trying to take over the conversation about reality, blathering on in linear projected terms...with the nature of reality as the past ossified into the future... like some sort of religion, and comes complete with dogma. A literal nightmare come to life.

The idea that something is not real until it is measured, is one of those steaming piles of horseshit that needs to be publicly slapped around until it cries for it's momma. Public and open humiliation...mostly due to this fallacy of projection as reality. Then it has to be openly sent back into it's engineering minded linear thinking corral.

And then to stay put as a useful tool, but to never be allowed to have it's hands on the controls, as it will go right into a circular path and and eventually into the ditch, one with no future for humanity.

 

[PeterA]

No. You think you hear something and assume/believe it is attributed to your amps. Now whatever "science" is put forth, even completely incorrect, is accepted as "good". By you in your posts, no assumptions needed.
I'll ask you the same as Bud. When you hear this change over the weekend, how did you eliminate:
SME 30/12, SME V-12, MSL Signature Gold, AirTight Supreme, VDH Colibri Platinum, XP-20, XP-25, Transparent REF XL, 3 Vibraplanes, Dedicated circuits, wall outlets....and your vision, knowledge, expectations, owners manual, website chats, etc, etc, etc, etc.....as the source? How did you isolate this change you believe you hear, to the amps?

cheers,

AJ

Here's how. When I turn on my amps and listen to my system, I notice changes, clearly audible to me, during the first hour or so. Of course, there can be all sorts of things causing the changes I hear, but over time and doing this procedure multiple times, over years with different Pass Class A amps, I hear a certain consistency of change. Then, alternatively, when I turn on my amps, then leave the room for a couple of hours and only then reenter and start to listen to an LP, I don't notice these same changes. I conclude that certain things I am hearing are a result of the amps stabilizing. If I turn on my system and play music while I am in a different part of the house doing something else, then when I return, I do not notice the changes taking place. I only notice them if I start to listen to my amps while they are cold. In other words, these changes do not occur simply during the first our of listening. They only occur if the amps where cold and then warm up while I am listening.

AJ, you mentioned that you have members in your audio club in Florida who own Pass amps, and my model in particular. Have you asked them if they notice this change during warm up? If they say yes, do you then badger them for proof of why they think it is the amps and not something else in their systems? Do you behave the way you do on this forum when you interact with people in person about their systems?

If I have the interest, this Winter, I will turn on everything and let the music play while out of the room. I will then come in, turn off my amps, and leave the room again. After 30 minutes or or so, when the amps are cold, but the rest of the system is still playing, I will turn the amps on again and listen to the music as they warm up. I think, though I am not certain, that this will more or less isolate the performance of the amps. I will then see if I can hear the same kinds of changes taking place as the amps warm up. If I do, I think that I will have eliminated most other factors in the system as possible causes of the sound changing. This is about as far as I am reasonably willing to experiment on this topic in my home given my interest level, abilities and resources.

Or, I may not go to this effort, because I may be skiing instead of sailing and would rather just listen to music.

Here is another example: When I play an LP, especially during the cold, dry, winter New England months, I notice something different during the first side or two of the LP. The sound changes in different ways. Rather than soundstage and presence improving with the amps, I notice dynamics with my analog front end improve after a bit of playing. I think, though again, I can not be certain, that the cartridge suspension is loosening up slightly so that I hear a more natural, dynamic sound. The amps, remember, have already been on for a few hours and have reached a stable operating temperature, but the cartridge is still somewhat cold, and perhaps the suspension is a bit stiff. Here too, I have the interest to study this more closely, I could turn the turntable on so that it is spinning, but not play the cartridge. That would eliminate that a possible source of the changing sound.

Regardless of whether you believe me, think I know this, or believe this, or think this, I will not be able to prove it to you or anyone else. However, as long as I have this same system, I will continue to turn my amps on and play a few LPs before I sit down to do any critical listening with my friends. Otherwise, I just do what is convenient. I do like rituals also, and that may explain a bunch of why I do this, but it doesn't explain why I hear the changes. I do think that Audio Science can explain why I hear these particular things.

I am simply trying to approach this in a reasonable way based on what I hear, and what I read, and hoping to better understand what is happening. I'm sorry if I can't prove any of this to you. At this point, it seems that whatever I write causes a line by line response from you. I think you are just trying to have some fun at my expense and prove something to someone who may be reading this. And that is fine, but it does not help the discussion very much to be so argumentative. And it does not help my efforts to learn something from this thread.

 

[ddk]

Objection sustained! No wait, overruled!
How ya doing Tony? I don't think this is a trial of any sorts (at least that I'm aware of), just a bit of internet chit-chat. Tony, you familiar with the term "Discussion Forum"?
Searching for "Truth" eh? The one and only? Like Spock?
Glad to know you're still ok and in good spirits as ever, been a while.

cheers,

AJ

AJ,

You have 3 pages of posts with nothing but attacks, condescending remarks to members here and ZERO contribution to this thread or the Forum. I guess if you actually had anything worthwhile to contribute you would have done it by now instead of same incessant annoying demand. The proof is your profile under Forum threads!

david

 

[PeterA]

Objection sustained! No wait, overruled!
How ya doing Tony? I don't think this is a trial of any sorts (at least that I'm aware of), just a bit of internet chit-chat. Tony, you familiar with the term "Discussion Forum"?
Searching for "Truth" eh? The one and only? Like Spock?
Glad to know you're still ok and in good spirits as ever, been a while.

cheers,

AJ

The use of emojis is a lazy way to express meaning when one can not find the words to do so in writing. They rarely hide insulting remarks and often explain much about their user.

 

[jkeny]

And perfectly fine to do so. Whatever profile of distortion that THD number included, was audible in fast switching listening tests, but not in long term listening. Nothing about that is inconsistent with what I post now.

Well, you are generalising that specific test (of which you seem to know little about the distortion, other than the headline figure of 2.5% THD) into a case for A/B testing being per se better than long term listening. The test itself didn't conclude any universality about the results (although I find that they are usually carefully worded so that it is implied) but you have used it in your argument as can be seen in the rest of your post

Nope. In the other case the situation is quite simple. Exact same distortion that was heard in fast switching, was not in long term listening. Since fast switching showed that the specific distortion in the black box was audible, we were in no need of psychoacoustics analysis. The real deal, listening tests with fast switching, showed that it was. Note also that the fast switching group also heard distortion at even lower level demonstrating higher ability to hear distortions when switching time is much shorter.


That would be wrong. But the right summary, that fast switching was far superior to long term listening, is strongly supported in that study. And pretty damning of the position that long term listening is better. It simply is not unless someone has some listening test results they can put forward to demonstrate it as the other group has.

 

[jkeny]

I think you guys are getting hung up on THD in the wrong way, and seems part of this happened with dismissive view of crossover distortion and maybe very subtle measurements showing distortion changing for some amp designs from cold to warmed-up.
The problem with THD is that it is a summary of actual harmonic distortion pattern-behaviour, which is what should be considered and also type, anyway all of this is digressing from what started the whole debate in recent posts.
Another problem with the recent posts is now trying to tie THD to both audibility and short-long term listening, however this is confusing two separate focuses of JND testing and tolerance-threshold-preference, at a certain threshold it may not be possible to reliably identify it as distortion, but it may still influence listeners.
Case in point why music/sounds need to be matched to at least 0.2db, one may not reliably identify the louder music at say just under 0.2db in a full dbt abx trial but it is known to still influence our perception on sound.
The same could be said about phase, where reliably identifying this at a certain threshold in an ABX is pretty damn tough but it will still influence our perception of the music image and some instruments being more diffused.

Anyway why has no-one mentioned how great the THX AAA amplifier design is and how wonderful it measures (top in some areas) in its 1st outing in the Benchmark AHB2, great that it resolves crossover distortion (and other factors)

Sorry I would make this more succinct but losing interest and enthusiasm, I feel another Abandon Thread gif coming on
CHeers
Orb

Careful, orb, I know at least 2 members who will be asking you for research papers/documented experiments to back up these statements that long term listening can reveal things that ABX can't - although one of them is a troll & probably on your ignore list?

 

[jkeny]

AJ,

You have 3 pages of posts with nothing but attacks, condescending remarks to members here and ZERO contribution to this thread or the Forum. I guess if you actually had anything worthwhile to contribute you would have done it by now instead of same incessant annoying demand. The proof is your profile under Forum threads!

david

But this has been his MO on other forum that I have experience with him - I called it out on his 3rd or 4th post (all of which attacked me)
I guess no one noticed or was bothered by his obvious trolling then?
When someone joins & his first half dozen or so posts are an attacks it's fairly easy to know the intentions & motivation of the person.
The problem here is that a lot of you are actual answering this poster as if he is somehow interested in the contents of your post. The only thing of interest is to incite the poster - typical trolling

 

[steve williams]

But this has been his MO on other forum that I have experience with him - I called it out on his 3rd or 4th post (all of which attacked me)
I guess no one noticed or was bothered by his obvious trolling then?
When someone joins & his first half dozen or so posts are an attacks it's fairly easy to know the intentions & motivation of the person.
The problem here is that a lot of you are actual answering this poster as if he is somehow interested in the contents of your post. The only thing of interest is to incite the poster - typical trolling

Hence my post....... I-G-N-O-R-E works best for people like him