So let me get this right, you can take me to task for some minor semantic violation of the Griffin paper, which I made more clear in my next post. But in your next post you can ignore one of the substantial main tenets of the Griffin paper which involves the effect of vertical comb distortion by simply saying that you don't care. And you can say that you are trying to make your next design better than the previous one.

We sure wouldn't want the un-informed here to get the idea that we can ignore the comb filter distortion issue. I should think that you ignoring of this issue is a much larger violation than mine.

I'm sure you won't see it that way; however, I'll be surely interested in your take on the matter when what goes around comes around. Will you take the same level of responsiblity for your gaff for the newbies that you demand of me?

Marlboro