Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!yale!husc6!ut-sally!seismo!umcp-cs!nbs-amrf!manheime
From: manheime@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Ken Manheimer)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Philosophy
Message-ID: <363@nbs-amrf.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jul-86 14:21:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: nbs-amrf.363
Posted: Tue Jul 22 14:21:19 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jul-86 01:44:51 EDT
References: <885@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU> <566@mips.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: National Bureau of Standards
Lines: 20

> [...]
> the opposite.  I'm glad to see that the one-beam people are fighting
> back against the three-beam people, however.  For a time, I thought the
> advertising copywriters were about to establish the superiority of
> three beams based merely on the well-known fact that three is a larger
> number than one.
> -- 
> ...decwrl!mips!sjc						Steve Correll

It's just too easy to dismiss a good opportunity for a nasty
argument as "advertising hype".  To fully weigh the issue you have
to consider, on the one hand, that many people find One to
inherently have a warmer Presence (ask any theologian).  On the
other hand, it's clearly irrefutable that one has a square-root
rating somewhat lower than three, and so would be more subject to
inter-harmovulation impedence mismatchmyassing.

Ken.

(I almost hate to put these (-:&:-) in. :-)