Digital BW, The Print

I am sorry to say, but I really feel like I'm wasting my time
> if you're not going to try to understand why those things are important.
> 

> Austin

Well, Austin, I think I understand a lot more about what you are saying
than you want to understand about what I am saying.  You seem
to be so sure of your position that you don't want to "hear"
any other ideas.  You've worked for years using the dynamic range
concept in a totally different context, and feel that that experience
makes you perfectly suited to define it in a totally new context.  
On the surface that sounds like a reasonable conclusion.  And
because of that I spent some time researching the concept
and listening to your ideas.   But, after careful consideration I've
decided that I disagree with several claims you've made about
dynamic range as it relates to our specific context.

Its not that I don't understand, its that I don't agree.   I've tried
to figure out why we both can agree and start from a very
simple looking dynamic range formula and come out with different
views.  I'm just guessing but I still think the discrepancy arises
from the difference in linear scales versus exponential scales
when applied to the DynRange equation.  I mentioned this before
but I think you dismissed that as irrelevant.  If I can't get you to
think about that, how can I possibly discuss it?
--- In simplest form: I think most of your Dyr claims are based
on the underlying scale being linear.  I think the two perceptual
contexts we have, sound and light, are exponential and therefore
DyR has different properties.  But you'll have to at least consider 
this possibility before we're going to make progress.

Roy