Sorry if your perceptions of how I respond isn't the same as mine.
I get tired of subjective blather when it's easier to test and post the results instead of taking up pages and pages on here that end up showing us nothing.
I'm not on here to join the JC Fan Club. What are the dues you pay by the way?
In life I try to give due respect to those who have applied themselves with success over a number of years and who have consistently produced work of value. JC is one such person among many others who post on this and other DIYaudio threads.
Virtually everyone here who refuses to accept JC's dogma has substantial practical experience in audio engineering and, generally, they attack from a position of experience and sound knowledge whilst still appreciating that which he has achieved. There are a few others who mischievously follow in their wake.
As you appear reluctant to have your own experience and practical knowledge exposed, I feel that you have no acceptable ground to attack anyone here other than in the most light-handed manner. So come out in the open and declare your hand. It is the only way by which can earn any respect for the views you vehemently express on this site.
I started working with Mark Levinson, 41 years ago, when I primarily worked on the Wall of Sound for the Grateful Dead.
While I had 2 K-horns, my own amps, and a Dyna Mk3 tube preamp, Mark had his own LNP2 preamp, a Phase Linear 700 and 2 electrostatic speakers (Dunleavy from Canada).
While I had 2 K-horns, my own amps, and a Dyna Mk3 tube preamp, Mark had his own LNP2 preamp, a Phase Linear 700 and 2 electrostatic speakers (Dunleavy from Canada).
Last edited:
Sorry but right or wrong is based upon facts not "clams to fame".
I help others in other threads and they appreciate it. That is all that counts.
It is fascinating that you think that I promote 'dogma'. I really try not to, and I ignore much that is offered as 'tweaks and mods' unless I hear it, myself. Now, can I trust myself? Many think not. Galileo had a similar problem with 'moons' on Jupiter. He must have been imagining them, because:"God would not make anything that humans could not see with the naked eye". I find myself in the same situation with listening differences.
……so I can only take it that you have no adequate experience, work experience or training as a basis for treating others with whose thoughts you 'disagree' with such derision.
I am only aware of one post - having scanned your recent posting history - in which you attempted to be helpful to anyone. There is however on other threads much more of the same hounding of JC………..which is why I asked you the original question as to why you appear to hate him.
I am only aware of one post - having scanned your recent posting history - in which you attempted to be helpful to anyone. There is however on other threads much more of the same hounding of JC………..which is why I asked you the original question as to why you appear to hate him.
Who's idea was it to do the HQD system , i first heard that system in the late 70's at Peter Mcgrath's ...
Notice that too huh, at least we know why Sy does it ....
It's best to consider what's said, not who says it. If it's incorrect, then it's incorrect and can be dealt with, irrespective of a person's "experience" or "training." Likewise, if something is correct.
If there's no real content, then ignore it. If someone never posts anything substantive (agree or disagree) in a technical sense, this being a technical forum, they are best ignored.
IMO, of course. Just remember, when you get into an argument with the village idiot, passersby will be unable to determine which of you is which.
JC
I used the term 'dogma' due entirely to your rather firm views being held despite the once in a while compelling evidence that there may be another approach to detail. Perhaps I should have used the word 'credo'.
How you approach and describe your work is straightforward, and not 'dogmatic' in the usual sense. However you can be stubborn and, understandably, you have to play your cards close to your chest. On the other hand you do succeed with your stated intent of getting people to think for themselves; that is when you are allowed to by fellow posters!
I know that very close 'lab' measurement is essential for any commercial product in development, but also that - as so many well measuring designs sound so awful - the final proof is in the listening in one's own listening area, usually at home. The publication of technical specs is only of use to journalists and advertising copywriters along with those who don't adequately understand them and have little faith in their own ears.
We all know that there are a great number of heavily promoted 'tweeks' around, but many of them do not improve system performance, although they may alter the sound in some obvious manner; in other words they may exchange one set of problems/defects for a different set. It is however very easy to become obsessed with tweeks and thereby waste an awful amount of money, the same applies to various cables. The name of the game is sorting the wheat from the chaff in your own system.
I used the term 'dogma' due entirely to your rather firm views being held despite the once in a while compelling evidence that there may be another approach to detail. Perhaps I should have used the word 'credo'.
How you approach and describe your work is straightforward, and not 'dogmatic' in the usual sense. However you can be stubborn and, understandably, you have to play your cards close to your chest. On the other hand you do succeed with your stated intent of getting people to think for themselves; that is when you are allowed to by fellow posters!
I know that very close 'lab' measurement is essential for any commercial product in development, but also that - as so many well measuring designs sound so awful - the final proof is in the listening in one's own listening area, usually at home. The publication of technical specs is only of use to journalists and advertising copywriters along with those who don't adequately understand them and have little faith in their own ears.
We all know that there are a great number of heavily promoted 'tweeks' around, but many of them do not improve system performance, although they may alter the sound in some obvious manner; in other words they may exchange one set of problems/defects for a different set. It is however very easy to become obsessed with tweeks and thereby waste an awful amount of money, the same applies to various cables. The name of the game is sorting the wheat from the chaff in your own system.
...
I posted already about not boasting online and do not wish to do so. Like I said , I help others and if you can't find other posts where I have then that is your lack of effort.
If you don't like what I say, there is always the IGNORE feature, I encourage you to use it as I also have.
Poor JC, he's being hounded
I don't agree with his Bybee crap nor do I like how he treats others on here also and I'll leave it at that. Have a nice life.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.