Being a pied piper for the gullible and suggestion-prone isn't particularly courageous IMHO.
Two things tend to stand out here for me: 1) some are very keen on testing flaws, while totally ignoring listening flaws, and 2) not posting, despite repeated requests, impressions of Mooly's test until it was all but a done deal (the pseudoscience analog would be the psychic that announces their disaster prediction... the day after).
I am, though, open-minded enough to allow someone to throw mods at circuits, paint the walls, and stand on his head if he thinks it makes his music sound better. I just couldn't care less, as long as their not giving AES fellowships for it.
Two things tend to stand out here for me: 1) some are very keen on testing flaws, while totally ignoring listening flaws, and 2) not posting, despite repeated requests, impressions of Mooly's test until it was all but a done deal (the pseudoscience analog would be the psychic that announces their disaster prediction... the day after).
I am, though, open-minded enough to allow someone to throw mods at circuits, paint the walls, and stand on his head if he thinks it makes his music sound better. I just couldn't care less, as long as their not giving AES fellowships for it.
Moderators -
Time to end this nonsense. Joe has "presented his observations" and has now indicated that he is not going to do anything else, aside from continuing to obfuscate.
This thread, like the others preceding it, has been used to seek confirmation of the value of his commercial enterprise. That's all.
Your best way to "end this nonsense" is to ignore the (on topic) discussion here, using your time better than reading or posting here...
Do you need somebody else to help you doing so?
Joe i don't understand, why you even spend time and energy to try to prove anything to the group of snobby spectators.
You don't have, make it their problem.You offered to the people who willing to try a mod that make a difference, for you and other people who tried.
You like it ,they like it , you don't make a big secret from it.
Thank you Joe
You don't have, make it their problem.You offered to the people who willing to try a mod that make a difference, for you and other people who tried.
You like it ,they like it , you don't make a big secret from it.
Thank you Joe
NOT TRUE!
To the Moderators, here is another of the "usual suspects" who wants to shut down the thread. Another "crusader" that puts himself in the judgement seat.
Also, once these character assassinations take hold, that will lead to it getting worse. So can I please have some protection against this sort of maliciousness?
I am proud of what I have contributed to DIY - I am not a greedy person and already TWICE today that has been the accusation.
You are quite right and I am forming that view exactly myself. Snobs. They certainly come across that way.
And you know what, you have just said it and the majority reading this is thinking exactly the same thing. I went and had a look at the "Bybee Fraud" thread and there they were, the "usual suspects" pontificating on audio truth as only they know it.
Scott Wurcer once accused me that I had put him on a not-to-talk-to-list. It wasn't true, but it sure has given me an idea. Maybe time to make such a list. That way it will have the benefit of giving them less oxygen, like they say about trolls.
But thanks for your support and the majority out there for whom you spoke up.
Cheers, Joe
I may be naive and innocent, but I thought the intent of DBT was to determine if a difference can be reliably heard. Any exposing of charlatans (real or "so-called") is a mere byproduct; useful, but not usually the main point. DBT means just two things: listeners can't peek, the test controller can't peek; is that too much to ask of a listening test?Joe Rasmussen said:
No test is flawless, but a test for listening should surely involve listening alone. Is that too much to ask? Otherwise you are testing listening plus something else (usually seeing, plus costings). Who has claimed that DBT is always the answer? It depends on what the question is. If the question is "do these two systems sound the same or different" then DBT is an appropriate tool and it is hard to think of an alternative.
I thought it was supposed to be about what exactly this mod does to the signal, and whether it is audible, and if so why it is audible. Does it do something magic and unexpected, or is it just a bit of filtering which does exactly what any competent engineer might expect?miklos said:
Oh dear, here we go again. Some of us don't think with our soldering irons, and none of us hear with our soldering irons.
Hey guys, did you note that? That was a real person. The silent majority of ignorant "sinners".
From now on, you have all you need for now to test what has been presented. It's not rocket science. Unless you are will to do that, if you are only spectators, then so be it.
Testing will follow...
odd really that is was your personal attacks on people that got the thread closed last time. And you are doing it again. If you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to get upset about.
No, active participant - but using my intellect instead of my soldering iron. My soldering iron has never heard of Mr. Ohm or Mr. Kirchoff so finds it difficult to reason about their ideas. Do other people find that their soldering irons are similarly ignorant, or do some of you have intelligent soldring irons which can design and reverse engineer circuits?
For a while this thread seemed to be making some progress, with real tests taking place and some discussion about circuits, but now it has got bogged down again.
For a while this thread seemed to be making some progress, with real tests taking place and some discussion about circuits, but now it has got bogged down again.
Some tests where initiated and done it by other members. Their efforts and contributions are strongly appreciated. Discussions about results and possible different ways to find more informations was going on. Maybe somebody else will find a better way for searching, or what to look for, to measure it, but a progress in this it seems not possible, because the same individuals come out over and over again with the same kind of things targeting/hunting a person, or personal aspects.
Why this enormous obsession from only some of the members here, never ending asking for measurements to Joe? Can we never get out of this obsession?
Why have some to always analyse a person called Joe, on all his sides and post here about such of their "results/findings"?
This thread is about something different than a person/individual, who presented for free an idea, which it still be searched for its validity or not.
Everybody can proceed to this experiment, mod or whatever it may be called. Everybody can have his own appreciations, judgements, expertise, conclusions. Let`s find out about those things, but not about Joe as person, his more or less capabilities, willingness to do or not to do one or another, and so on.
And those who may find this subject stupid or not interesting, just leave and do something else more usefully for yourself.
A minority of very few guys it want to impose their will to shut down the discussion they are not interested into, or they do not want it for vary reasons. This while another almost 30 000 other peoples have got into this thread, reading it...
What is this all about?
Joe I won't bother quoting your web site since anyone can see for them selves.
1982 The Premier AES Conference on digital Audio, R Lagadec of Studer Revox.
He even speculates at how formidable this will be at 24 bits. Your characterization of the AES's attitude toward jitter seems a fabrication to me.
I've joked before when people have ignored two or three pointed questions about being on their ignore list. I don't want to see this shut down, I'm honestly interested in the technical reasoning behind the close in jitter, a famous now banned member was very big on it while Thorsten L. of AMR is not (apparently) if it can make these guys lock horns I figure there is some interest. Not interested in hand waving.
1982 The Premier AES Conference on digital Audio, R Lagadec of Studer Revox.
He even speculates at how formidable this will be at 24 bits. Your characterization of the AES's attitude toward jitter seems a fabrication to me.
I've joked before when people have ignored two or three pointed questions about being on their ignore list. I don't want to see this shut down, I'm honestly interested in the technical reasoning behind the close in jitter, a famous now banned member was very big on it while Thorsten L. of AMR is not (apparently) if it can make these guys lock horns I figure there is some interest. Not interested in hand waving.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.