John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[SY]

Originally Posted by john curl

Well SY, English is MY first language, and I took a year of college English, and passed the graduate exam for English.

Well, you have an advantage over me. I failed tenth grade English and haven't had a course since then. I'll defer to your skills in that area.

[jkeny]

Originally Posted by SY

I take it that English is not your first language?

What's your evidence for this, please?

If you think the reviewer is full of beans (and he may well be), write a letter to Positive Feedback.

I make no evaluation of the reviewer, just SE's use of a purely subjective review on his site in order to drive cable sales. I will re-quote your words above in case you missed them

anyone with even a shred of morality who is offering a gadget claimed to improve sound should have data (like controlled listening) to back it up.

[SY]

Yes, I can see that you're still confused. My sympathies.

[john curl]

Are you sir, John J. Kenny?

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by SY

I failed tenth grade English...

Was that where they asked you for the meaning of the word 'prejudice'?

[aardvarkash10]

Originally Posted by jkeny

So it's completely subjective!

yes, and obviously so.

Originally Posted by jkeny

So it is a claim then? He has quoted a subjective opinion with a link to the full article & no data to back it up - Sy's definition of immorality then!

there is NO claim. Not even in the opinion piece. The only thing that remotely comes close to a performance claim is that the interconnect does nothing.

The disclosure is as full as it could be - the quote on Steve's site is not unatributed, a link is given back to the full article. The only other thing I may want to know is whether the article was paid for in any way and whether the interconnects were bought or supplied.

[jkeny]

Originally Posted by aardvarkash10

......
there is NO claim. Not even in the opinion piece. The only thing that remotely comes close to a performance claim is that the interconnect does nothing.
......

You just said that there was a claim in your last post

Not an outrageous claim for a conductor I don't think...

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Yes, but irrelevant. In this case neither has jkeny (to my knowledge) made claims of scientific fact in regards to improved sound.

From jkeny's website:

How do these modifications improve the sound?
By providing a clean, noise free supply to the clock & clock handling circuits we eliminate clock jitter caused by the power supply. This is a common cause of distortion in digital equipment. By doing this we can realise the full low jitter performance of the clocks & the sound improves greatly as a result.

se

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

From jkeny's website:

Thanks SE, so now I know.

[anatech]

Really, very interesting.

We have a cable on a web site that makes no outrageous claims what so ever, and people are digging for mud ???? Completely unbelievable! Pretty silly too.

People, the point is that when an advertisement makes a claim that implies a "secret" or wonder material so that it affects the current moving through a cable, that's when you begin looking for proof. That is the point where the advertiser should be expected to back up their claims. Clear evidence is normally expected, measurements being the preferred backup. Why measurements? Simple, they can be performed and duplicated by any other person competent enough who has access to the proper equipment.

Listening tests are also acceptable, but they are subject to more scrutiny. For an example, the NRC here in Canada has performed listening tests on loudspeakers and even arrived at a correlation between some measured parameters, and subjective responses from the listening panels. So, if the only proof and research that will be offered would be listening tests, it might be a really good idea to perform those tests in a scientifically acceptable manner. Looking at how these tests were run at the NRC would seem to be prudent.

I can't imagine anyone attempting to develop any product that makes a claim to be better in performance from all the other widgets out there to do so, without any basic research to convince them they are on the right track. Sure as heck a bank wouldn't float a business loan without something concrete to go on. They aren't that stupid.

Hi John (Keny),
Got caught throwing stones?
A person with an interest such as yours should think twice before criticizing anyone else's efforts.

After reading your web site a little, I was struck by the fact that your claims are things that can be measured. I see no valid measured information at all, and the 'scope shot you have showing the "ringing" may be caused by an improper 'scope set up. Attaching a diagram of how your equipment was set up for this test would really help assess how effective the attenuators are (or aren't). As for cable reflections, yes. I am aware of how that works.

I've also noticed that you are engaging in some personal attacks. That isn't allowed here, and that is why a recent post is no longer with us. You may address an idea or topic, but attacking a person is off limits. Not to mention that that activity is completely O.T. in this thread.

-Chris