So putting cost aside this amplifier as designed originally is a low
distortion high fidelity one but to give us an idea of how good its
sonics are it should be compared subjectively to other designs i
would be most interested to see how it compares in this respect
to dartzeel, pass, and mikeb's symasym
cheers
distortion high fidelity one but to give us an idea of how good its
sonics are it should be compared subjectively to other designs i
would be most interested to see how it compares in this respect
to dartzeel, pass, and mikeb's symasym
cheers
Emtech,
I believe you can take Rellum's comments as gospel. He is well known to me, and utterly reliable, as is his friend, Hubert.
From my knowledge of amp design, which is very highly subjective, I believe I can say the amp would be extremely clean, reasonably fast, and neutral. More than this I cannot say.
There comes a time when you have to build these things.......
Cheers,
Hugh
I believe you can take Rellum's comments as gospel. He is well known to me, and utterly reliable, as is his friend, Hubert.
From my knowledge of amp design, which is very highly subjective, I believe I can say the amp would be extremely clean, reasonably fast, and neutral. More than this I cannot say.
There comes a time when you have to build these things.......
Cheers,
Hugh
AKSA said:
this is a most honest way to make a statement!
it is different to say:
I changed this component, and sound is now this and that
from saying:
I changed this component, and my subjective impression is, sound is now this and that
and notice one thing:
a subjective impression may very well be for real
if you hear more bass, it may be for real there is more bass in sound
Thanks again Rellum,
For your further valuable insight.
The issue you raised on the bootstrap capacitor drop in loop gain at very low frequencies is an inherent characteristic of the topology. The corner is currently around 5 Hz and down to 1 Hz with larger bootstrap C's so I can't imagine this affecting damping at 20 - 50 Hz. The gain is coming off quite a high base.
Hi Mastertech,
A/B/C comparisons are always interesting. Especially without bias.
Hi Hugh,
Agree wholeheartedly. The listening experience is the final arbiter, objectively on a neutral system where possible.
Not unlike my good mate's hearing aid.
Cheers,
Greg
For your further valuable insight.
The issue you raised on the bootstrap capacitor drop in loop gain at very low frequencies is an inherent characteristic of the topology. The corner is currently around 5 Hz and down to 1 Hz with larger bootstrap C's so I can't imagine this affecting damping at 20 - 50 Hz. The gain is coming off quite a high base.
Hi Mastertech,
A/B/C comparisons are always interesting. Especially without bias.
Hi Hugh,
Agree wholeheartedly. The listening experience is the final arbiter, objectively on a neutral system where possible.
Not unlike my good mate's hearing aid.
Cheers,
Greg
Lineup,
Those who know me say my comment is entirely in character. Like Greg, though from a different perspective perhaps, there is a clear honesty which is the essence of my business.
This is not to say that a highly subjective knowledge is inferior; quite the opposite, the subjective knowledge properly follows only once the objective knowledge has been absorbed. The engineering is fundamental, after all......
Greg,
I noticed your comments on opamps, and the conundrum of subjective listening tests. I agree emphatically, but I'd be interested to know if you feel you can measure and quantify these subjective differences, and if so, how?
It should be clear by now that I'm not actually against you; I largely agree with you, but am very interested in the subjectivity of human aural perception.........
BTW, if anyone here wants to get a handle on how my amp sounds, try these comments here: AKSA comments
Cheers,
Hugh
Those who know me say my comment is entirely in character. Like Greg, though from a different perspective perhaps, there is a clear honesty which is the essence of my business.
This is not to say that a highly subjective knowledge is inferior; quite the opposite, the subjective knowledge properly follows only once the objective knowledge has been absorbed. The engineering is fundamental, after all......
Greg,
I noticed your comments on opamps, and the conundrum of subjective listening tests. I agree emphatically, but I'd be interested to know if you feel you can measure and quantify these subjective differences, and if so, how?
It should be clear by now that I'm not actually against you; I largely agree with you, but am very interested in the subjectivity of human aural perception.........
BTW, if anyone here wants to get a handle on how my amp sounds, try these comments here: AKSA comments
Cheers,
Hugh
Hi all,
Congratulations for all your electronical works, you are
great.
Forgive me for my bad English ...
I wrote this little review about Greg's amp by listen to Francis' prototype which, without any doubt, could (certainly will...) be improved with top power supply, different in/out impedances matches, potentiometer and on...
All IMHO:
Mastertech:
Macro-dynamic is the result of the ability of a component to reproduce transients from low to high spl.
Micro-dynamic: transients from low to slightly higher spl.
<<how is that defined scientificly?
*** 0 to first watt(s) for micro; first watt(s) to X-watts for macro.
Lineup:
To summarize: Foundamental notes are transients; details are harmonics; micro-details are harmonics at low spl. If your cds have only high-level harmonics, so OK with your comments: "only a few cds have micro-details..."
My
I'm not an EE, you all are EE's; if I was one, I really would ask me:
Where am'I going with my Solid-States works?
Do I believe we are living with perfect recorded sources? with perfect speakers? in a perfect acoustical listening room?
Why do some guys sooo enjoy listening to SE-valves amps? Do I still believe they are enjoying a large amount of 2nd harmonic distortion or micro-reverberation valves' effect? If they allways link their 5 watts pair to high efficient speakers, is it to listen at high spl levels or to catch something else? What is the real relationship between technical parameters and the intrinsic essence of the emotion when listening to music in my domestic environment? So, do I believe straight wire with gain really is the goal?
Don't
me, remember my first words.
Hubert
Congratulations for all your electronical works, you are
great.
Forgive me for my bad English ...
I wrote this little review about Greg's amp by listen to Francis' prototype which, without any doubt, could (certainly will...) be improved with top power supply, different in/out impedances matches, potentiometer and on...
All IMHO:
Mastertech:
Macro-dynamic is the result of the ability of a component to reproduce transients from low to high spl.
Micro-dynamic: transients from low to slightly higher spl.
<<how is that defined scientificly?
*** 0 to first watt(s) for micro; first watt(s) to X-watts for macro.
Lineup:
To summarize: Foundamental notes are transients; details are harmonics; micro-details are harmonics at low spl. If your cds have only high-level harmonics, so OK with your comments: "only a few cds have micro-details..."
My
I'm not an EE, you all are EE's; if I was one, I really would ask me:
Where am'I going with my Solid-States works?
Do I believe we are living with perfect recorded sources? with perfect speakers? in a perfect acoustical listening room?
Why do some guys sooo enjoy listening to SE-valves amps? Do I still believe they are enjoying a large amount of 2nd harmonic distortion or micro-reverberation valves' effect? If they allways link their 5 watts pair to high efficient speakers, is it to listen at high spl levels or to catch something else? What is the real relationship between technical parameters and the intrinsic essence of the emotion when listening to music in my domestic environment? So, do I believe straight wire with gain really is the goal?
Don't
me, remember my first words.Hubert
You must have mixed me up with somebody else.
I would never use expressions like micro-details.
Unlikely when it comes to sound of music.
Possibly I could talk about details in an amplifier.
And if we use microdetails, we have to specify
where is the limit to make a detail into a micro-detail.
What is the size of a micro-detail?
And what unit would we use?
Hubert-
I'm not an EE, you all are EE's; if I was one, I really would ask me:
Where am'I going with my Solid-States works?
Do I believe we are living with perfect recorded sources? with perfect speakers? in a perfect acoustical listening room?
------------------------------------------
where are you going? tell us, youve made a point but you have
confused me, you say youre not EE, as a reviewer you should at
least tell quality what is it you see as such in an amp, i would be
very interested if you could share some insights into this as a
manufacturer i always listen to reviewers at the end of the day
they make a judgement on some form of quality, please do
comment much appreciated
" Hi all Congratulations for all your electronical works, you are
great. "
thank you very much
I'm not an EE, you all are EE's; if I was one, I really would ask me:
Where am'I going with my Solid-States works?
Do I believe we are living with perfect recorded sources? with perfect speakers? in a perfect acoustical listening room?
------------------------------------------
where are you going? tell us, youve made a point but you have
confused me, you say youre not EE, as a reviewer you should at
least tell quality what is it you see as such in an amp, i would be
very interested if you could share some insights into this as a
manufacturer i always listen to reviewers at the end of the day
they make a judgement on some form of quality, please do
comment much appreciated
" Hi all Congratulations for all your electronical works, you are
great. "
thank you very much
Hi all
Linup, post11:
But you are right, pointing out that the frontier between details and micro-details_ oups, my mistake_ inner-details isn't defined, at least scientifically; so, may I suggest that inner-details could be defined as frequencies which are almost the same than others, i.e. 440, 480, 500, 530 hz, reproduced at the same time and at low spl, WHILE other frequencies i.e. 1200, 1900, 3500hz are reproduced at higher spl...real IM issue...
Mastertech:
If I am looking at the complete reproducting system, what am I seeing?
1) a different place (my listening room) than the recorded place (as different than i.e. a church, a concert hall, an open-air area and on). The problem here is not that my room don't have the same sizes, same reverberation factor and on than the recorded place; the problem here is that the stereo principle does not take into consideration the acoustical properties of my listening environment. It is an almost perfect principle only for and in itself.
2) audio manufacturers acting and hardly working on technical features, with the goal to perfectly enhance the technical features needed by the stereo principle.
3) almost nobody asking himself what is the goal of the MUSIC?
I will stop here because the purpose is to point out that reproduced music isn't only for me the accurater transposition of an audio event into my listening room. My goal when listening to recorded music is to enjoy it the best possible by getting the emotion included in the opus.
Straight wire with gain isn't able to plenty satisfy me because my environment doesn't allow me to listen at realistic level: I have a family, neighbors, and my listening room isn't in open air.
Obviously I need accurate and non tiring components, but it's not enough.
Emotion for me comes when ( yes, with good cds, I am not asking for miracles) a system is able to let me really "fall/plunge" into a surrounding musical volume even at low listening level. This needs airy sounds, certainly a physiological fr-range and huge amount of inner-details capability.
My current tweaked Rogers E40a, a classA double push-pull 6L6 integrated gives me almost satisfaction at the moment. Unfortunately I did not find a solid-state that gives me the same pleasure; I listened to Hugh's AKSA 55w nirvana+ and evidently to Greg's SKA: Both have huge qualities, certainly no high priced commercial stuffs I listened to were better. However, even if my tube has more distortions, they are less important for me than its qualities.
I really hope it isn't a matter of tube vs solid-state techs.
As a (very modest) speaker diy guy, I believe particularly in one tech feature...I don't know if you, E guys are working on, but...could time-domain issues be one key?
Linup, post11:
I said my english/american is bad !: "micro-details" = "inner-details".
But you are right, pointing out that the frontier between details and micro-details_ oups, my mistake_ inner-details isn't defined, at least scientifically; so, may I suggest that inner-details could be defined as frequencies which are almost the same than others, i.e. 440, 480, 500, 530 hz, reproduced at the same time and at low spl, WHILE other frequencies i.e. 1200, 1900, 3500hz are reproduced at higher spl...real IM issue...
Mastertech:
I'm going to try to let you know my thoughts about reproduced music IN A DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENT; These are my thoughts and I fully agree that others could be totally opposed to my views...
If I am looking at the complete reproducting system, what am I seeing?
1) a different place (my listening room) than the recorded place (as different than i.e. a church, a concert hall, an open-air area and on). The problem here is not that my room don't have the same sizes, same reverberation factor and on than the recorded place; the problem here is that the stereo principle does not take into consideration the acoustical properties of my listening environment. It is an almost perfect principle only for and in itself.
2) audio manufacturers acting and hardly working on technical features, with the goal to perfectly enhance the technical features needed by the stereo principle.
3) almost nobody asking himself what is the goal of the MUSIC?
I will stop here because the purpose is to point out that reproduced music isn't only for me the accurater transposition of an audio event into my listening room. My goal when listening to recorded music is to enjoy it the best possible by getting the emotion included in the opus.
Straight wire with gain isn't able to plenty satisfy me because my environment doesn't allow me to listen at realistic level: I have a family, neighbors, and my listening room isn't in open air.
Obviously I need accurate and non tiring components, but it's not enough.
Emotion for me comes when ( yes, with good cds, I am not asking for miracles) a system is able to let me really "fall/plunge" into a surrounding musical volume even at low listening level. This needs airy sounds, certainly a physiological fr-range and huge amount of inner-details capability.
My current tweaked Rogers E40a, a classA double push-pull 6L6 integrated gives me almost satisfaction at the moment. Unfortunately I did not find a solid-state that gives me the same pleasure; I listened to Hugh's AKSA 55w nirvana+ and evidently to Greg's SKA: Both have huge qualities, certainly no high priced commercial stuffs I listened to were better. However, even if my tube has more distortions, they are less important for me than its qualities.
I really hope it isn't a matter of tube vs solid-state techs.
As a (very modest) speaker diy guy, I believe particularly in one tech feature...I don't know if you, E guys are working on, but...could time-domain issues be one key?
well without any feelings being hurt how do you compare the ASKA to the SKA ?......I am into heavy loud music,and dynamic HT...My favorites are Rob Zombie, Judas Priest, SOD etc....My speakers are going to be RAW acoustics RA8...I previosly ran the H/K AVR 8000(thier best offered) and Definitive BP10B's.....I am not an audiophile obviously LOL
Hi Hugh,
Yes, I'm still trying to work that out - how to measure such differences. I might point out that the tests were done with a well stabilised nested amplifier configuration that would take all the op-amps tested without alteration. Then it was simply plug and play. we only had one unit so we would turn it off, let it deenergise, plug in the next chip, power it up and listen. Load impedance was high. The differences were small but clearly, and unanimously perceptible.
Unfortunately, I never got around to taking it further. So it remains unsolved. I may have gotten different results with each optimised for the partic op-amp. It was 2 days before the Bangkok Hi Fi show and the pressure was on.
Cheers,
Greg
Yes, I'm still trying to work that out - how to measure such differences. I might point out that the tests were done with a well stabilised nested amplifier configuration that would take all the op-amps tested without alteration. Then it was simply plug and play. we only had one unit so we would turn it off, let it deenergise, plug in the next chip, power it up and listen. Load impedance was high. The differences were small but clearly, and unanimously perceptible.
Unfortunately, I never got around to taking it further. So it remains unsolved. I may have gotten different results with each optimised for the partic op-amp. It was 2 days before the Bangkok Hi Fi show and the pressure was on.
Cheers,
Greg
Greg,
I'm glad you see it the same way. This subjectivity, and lack of metrics, worries me, and I suspect serious designers need to consider how to quantify these effects because they are the root of the subjectivist arguments, which often form the basis of consumer selection.
I guess it's what makes this an art as well as a science.
Cheers,
Hugh
I'm glad you see it the same way. This subjectivity, and lack of metrics, worries me, and I suspect serious designers need to consider how to quantify these effects because they are the root of the subjectivist arguments, which often form the basis of consumer selection.
I guess it's what makes this an art as well as a science.
Cheers,
Hugh
Hi Supertib,
1) as previously said, the SKA was a prototype, not fully completed with top components.
2) I’m working in the intellectual proprietary domain and thus I have a huge respect for creators like Hugh and Greg.
3) Even if the words used to compare two components were right for the majority of listeners, the feeling of the existing differences is mainly a matter of personal taste and/or linked components.
4) I made the listening sessions at low to average spl. However, regarding that both seamed to well control the drivers, I guess it will be no problem at higher spl if your speakers do have average efficiency (say approx 90db), even with heavy metal music.
Thus, my answer will be short:
Both have a large amount of qualities regarding the classical/commonly perceived listening criterions; bandwidth, dynamic, details, soundstages and “fluidity” are top-class: if there are differences in these domains, they are slight.
The main and uncommon qualities are:
- the SKA seams to have really NO distortion at all, giving a very soft listening: if you hear a harsh sound, it doesn’t come from the amp. The sizes of imaging are “true” it’s to say that they grow up very linearly with spl.
When you listen to the SKA, you think: this amp is the “righter” I have never heard because even if there is some lack of what I pointed out in previous posts, you are absolutely unable to find fault with its sound.
- the AKSA has a more generous approach. Its mid-range is very solid, never does it sound lean. However, this particularity isn’t due to a lack of frequencies linearity. Also, and consequently, the sizes of imaging are a bit larger than average.
Hard for me because :
1) as previously said, the SKA was a prototype, not fully completed with top components.
2) I’m working in the intellectual proprietary domain and thus I have a huge respect for creators like Hugh and Greg.
3) Even if the words used to compare two components were right for the majority of listeners, the feeling of the existing differences is mainly a matter of personal taste and/or linked components.
4) I made the listening sessions at low to average spl. However, regarding that both seamed to well control the drivers, I guess it will be no problem at higher spl if your speakers do have average efficiency (say approx 90db), even with heavy metal music.
Thus, my answer will be short:
Both have a large amount of qualities regarding the classical/commonly perceived listening criterions; bandwidth, dynamic, details, soundstages and “fluidity” are top-class: if there are differences in these domains, they are slight.
The main and uncommon qualities are:
- the SKA seams to have really NO distortion at all, giving a very soft listening: if you hear a harsh sound, it doesn’t come from the amp. The sizes of imaging are “true” it’s to say that they grow up very linearly with spl.
When you listen to the SKA, you think: this amp is the “righter” I have never heard because even if there is some lack of what I pointed out in previous posts, you are absolutely unable to find fault with its sound.
- the AKSA has a more generous approach. Its mid-range is very solid, never does it sound lean. However, this particularity isn’t due to a lack of frequencies linearity. Also, and consequently, the sizes of imaging are a bit larger than average.
aksa-Greg,
I'm glad you see it the same way. This subjectivity, and lack of metrics, worries me, and I suspect serious designers need to consider how to quantify these effects because they are the root of the subjectivist arguments, which often form the basis of consumer selection.
I guess it's what makes this an art as well as a science.
Cheers,
Hugh
---------------------------------------------------------------
i asked carzyhub for some clues on that, but obviously the views
of different people will vary and thus argumements flourish, with
that in mind the lack of metrics has again to do with technical
specs people on the subjective camps are reluctant to define such
sound qualities without arguments, i think if we as manufacturers
take time to understand what they are saying we can come up
with the right mixture to satisfy their tastes in music but dont forget a good amp is primarily technical spec dependent without that we have no art
Reagrds
I'm glad you see it the same way. This subjectivity, and lack of metrics, worries me, and I suspect serious designers need to consider how to quantify these effects because they are the root of the subjectivist arguments, which often form the basis of consumer selection.
I guess it's what makes this an art as well as a science.
Cheers,
Hugh
---------------------------------------------------------------
i asked carzyhub for some clues on that, but obviously the views
of different people will vary and thus argumements flourish, with
that in mind the lack of metrics has again to do with technical
specs people on the subjective camps are reluctant to define such
sound qualities without arguments, i think if we as manufacturers
take time to understand what they are saying we can come up
with the right mixture to satisfy their tastes in music but dont forget a good amp is primarily technical spec dependent without that we have no art
Reagrds
So either way the AKSA and the SKA are wonderful designs.....That is good to hear.....but honestly I still don't understand quite what you said LOL.....I am definiteely not the brightest bulb on this tree LOL......but I am glad to be here regardless....
When you say the AKSA is a more generous design, does this meen it seems to be a little more forgiving of poor music source ?
The speakers I am building are a 96db sensitivity psuedo line array, the kit is offered by RAW accoustics called the RA8....This is a Canadian company so I like to deal Canadian when I can
I am a gadget freak, and a newbie to DIY audio, but I am here to learn and play and am not here just to save money...with the being said I am as well am curious about the DEQX systems....which needs me to run a amp for each driver...they suggest using amps to suit each drivers characteristics.......So i was wanting to know how each amp performs and which would be better for what.....I know both are amazing amps I am jusr curious how you would compare them in laymens terms so an average Joe like me could understand.
When you say the AKSA is a more generous design, does this meen it seems to be a little more forgiving of poor music source ?
The speakers I am building are a 96db sensitivity psuedo line array, the kit is offered by RAW accoustics called the RA8....This is a Canadian company so I like to deal Canadian when I can
I am a gadget freak, and a newbie to DIY audio, but I am here to learn and play and am not here just to save money...with the being said I am as well am curious about the DEQX systems....which needs me to run a amp for each driver...they suggest using amps to suit each drivers characteristics.......So i was wanting to know how each amp performs and which would be better for what.....I know both are amazing amps I am jusr curious how you would compare them in laymens terms so an average Joe like me could understand.
Supertib,
Let me just indulge myself and describe the landscape a little.
There are two schools in audio, objective (Greg, SKA) and subjective (Hugh, AKSA). As a general rule, these camps don't talk, and tend to say interesting, colorful things about each other.
The objective school is largely populated with professional sound engineers, usually EEs, who are taught rigorously that if you can't measure anything it isn't there. Their training is very thorough, and highly mathematical in nature. This is all good.
The subjective school is made up of ageing hippies, often unqualified (and often despised!) people, alternative types who like sitting beneath triangles near crystal and razor blades, and a few highly rational audiophiles who have become disillusioned with the math and measure approach of the engineers and marketers. You get the picture. These guys, examples of which might be John Bedini and Shun Mook, say that everything matters, materials, resonance and wire are paramount, and that the figures mean nothing at all, it's all about how it sounds, Daahling......
Obviously a balanced individual would tend to pick the eyes out of both camps, and this is both rational and appealing.
Further complicating this picture is the existence of two completely different technologies - tubes and solid state. And they sound very different, too, with SS giving huge slam, impact and resolution, and tubes giving diminished slam, but marvellous gloss, imaging, engagement and romance to the music.
The measurement of audio amplifiers has until now been confined to frequency response - which is transparent and which has audible effect - and total harmonic distortion, which is vague, imprecise, and appears to bear little correlation with what we actually hear as humans. Practioners like Earl Geddes have done a lot of work on this problem, but it falls to the realm of a sub-discipline called Psychoacoustics which is not the same as audio engineering. There are other tests, too, but they are more esoteric, such as the stability test at 1KHz with square wave into a capacitive load. This test is very useful as speaker loads vary widely. THD is a hotly debated topic, but most designers these days concede that the harmonic structure of the distortion is important, with a low order distortion spread appearing to sound much better than a high order one.
Without playing into the hands of either camp, I would point out that the education process, particularly at Engineering school, tends to constrain options and dampen creativity. This is because for most of the world's technical problems there is a range of tried and tested solutions which are carefully taught and assiduously learned at University. Often the unqualified or 'inadequately educated' are too ignorant to fully understand the important details, so they flail about, trying this and that, and now and again something which works well pops out and eventually, after a lot of educated outrage, it is accepted by the world at large.
In closing, it's important to note that progress depends on unreasonable, often unqualified, men. This is a rephrasal of a GB Shaw comment from last century, but it's very true as the reaonable man seldom deviates from the tried and true pathway by his very nature.
When you invest in a technology you might be interested to understand the philosophy of the designer, because everything flows from the philsophy, regardless. Be assured that although Greg and I are from different camps, we do have quite a bit in common.
Cheers,
Hugh
Let me just indulge myself and describe the landscape a little.
There are two schools in audio, objective (Greg, SKA) and subjective (Hugh, AKSA). As a general rule, these camps don't talk, and tend to say interesting, colorful things about each other.
The objective school is largely populated with professional sound engineers, usually EEs, who are taught rigorously that if you can't measure anything it isn't there. Their training is very thorough, and highly mathematical in nature. This is all good.
The subjective school is made up of ageing hippies, often unqualified (and often despised!) people, alternative types who like sitting beneath triangles near crystal and razor blades, and a few highly rational audiophiles who have become disillusioned with the math and measure approach of the engineers and marketers. You get the picture. These guys, examples of which might be John Bedini and Shun Mook, say that everything matters, materials, resonance and wire are paramount, and that the figures mean nothing at all, it's all about how it sounds, Daahling......
Obviously a balanced individual would tend to pick the eyes out of both camps, and this is both rational and appealing.
Further complicating this picture is the existence of two completely different technologies - tubes and solid state. And they sound very different, too, with SS giving huge slam, impact and resolution, and tubes giving diminished slam, but marvellous gloss, imaging, engagement and romance to the music.
The measurement of audio amplifiers has until now been confined to frequency response - which is transparent and which has audible effect - and total harmonic distortion, which is vague, imprecise, and appears to bear little correlation with what we actually hear as humans. Practioners like Earl Geddes have done a lot of work on this problem, but it falls to the realm of a sub-discipline called Psychoacoustics which is not the same as audio engineering. There are other tests, too, but they are more esoteric, such as the stability test at 1KHz with square wave into a capacitive load. This test is very useful as speaker loads vary widely. THD is a hotly debated topic, but most designers these days concede that the harmonic structure of the distortion is important, with a low order distortion spread appearing to sound much better than a high order one.
Without playing into the hands of either camp, I would point out that the education process, particularly at Engineering school, tends to constrain options and dampen creativity. This is because for most of the world's technical problems there is a range of tried and tested solutions which are carefully taught and assiduously learned at University. Often the unqualified or 'inadequately educated' are too ignorant to fully understand the important details, so they flail about, trying this and that, and now and again something which works well pops out and eventually, after a lot of educated outrage, it is accepted by the world at large.
In closing, it's important to note that progress depends on unreasonable, often unqualified, men. This is a rephrasal of a GB Shaw comment from last century, but it's very true as the reaonable man seldom deviates from the tried and true pathway by his very nature.
When you invest in a technology you might be interested to understand the philosophy of the designer, because everything flows from the philsophy, regardless. Be assured that although Greg and I are from different camps, we do have quite a bit in common.
Cheers,
Hugh
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.