I have always considered your observations to be worth consideration.
I have found at times your test methodology to be questionable, specifically when extraordinary means are attempted..but have always lauded your efforts to extend the knowledge base.
I have found you tend to reject physics explanations I give which do not agree with your preconceived notions, but I'm willing to bet a lot of your bias there is a result of our contentious history..
But I have always valued your inputs. I may not agree with all of them when it falls within my domain and is inaccurate, but you have always been worth the read.
cheers, j
Yes, John!
And if you don't mind, let me repeat my question: if today swomebody gave you unlimited budget and said, "Design whatever you want", what would you design?
Don't worry John, your efforts are not in vain, and I for one thank you for your efforts.
dennis
I have designed amps like you are talking about, Wavebourn. Personally, I go for 4 quadrant, Class A- , all fet, with circuit breaker current limiting. I built one for VMPS in about 1980, with 3 air blown heatsinks. Something the size of a refrigerator for Dick Sequerra about 10 years later. I would do it even better, today.
In Europe, if it draws more than 200 Watt. Or is it worldwide now?
Looks like I bought last Denon amp for my home theater without SMPS with power factor corectional facility.
Mine have warranty some several years, but I forgot where I put that paper. And don't know what to do when they go out of business (it reads Masterclad on bottom), also receipts from Costco don't live long enough, because of thermo-printers that they use in stores, how to prove the purchase? They all require to prove purchase, as if somebody would claim warranty on stolen production. I tried to get warranty on Samsung printer that powers off immediately after powering on, but don't have that receipt... Can't open the case without it.
Sy,
A true skeptik would indeed react like that. However, I have had repeat discussions with you specifically about subjects where there is no need for wild theories and all the evidence you need is based in EE101 only to have you flatly deny the reality of it (hint, gridchokes, 16 Bit Audio etc. et al).
Ciao T
A true skeptik would indeed react like that. However, I have had repeat discussions with you specifically about subjects where there is no need for wild theories and all the evidence you need is based in EE101 only to have you flatly deny the reality of it (hint, gridchokes, 16 Bit Audio etc. et al).
Ciao T
Hi,
There are several issues, expectation bias is one, inappropriate statistics (that is the risk of type B statistical errors [incorrectly failing to reject the null hypothesis] is much greater than of type A statistical errors [incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis]), all of which come before the sensationalist and circus side show way they go about things...
Ciao T
There are several issues, expectation bias is one, inappropriate statistics (that is the risk of type B statistical errors [incorrectly failing to reject the null hypothesis] is much greater than of type A statistical errors [incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis]), all of which come before the sensationalist and circus side show way they go about things...
Ciao T
I find I disagree - a true skeptic would not qualify the word 'evidence' with the word 'good'. That's here a weasel word to dismiss some evidence subjectively deemed 'bad'.
Hi,
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think it is warranted and I have discussed what constitutes in my eyes "organised scientific crime" on the side of this group, sufficient to warrant the appellation.
Let me put it as delicate as I can. As long as you do not protest when some call others snake oil merchants or even fraudsters or suggest that they are delusional, in public. And as long as you do not do so, in these cases insist people should stick discussing facts, I feel you lack the moral power to demand it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Shall we agree that I will stick with facts and subjects (which I would by far prefer to wasting and lay off the name calling well, lets say about 48 Hours after the last use of "Snake Oil Merchant" or "Fraudster" or "Delusion" (or equivalent characterisations) on these boards, something you surely must agree is a fair request?
One more fact.
They have been told enough times that they MUST KNOW this.
And another fact.
Despite knowing this they continue to promote their methods and they continue to present their results as the scientific gold standard.
And another fact.
They are fond of calling those who they disagree with Snakeoil Merchants and other unflattering epithets, meaning they are "fair game" for a bit of the same, with due respect.
Do we need to go on?
I find ABX-something more pointed, pithy and funnier.
If in doubt I always go with funny...
Ciao T
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think it is warranted and I have discussed what constitutes in my eyes "organised scientific crime" on the side of this group, sufficient to warrant the appellation.
Let me put it as delicate as I can. As long as you do not protest when some call others snake oil merchants or even fraudsters or suggest that they are delusional, in public. And as long as you do not do so, in these cases insist people should stick discussing facts, I feel you lack the moral power to demand it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Shall we agree that I will stick with facts and subjects (which I would by far prefer to wasting and lay off the name calling well, lets say about 48 Hours after the last use of "Snake Oil Merchant" or "Fraudster" or "Delusion" (or equivalent characterisations) on these boards, something you surely must agree is a fair request?
One more fact.
They have been told enough times that they MUST KNOW this.
And another fact.
Despite knowing this they continue to promote their methods and they continue to present their results as the scientific gold standard.
And another fact.
They are fond of calling those who they disagree with Snakeoil Merchants and other unflattering epithets, meaning they are "fair game" for a bit of the same, with due respect.
Do we need to go on?
I find ABX-something more pointed, pithy and funnier.
If in doubt I always go with funny...
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.