I've got a blog commentary running on it at the moment, check it out - so far, no hardware fiddles whatsoever, purely conditioning and software adjustments and settings. IOW, anybody else should be able to do the like, and get similar results ...
You obviously overlooked all of the uses of "or" in the complete passage.
My use of the word "charlatan" stems from the definitions given in my two long time primary sources; the Compact Oxford English Dictionary I bought some time back in the '80s, and the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary I was given for Christmas in 1983.
From Oxford:
3. An assuming empty pretender to knowledge or skill ; a pretentious imposter
From Webster's:
2 : one making usu. showy pretenses to knowledge or ability
Oh, and from my treasured Webster's New International Dictionary Unabridged, from 1935:
Orig., one who prates much in public, making unwarrantable pretentions, esp. as a vendor of remedies; hence a quack; now, esp., a pretender to knowledge or ability.
Nothing inherently to do with fraud as some are trying to portray. If I had any intent to imply fraud, I would have simply used the word "fraud." I didn't because I feel Richard genuinely believes the nonsense he often spews.
I would argue that these definitions of charlatan are not only a good and appropriate fit for both Richard and John, but a good portion of the whole "high end" audio industry.
So, say what you will. I'm sticking with charlatan.
se
I had dinner once with the late Joseph Goguen, who was visiting UCLA teaching computer science. On the side he also became the editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and when I learned this I bought back issues and subscribed for a while. He was promoting the imminent visit of a Tibetan Buddhist, the umpteenth-something Gwalya Karmapa. I don't think I gave him any money, but I did pick up the tab for dinner and a surfeit of wine. We then went across the street in west LA to the San Francisco Saloon Co., where I ordered cognac and had a fruit fly in each snifter---which then led to a third snifter gratis. Oh dear. I did get home o.k.
Joe had done his dissertation on putting fuzzy sets into the framework of category theory, under the direction of Saunders Mac Lane (see Saunders Mac Lane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
The great thing about Lofti Zadeh's fuzzy set theory are all the jokes and puns one can make about fuzzy thinkers, aided by terminology such as "fuzzification".
Yes. And it's not as if I simply called Richard a charlatan and said nothing else. I have also been speaking directly to his arguments. For example my asking him how he was able to isolate DA as the source of the distortion he was claiming to have measured and attributing it to DA.
He's gone completely silent on that matter in spite of my having made several attempts to get an answer from him.
That in itself is characteristic of charlatanry. So I don't see why my use of the word charlatan should cause such a fuss.
se
I had a quick look around, over a number of online dictionaries, and a key, common element is that of "deception", and a secondary one is "gain" of some type. Neither is relevant here, so it still does not fit ...
After reading about him in Bart Kosko's excellent book I also wrote 'Lofti' I think more than once. But actually his name's 'Lotfi' (contraction of 'Lotfali'). 'Lofti' trips so much easier off the tongue though...😛
Being characteristic of something else does not make it the same thing ... a logical fallacy, perhaps ... ?
Good. You can start by answering the technical question I have put to you several times now.
How were you able to isolate DA as being the cause of the distortion you claim to have measured and attributed it to DA and saying the models for DA need to be revised because of this distortion?
se
Saying something is characteristic of something is not the same thing as saying they are the same thing.
No, just poor English comprehension on your part. And that's the last bowl of Purina Troll Chow you'll be getting from me, so make it last.
se
I have found that it is very clean coming in on the ac lines.... if you live in a house and not an apartment or condo where neighbors are very close and little attenuation of HF and RF between you and next prop owner. Other wise all the noise in the home comes from electronics in the home. CPU's, wall-worts, lamp dimmers (cheaper the noisier), TV, smps, digital products in general.
Its all on line and you can see it come and go as you turn on and off the noise makers. It can and will get into your audio amp... esp PA and increase its distortion... apparently, audibly... according to some guru's. With my test equipment, I know the freq and thus can make a line filter to remove it.
But, there is more to it than that. Each noisy A-V gear that puts noise on the ac line cannot go to a power strip which puts all the gears combined noise in parallel on the strip to be distributed to everything. Each noisy gear can be individually filtered. This is the basis of my contribution to audio... isolated filtering is needed.
One filter for incoming noise and then a buss for all the other plugged in gear is wrong.
It was assumed that noise came in on the ac lines but I found that isnt generally the case and made products thru others to filter the frequencies I found and isolated them as well. Then you can throw in surge protection if you like. That itself is non trivial and needs UL testing and meet their test requirments to pass.
Often everything is fine with the audio and the video until they are connected together and share or create ground loops..... antenna/cable ground, power ground, signal ground etal. There are some solutions I worked up for that but first things first.... individual noise filtering on the worst noise generators.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Yes. And same goes for calling someone a charlatan.
This is not an argument I've made here.
Personal attacks, harrassment and bullying don't lead to interesting discussion however personally satisfying it is to vent spleen.
Yes. A very large part of how I've get "cheap" equipment to sit up when I want it to is taking special care to get all of that side of things to be as minimal in impact as possible. The components themselves will not be well isolated, and will easily spew forth unsavoury electrical crap - just taking every sensible step one can think of can make a remarkable difference, it's quite satisfying to hear the quality of the sound snap into shape when the last gremlin is dealt with ...
Not for you.... you are on my sh*t list for now; besides, I already said I used a LeCroy scope with FFT and the test circuit is all in the TAS article... just add FFT. You can figure that much out and duplicate it yourself.
Now you can argue that it isnt right way or doesnt matter for some reason or its all wrong.... what-ever.... fine. After 30 years, I am not interested any more.... esp not in your opinion.
THx-RNMarsh
That's how you collect distortion data, but the question is, how do you assign the distortion to DA rather than some other phenomenon or phenomena?
Ok. So you're saying there's simply no legitimate use for the terms "thief" and "charlatan?"
Charlatans don't typically make for interesting discussions. They're too busy throwing up smoke screens and other obfuscations. So should they just be kept off the forums?
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.