Hot air
Geewhiz,
Meitner has got a very impressive list of clients for a guy who blows hot air.
Just was an observation and not directly relevant to the thing that interested me which was the report from Thorsten about the CD player producing an obvious continuous audio defect lasting for the length of a note, rather than silence.
It seems Meitner's comment about a soprano "shutting down" a CD player fit what Thorsten reported and what I observed from time to time on my old Sony X 555 ES.
His estmation that parts of the CD sysytem that have to with mtors, steppers, etc introduce some sort of electrical product which eventually shows itself in the sound produced isn't unreasonable.
I've never worried about it because it was such a rare occurence and actually the machine sounds pretty decent.
Personally, I think most tweaks are way down on the list of what my system needs. It needs a complete overhall and rethinking because it doesn't sound like what I hear in the live performance space.
There is no list of objective engineering parameters that I know of which will, if I implement them be sure to give me the qualitative increment I want.
On the contrary, there seem to be a lot of schools of thought on the subject. This leads me to believe that indeed the sound reproduction industry is not very advanced in its understanding of what constitutes good sound..
One example. Why on earth would anyone want a flat system frequency response?
For whatever reason it doesn't seem the charactereisics of human hearing - yes, the maligned psychoacoustics - are not consdered systematically?
And, although high level engineering requirements for amplifiers, Xovers,, etc are admirable, it seems to me they should all be subordinated to the nature of human hearing and as far as I can tell, they're not.
I'm stepping ut here but if I'm to build a system that does this,before I die I gotta get some input.
In the meantime I gotta go out and make the money to pay for it.
Geewhiz,
Meitner has got a very impressive list of clients for a guy who blows hot air.
Just was an observation and not directly relevant to the thing that interested me which was the report from Thorsten about the CD player producing an obvious continuous audio defect lasting for the length of a note, rather than silence.
It seems Meitner's comment about a soprano "shutting down" a CD player fit what Thorsten reported and what I observed from time to time on my old Sony X 555 ES.
His estmation that parts of the CD sysytem that have to with mtors, steppers, etc introduce some sort of electrical product which eventually shows itself in the sound produced isn't unreasonable.
I've never worried about it because it was such a rare occurence and actually the machine sounds pretty decent.
Personally, I think most tweaks are way down on the list of what my system needs. It needs a complete overhall and rethinking because it doesn't sound like what I hear in the live performance space.
There is no list of objective engineering parameters that I know of which will, if I implement them be sure to give me the qualitative increment I want.
On the contrary, there seem to be a lot of schools of thought on the subject. This leads me to believe that indeed the sound reproduction industry is not very advanced in its understanding of what constitutes good sound..
One example. Why on earth would anyone want a flat system frequency response?
For whatever reason it doesn't seem the charactereisics of human hearing - yes, the maligned psychoacoustics - are not consdered systematically?
And, although high level engineering requirements for amplifiers, Xovers,, etc are admirable, it seems to me they should all be subordinated to the nature of human hearing and as far as I can tell, they're not.
I'm stepping ut here but if I'm to build a system that does this,before I die I gotta get some input.
In the meantime I gotta go out and make the money to pay for it.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
There's your answer then, buy a cheap DVD player 'cos they can read CDs much better than audiophool CD players. Glad we're clear on that! 😀
Konnichiwa,
Hold on. You are again muddeling the issue.
Tweaks may or may not be elaborate or expensie or they may be simple and cheap (I much prefer the latter).
I took exception to your a priori and ex cathedra pronouncement that certain things where logically impossible.
Hold on. I pointed out that I had observed on occasion issues around this (the occasions are rare) and suggested the process not as prooved audible issue, but as a LOGICALLY POSSIBLE PROCESS. I believe it has been shown that the process is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, if not particulary likely (that being something which does deserve more research IMHO BTW, as it would explain a few hard to explain audible effects).
In the process a number of other possible issues have been raised. They may equally not be overly likely or they may be, however, THEY ARE LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.
From that I would take the point that your statement of post # 488:
http://diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=469633#post469633
namely that:
Well, the 0.00002Hz Jitter are according to my Excel Calaculation equivalent to 1,000 PicoSecond timeshift. It is generally aknoweged thatmore than around 100pS Jitter can degrade 16-Bit accuracy which in turn can be audible.
Again you show a rather profound ignorance of any facts, disappointing for someone with a masters degree in "almost the same thing as a degree in Physics". BTW I also wonder why you find it neccesary to regulary bang on about it.
I have a degree in this and another in that and extensively study all sorts of other things but I do not feel the need to tell everyone about it. Considering the general standards for a masters degree anyway, it's hardly anything to shout about. I suspect that about halve the people here on the board will have a masters in something that they can conscrue to be "almost the same thing as a degree in Physics".
Anyway, I figure "Point proven" on several levels and issues.
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
Hold on. You are again muddeling the issue.
Tweaks may or may not be elaborate or expensie or they may be simple and cheap (I much prefer the latter).
I took exception to your a priori and ex cathedra pronouncement that certain things where logically impossible.
geewhizbang said:
Hold on. I pointed out that I had observed on occasion issues around this (the occasions are rare) and suggested the process not as prooved audible issue, but as a LOGICALLY POSSIBLE PROCESS. I believe it has been shown that the process is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, if not particulary likely (that being something which does deserve more research IMHO BTW, as it would explain a few hard to explain audible effects).
In the process a number of other possible issues have been raised. They may equally not be overly likely or they may be, however, THEY ARE LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.
From that I would take the point that your statement of post # 488:
http://diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=469633#post469633
namely that:
geewhizbang in post # 488[/i] [B]There is absolutely no cause / effect mechanism that could change the sound with these feet.[/B][/QUOTE] Has been illustrated as being counterfactual thinking. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by geewhizbang said:
Well, the 0.00002Hz Jitter are according to my Excel Calaculation equivalent to 1,000 PicoSecond timeshift. It is generally aknoweged thatmore than around 100pS Jitter can degrade 16-Bit accuracy which in turn can be audible.
Again you show a rather profound ignorance of any facts, disappointing for someone with a masters degree in "almost the same thing as a degree in Physics". BTW I also wonder why you find it neccesary to regulary bang on about it.
I have a degree in this and another in that and extensively study all sorts of other things but I do not feel the need to tell everyone about it. Considering the general standards for a masters degree anyway, it's hardly anything to shout about. I suspect that about halve the people here on the board will have a masters in something that they can conscrue to be "almost the same thing as a degree in Physics".
Anyway, I figure "Point proven" on several levels and issues.
Sayonara
Ultimately, I agree.
The problem however is you have to be sure you actually know all laws of physics and the way they interact with what you hear. Which you don't.
Most laws of physics were discovered by conducting an experiment which was in contradiction with the currently known laws. A new theorie was then worked out and proven with further experiments. A good example for this is the refinement of the atomic model in the last century.
Listening for me is a perfectly valid experiment. If what I hear is in contradiction with the audio laws of physics, I can't stop myself hearing it in much the same way a physicist wouldn't put his instruments aside when he measures something which doesn't match his expectations.
When you refuse to accept experiments that give results opposite to what laws of physics tell you, you're not acting like a scientisc. You're acting like the churches who continued to tell people the earth was a disc until it became absolutely obvious to everyone they were wrong.
As for the "digital or mechanical stuff in a CD player has no influence on the sound" nonsense, I can only shake my head. You don't even need to listen, you can prove this with instruments. Jitter, power supply issues, electromagnetic fields, mechanical vibrations, lots of ways to disturb the analog part of the player. It's not only the bits that matter.
Quoting Einstein: Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Jitter has a spectrum and is measured as time, not frequency. I have a pilot licence, so I should know. 😀
Konnichiwa,
Well, surprise, surprise. I have one. An Early Pioneer which does apply asyncronous operation on CD replay and tends to sound better than many a dedicated and expensive transport I tried (it did have some tweaks, admittedly).
I don't use it as often, as the modified Shanling Players I have around seem to do a pretty good job on "dodgy" CD's too and I like the way they sound and look.
But yes, for many people I would suggest the right sort of inexpensive DVD Player as transport a pretty good choice, as these happen to have exactly what geewhizbang was pontificating all CD Players should have. Then solve the clock problem (the 27MHz PLL derived CD replay clock is rather nasty - several 1,000ps Jitter almost garanteed) and you have a pretty good transport.
Sayonara
arniel said:
Well, surprise, surprise. I have one. An Early Pioneer which does apply asyncronous operation on CD replay and tends to sound better than many a dedicated and expensive transport I tried (it did have some tweaks, admittedly).
I don't use it as often, as the modified Shanling Players I have around seem to do a pretty good job on "dodgy" CD's too and I like the way they sound and look.
But yes, for many people I would suggest the right sort of inexpensive DVD Player as transport a pretty good choice, as these happen to have exactly what geewhizbang was pontificating all CD Players should have. Then solve the clock problem (the 27MHz PLL derived CD replay clock is rather nasty - several 1,000ps Jitter almost garanteed) and you have a pretty good transport.
Sayonara
OliverD said:
True but jitter has a frequency distribution i.e, for 1khz - x ps, 5 khz - y ps !
Now I know why I don't like flying ;-)
I think that every inhabitant of this forum experiment a lot. What seems to be different is how much one let itself be fooled of once observations.
/
I think this jitter discussion is interesting, since I am rather new to this subject. So we have shown that the clock accuracy of a quartz oscillator is one part in 10,000,000,000; which is 100 picoseconds.
So now we are actually down to proving whether this happens or not with a real, scientifically validated listening test? Or does someone else with a bit better understanding of how the DAC chip works have something to say.
I also wonder how the clock matters that much since the WHOLE chip is working on the same clock. As long as the clock is reasonably stable, how is the jitter affecting athe D/A conversion?
This is a question, btw. I'm asking it because I haven't found the answer yet.
I really don't know the answer to this, despite my opposition to some of the other explanations, I really don't have my mind made up on this. If there are some rational explanations, I AM willing to change my opinions to match the facts.
So now we are actually down to proving whether this happens or not with a real, scientifically validated listening test? Or does someone else with a bit better understanding of how the DAC chip works have something to say.
I also wonder how the clock matters that much since the WHOLE chip is working on the same clock. As long as the clock is reasonably stable, how is the jitter affecting athe D/A conversion?
This is a question, btw. I'm asking it because I haven't found the answer yet.
I really don't know the answer to this, despite my opposition to some of the other explanations, I really don't have my mind made up on this. If there are some rational explanations, I AM willing to change my opinions to match the facts.
The correct sample put out at the wrong time is like a wrong sample.
The A/D conversion during recording took snapshots of the waveform - at points in time 1 / 44100 Hz apart. If we play back and our clock jitters, some samples are put out too early, others too late. While the sample (read amplitude value) as such might be perfectly correct, playing it back at the wrong point of time will distort the waveform.
It's actually quite simple and you can calculate the jitter level at which 16bit resolution is affected. It is signal-dependant.
There are two points where jitter matters: At the ADC during recording and at the DAC during playback. Everything in between is irrelevant as long as no bit errors are induced.
However, everything that affects the clock during playback, be it mechanical vibrations, a dirty supply, electromagnetic fields, will have an impact on sound. If the servo circuitry in a CD player works harder when playing back bad CDs, the clock might have a higher jitter level due to a more noisy supply.
The A/D conversion during recording took snapshots of the waveform - at points in time 1 / 44100 Hz apart. If we play back and our clock jitters, some samples are put out too early, others too late. While the sample (read amplitude value) as such might be perfectly correct, playing it back at the wrong point of time will distort the waveform.
It's actually quite simple and you can calculate the jitter level at which 16bit resolution is affected. It is signal-dependant.
There are two points where jitter matters: At the ADC during recording and at the DAC during playback. Everything in between is irrelevant as long as no bit errors are induced.
However, everything that affects the clock during playback, be it mechanical vibrations, a dirty supply, electromagnetic fields, will have an impact on sound. If the servo circuitry in a CD player works harder when playing back bad CDs, the clock might have a higher jitter level due to a more noisy supply.
My arguments are not pointless. If there is no sonic effect from some of your fondest tweaks, then it would be better to figure this out rather than continue to ignore reality.
If they do have the effect you are saying, then some of us will be glad to implement them. But it is extremely easy to fool yourself when you have invested effort into doing a tweak, Peter.
You have a stunning lack of desire to do reproducable tests to prove your assertions. And you make very strong assertions, too.
Since you have a stash of such components and/or tweaks that you build and sell, it would be very easy for you to build such an setup and do a proper ABX test of some of the things you assert so strongly. There are probably some other DIY members in your area that would find it fun to participate in a properly controlled test of these things.
I'm just suggesting that you should try some scientific method. You can safely ignore science and do some random things and hopefully get some accidental results that work. But it has to be independently confirmed by something other than non-blinded "listening tests" that don't separate out the psychoacoustic factor that so often contaminates these results.
We can then follow the result back and try to find theories that explain the finding. But at the moment, because you are so unwilling to let your pet theories get properly tested, we cannot know whether it really works or not.
If they do have the effect you are saying, then some of us will be glad to implement them. But it is extremely easy to fool yourself when you have invested effort into doing a tweak, Peter.
You have a stunning lack of desire to do reproducable tests to prove your assertions. And you make very strong assertions, too.
Since you have a stash of such components and/or tweaks that you build and sell, it would be very easy for you to build such an setup and do a proper ABX test of some of the things you assert so strongly. There are probably some other DIY members in your area that would find it fun to participate in a properly controlled test of these things.
I'm just suggesting that you should try some scientific method. You can safely ignore science and do some random things and hopefully get some accidental results that work. But it has to be independently confirmed by something other than non-blinded "listening tests" that don't separate out the psychoacoustic factor that so often contaminates these results.
We can then follow the result back and try to find theories that explain the finding. But at the moment, because you are so unwilling to let your pet theories get properly tested, we cannot know whether it really works or not.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Then I suppose I simply misinterpreted your previous statemets:
"They are high enough to shift from error correction to concealement readily on absolutely immaculate CD's, freshly pressed. Adding micro surface scratces and vibration to the mix would make a switch to concealement on a pretty regular basis more or less mandatory."
Now, perhaps this is a failing of language, but it sure seemed when you said the failure of error correction occured readily that this indicated a belief that it happened often, on a variety of players, with a variety of brand new discs. It now appears that your observation came from an isolated player, which hardly constitutes grounds to categorize the condition as occuring readily, as you tried to do. Further, you then stated that adding vibration to the mix results in pretty much mandatory failure of error correction, which would certainly lead one to believe that you had either personally witnessed this behavior on practically all of a large number of players and discs, or had a suitable resource that did as much. Again, a single data point is pretty weak grounds for making such bold claims. My own limited testing suggests otherwise, but I'm always open to additional data.
While you may very well be correct, I note that it is interesting a $50 DVD player could have asyncronous read capability with relatively low uncorrectable error rates playing CD's, while comparatively priced (and indeed even significantly more expensive, as you implied) players whose only purpose is to play CD's would not.
That is correct. I observed very little vibration induced single bit and small cluster errors on either of the two CD players used, one being one of the first produced (which did surprise me). Large sample holds and mutes were common once some threshold of vibration was reached (which was lower for the Technics player, but otherwise it had the same gross behavior).
Yes, if I understand the question properly. I did find some moderately damaged discs that had a relatively consistent percentage of uncorrected bit errors, which seemed to be independent of vibration. And the particular bits in error were not consistent from one read to the next on these discs, only the stastical percentage.
Of course it can logically happen. However, the probability is small, as it requires a disc scratched on that fine line between just correctable and not, where small vibrations were enough to push the error correction over the line, and with sufficient frequency of uncorrectable errors (i.e., sufficiently smooth distribution of "on-the-fence" scratches) to cause a continued perceptual degredation of the sound quality (more than one per second... we're talking dozens to hundreds, or more, of small cluster or single bit interpolations per second without hitting the muting limit). On top of that list of requirements is my personal experience that vibration does not cause such behavior, as was evidenced by a rather abrupt shift from no bit errors to large hold-samples and muting.
Of course, what we are really talking about is audibility. And if you believe Shakti stones and magic crystals placed around the room affect the sound, then I see no reason why believing in error-correction and vibration coupled quality reductions would be a stretch.
I have not been unreasonable at all. I may have an opinion different from yours, but I am willing to change it if I see some evidence that you're right.
About the only thing that we are left with about the pointy feet is clock jitter. I still have my doubts that micophonic issues could affect this much, but I am willing to take back some of my earlier statements that they made no sense at all.
So I have learned something from this.
But we are a long ways from proving an effect. We only have the possibility of an effect, and it still seems like a big stretch to me.
About the only thing that we are left with about the pointy feet is clock jitter. I still have my doubts that micophonic issues could affect this much, but I am willing to take back some of my earlier statements that they made no sense at all.
So I have learned something from this.
But we are a long ways from proving an effect. We only have the possibility of an effect, and it still seems like a big stretch to me.
Gee, what have you tried, what have you heard, what have you designed? PLEASE, give me some reason to take you seriously. Your degree? Well, most of us have degrees and with experience as well.
geewhizbang said:
It's possible to make a very nice quartz oscillator, but you'd be amazed at how horrible the ones in consumer CD players are. They apply high amplitude square waves to the poor little crystal, have no amplitude stabilisation, sink currents in odd places (thank you, ALW), drive from impedances that lower the Q, and don't put the crystal in a temperature controlled oven. And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. An ovenised crystal, driven with low amplitude sine waves with low impedances either end (crystals are best used series resonant), and proper RF layout can be remarkably stable over both the short and long term.
The trouble is, digital audio converts voltage resolution into timing resolution, so timing errors are directly converted into voltage errors. Over the long term (more than a few seconds), even a crude crystal oscillator is stable - otherwise we couldn't use them as watches. But the short term stability of a crude oscillator shows up as poor skirts on spectrum analysis.
Konnichiwa,
Let's agree that this was overstated.
Regulary was intended as "it does happen pretty often" but not included was the qualification of non-pristine disks. A CD that is free from pressing errors and not scrached will likely play rather well. However, if I look under decent magnification at my favourite CD's (nothing to say of my wifes) I find them fairly scratched, despite me taking pretty reasonable care. Pressing problems are not that rare however. Most of my CD's tend to be "popular" music, compared to my LP collection which is mostly "serious" music.... ;-)
I agree that this is highly interesting, though it should be noted that it is the result of costcutting and as such not aimed at making CD replay good (that is an incidental part) but at playing DVD's and using most of the same silicon, the same laser, servos etc. for CD Replay that normally work for DVD, which means the 12MB on board RAM Buffer is suitably filled with audio data.
Sadly even the highest high end CD Players are usually limited to using basic parts (Mechanisms, servo/decoder IC's etc.) from the general market, so what is made for the mass market makes it's mark everywhere, regardless of cost. I am aware only of Meridian who basically build an Audio Computer that uses generic CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drives and uses asyncronous reads etc. Considering that a simple PC with a good digital interface card and external clock input can perform as well they do seem rather charge a lot for the privilege, but that is high end for you.
Interesting. Both the absence of a distinct reaction to vibration and the randomess of the error. I think I'll have to find the time to do some testing slong these lines myself. If we find a simialr picture we may very well have to lay a perfectly logical theory to rest. It's a shame, it did happen to have the benefit of fitting many of the observed facts, but such is life.
Fine. I live with that. As other also said, not all CD Players and all ECC Schemes are created equal.
Not quite. We where talking about a possible and logical physical explanation. I believe that we both agree that it fits the part of possible and physical. It also seems from your experiments that is not much more than logical and possible, because it seems unlikely from your test data.
I do not believe that Crystals placed around the room directly effect the sound at all. I have found that their placeent does seem to aid general well being and relaxation and reduces stress levels and appears to do so in my wife even when not observed (blind). I readily agree that the experiment is not very significant but they look pretty and seem to work (and are cheap), so that's good enough for me to assign a potential effect and I can live not knowing with certainty if the effect is real or reverse psychology.
As to Shakti, I said repeatedly that I have no opinion as I have insufficient data both theoretically and practically. As such without data I cannot frm an opinion and must withold any comment. I am not overly keen in evaluating these stones either, so they would have to come my way.
However, I do not accept and like a behaviour that declares anything about which no opinion can be formed and no statement made to be fraud and and insists any effects must be imagined. Such behaviour is unscientific, moronic and to me personally offensive.
I can live with strong statements of scepticism (including Randi's "If you want ME to believe show me!") but find dogmatic religeous negation ("It is not written so it must not be") beyond the pale, for a scientific and enquiring mind and approriate only for religeous fanatics (the same hold of course equally for their inversion - "It is written on the net everywhere and hence it must be").
Sayonara
RHosch said:
Let's agree that this was overstated.
Regulary was intended as "it does happen pretty often" but not included was the qualification of non-pristine disks. A CD that is free from pressing errors and not scrached will likely play rather well. However, if I look under decent magnification at my favourite CD's (nothing to say of my wifes) I find them fairly scratched, despite me taking pretty reasonable care. Pressing problems are not that rare however. Most of my CD's tend to be "popular" music, compared to my LP collection which is mostly "serious" music.... ;-)
RHosch said:
I agree that this is highly interesting, though it should be noted that it is the result of costcutting and as such not aimed at making CD replay good (that is an incidental part) but at playing DVD's and using most of the same silicon, the same laser, servos etc. for CD Replay that normally work for DVD, which means the 12MB on board RAM Buffer is suitably filled with audio data.
Sadly even the highest high end CD Players are usually limited to using basic parts (Mechanisms, servo/decoder IC's etc.) from the general market, so what is made for the mass market makes it's mark everywhere, regardless of cost. I am aware only of Meridian who basically build an Audio Computer that uses generic CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drives and uses asyncronous reads etc. Considering that a simple PC with a good digital interface card and external clock input can perform as well they do seem rather charge a lot for the privilege, but that is high end for you.
RHosch said:
Interesting. Both the absence of a distinct reaction to vibration and the randomess of the error. I think I'll have to find the time to do some testing slong these lines myself. If we find a simialr picture we may very well have to lay a perfectly logical theory to rest. It's a shame, it did happen to have the benefit of fitting many of the observed facts, but such is life.
RHosch said:
Fine. I live with that. As other also said, not all CD Players and all ECC Schemes are created equal.
RHosch said:
Not quite. We where talking about a possible and logical physical explanation. I believe that we both agree that it fits the part of possible and physical. It also seems from your experiments that is not much more than logical and possible, because it seems unlikely from your test data.
RHosch said:
I do not believe that Crystals placed around the room directly effect the sound at all. I have found that their placeent does seem to aid general well being and relaxation and reduces stress levels and appears to do so in my wife even when not observed (blind). I readily agree that the experiment is not very significant but they look pretty and seem to work (and are cheap), so that's good enough for me to assign a potential effect and I can live not knowing with certainty if the effect is real or reverse psychology.
As to Shakti, I said repeatedly that I have no opinion as I have insufficient data both theoretically and practically. As such without data I cannot frm an opinion and must withold any comment. I am not overly keen in evaluating these stones either, so they would have to come my way.
However, I do not accept and like a behaviour that declares anything about which no opinion can be formed and no statement made to be fraud and and insists any effects must be imagined. Such behaviour is unscientific, moronic and to me personally offensive.
I can live with strong statements of scepticism (including Randi's "If you want ME to believe show me!") but find dogmatic religeous negation ("It is not written so it must not be") beyond the pale, for a scientific and enquiring mind and approriate only for religeous fanatics (the same hold of course equally for their inversion - "It is written on the net everywhere and hence it must be").
Sayonara
John Curl said:
Gee, what have you tried, what have you heard, what have you designed? PLEASE, give me some reason to take you seriously. Your degree?
Is this a variation of "I am the Great and Powerful OZ."?
Well, most of us have degrees and with experience as well.
But how amny of have the bad luck of having a $500.00 phono preamp sound exactly a $5000.00 phono preamp.
It is possible to know the truth without being you.
Gee, what have you tried, what have you heard, what have you designed? PLEASE, give me some reason to take you seriously. Your degree?
Is this a variation of "I am the Great and Powerful OZ."?
Well, most of us have degrees and with experience as well.
But how amny of have the bad luck of having a $500.00 phono preamp sound exactly a $5000.00 phono preamp.
It is possible to know the truth without being you.
I have built some rather kewl-looking and good-sounding speakers.
Back in 1984 I built and sold several subwoofer/satellite systems.
It is so much nicer now having so many sites like this to share ideas.
Back in 1984 I built and sold several subwoofer/satellite systems.
It is so much nicer now having so many sites like this to share ideas.
I would have given a few vital organs in those days to have resources like this. Working in isolation sucks.
Folks, I just read a 'Positive Feedback' article of an interview with Ed Meitner.
This guy knows his stuff, and I learned a lot from him as well as independently agreed with him on many opinions. What a guy! I wish that I knew him better. I would be proud to associate myself with him.
This guy knows his stuff, and I learned a lot from him as well as independently agreed with him on many opinions. What a guy! I wish that I knew him better. I would be proud to associate myself with him.
john curl said:
John,
How about this revolutionary idea: You could judge a guy on the basis of the reasoning of his posts, his logical arguments, and the consistency of his displayed opinions across the discussions.
Degrees are nothing else than a paper stating that you fullfilled the requirements to get a degree. Nothing less, nothing more.
Jan Didden
Unfortunately, I find only negative, sophomoric, opinion here. It is pointless.
But for the record, I consider the prerequisites of education, experience, innovation, and success as important factors in understanding someone and their opinions on a subject. Meitner for example, fulfills these catagories successfully, yet even he has been criticized on this thread. What did he do to deserve this? Think about and improve audio products? Is that a valid criticism?
But for the record, I consider the prerequisites of education, experience, innovation, and success as important factors in understanding someone and their opinions on a subject. Meitner for example, fulfills these catagories successfully, yet even he has been criticized on this thread. What did he do to deserve this? Think about and improve audio products? Is that a valid criticism?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.