I am wondering if the complaints about Jakob arise more because people have a negative biased/emotional reaction to reading information they don't like hearing about, or if the information is technically wrong. Seems like a lot of it has to do with his delivery style not being liked, not truth of the technical claims.
Much simpler to get the answer if you ask, "Is there some specific technical or research claim Jakob made that is true?"
In your opinion, of course. You shill for jam's audio business so you should know what Jakob is doing since he shills for another audio business.
Ah,the gossip twins are reunited.
syn08 and Evenharmonics what an unlikely pair.
Markw4, asking the twins for facts is so ....1980s like; today "have you heard the rumours about denial in other forums uh hu?" counts as sufficient evidence in their section. 😉
syn08 and Evenharmonics what an unlikely pair.
Markw4, asking the twins for facts is so ....1980s like; today "have you heard the rumours about denial in other forums uh hu?" counts as sufficient evidence in their section. 😉
You are, in a sense, correct... I don't want/like to hear about Oohashi anymore, that paper is technically wrong anyway you are looking at it. Spending an Internet life defending that piece of junk is sad and it bores me to tears.
Oh, and talking about
You are not that one, at least since you like the sound of 7805 over a modern LDO.
Last edited:
If I am allowed to answer, yes, some theoretical aspects that Jakob(x) is showing are correct. Unfortunately, they are most of the time barely relevant, and when they are, they are used as a bat argument to discredit any attempt to objectively analyze any SQ aspect. The "positive controls" comes to mind.
Everything in a thick sauce of FUD, of course, where the subjective SQ crapola is always placed on the same level of credibility with any attempt (even imperfect) of objectivity.
True, for one particular application. I like LDOs better in many other cases.
Seems to me there are some audio circuit loads that don't have much PSRR and that interact oddly with their voltage regulator, is all.
Clearly obvious it is very non-ideal behavior.
Last edited:
Yeah. Web developers have a hammer called JS, and everything looks like a nail.
I have to admit, I’ve never used Pascal other than writing a few lines in grade school. Have heard of Delphi but haven’t come across it in the wild. Doesn’t seem bad at first glance.
I’d have to say C# is my favorite language. They really did their homework when they designed it and feels like an improved version of Java. Unfortunately Windows centric, but .NET Core is mature and works well on Linux now.
Python is a very productive language, just annoyed that whitespace matters among some other syntactical annoyances.
Have programmed in BCPL (precursor to "C"). Have programmed in SNOBOL4 (precursor to PERL). Javascript doesn't scare me.
Haskell and Erlang. They scare me.
Haskell and Erlang. They scare me.
Haven't used Erlang. I had to do some coursework in OCaml, Prolog, and Lisp many years ago. Interesting languages but not something I'd want to use regularly. Some functional programming concepts have made it into C# in the latest versions.
Javascript isn't hard or anything. It's a bit of a mess in terms of the versions and variations of the language that are out there (ex. ES5, ES6, Typescript). It's really easy to write terrible code in it because the barrier of entry is low and it's what all web people learn first. I also tend to dislike weakly typed languages.
C++ is where I see a lot of people shooting themselves in the foot.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.