john curl said:
Huh??? No idea of what you are talking about here.
The only thing I've tried to do regarding you is try to coax you out of the first half into the second half like 90% of the other posters have been trying to do. But you just don't seem to learn.
Pooge, I was NOT referring to you, but POOGE, as in POOGING your Dyna. This is an OLD term, made up by Walt Jung and his associates. It means something, can you figure out what it means? You might be insulted by it.
Yes. I knew that. That's where I got the name from. I pooged the DAC960 that I purchased from Walt. I just don't see the need to make an issue of it. It's just a damn screen name.
pooge said:
OK. I didn't know that. It may be just a screen name for you but I remember that at the time a lot of people liked it. It was seen as a kind of strategy to get to Hi-end performance starting out with run-of-the-mill equipment. Nice idea I'd think.
Jan Didden
People used to accuse Walt of being part of a secret society called POOGE, and I was asked not to divulge what it really meant. We got a good laugh out of it, years ago. I hope that it is OK, today.
john curl said:
I did a Hafler 220, Walt even sent me the teflon wire that I used to make "Litz" wire. I am not convinced that beyond biasing the output at 50W and starring the grounds there were any other improvements.
Safety has been improved by changing the standard Australian/NZ/European mains scheme which has a single phase 230V referred to ground to a system that has two phases with 115V referred to ground.
Lesser volts means fewer bodies, everything else being equal.
This two phase system for getting 230V will be familiar to US engineers (well, electricians anyway) as standard indistrial practice.
Well, here you go again, Scott. Criticizing the efforts of others. Maybe YOU couldn't hear any other differences, so what?
I didn't see any criticism of others in Scott's post. I only read it as an admission that he couldn't hear a difference.
john curl said:
The efforts of others are work Jack **** in my book. It is the results that count. Scott found the results unconvincing. Are there some convincing results that you can share?
It doesn't matter that Scott, one individual, heard no difference. It is more important if there are some out there, who do. When we try to move forward, we often have set-backs, and even 'friends' who hear no difference. Can we separate the real from the repressed? No!
That is not the issue. You criticized Scott for criticizing, and topped that by knowing what he was thinking. See how these threads get FUBAR?
john curl said:
The crux of the matter. Following any formal logic principle in the last 2000 years, and unless you deny the Zermelo axiom, either "I don't hear" or "some do hear" are exactly equivalent: they have 0 (zero) generalization value.
There is one anthropogonic difference though: "I don't hear" is always true, "other can hear" is not necessary the same. You don't know what other hear, you know what other think they hear.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.