1) Not only do I see wolves, I see them as hungry and circling.
2) I can only assume that you have not read post #1, as set of bode plots are presented there. Sure, other measurements can be made and the datails are provided for anyone to do so. Where is the precedence for anyone to require that anyone else first provide all possible measurements, including scientific listening tests, before freely offering up an easy, safe and cheap modification idea?
The only thing that might have prevented an argument beginning 2 years ago was if more of us had conducted the simple and cheap experiment for ourselves. As I feel compelled to keep pointing out, this is DIY. If reults of personal listening experiments are perceived as subtle, then, I would agree that a scientific listening test would be required to prove or disprove claims. Should, on the other hand, such personal listening experiment results be perceived as obvious, is a scientific listening test really necessary?
Why is there any credibility question about the subjective results of an experiment which any competent hobbyist can easily and cheaply prove or disprove for themselves? What, exactly, is the supposed potential harm here? I don't get why there is so much focus and concern on this experiment in particular.
3) If only this whole argument were strictly about discovering the revelatory measurement behind the subjectively positive change in sound character. Instead, argument has mostly been about whether there is actually any positive change in subjective sound character at all.
Really?
That is a bit rich!
So I am not allowed to report an observation and one that has been confirmed by a significant number of other people?
You have just promoted the worst kind of censure that I find repugnant. Sorry, but there is no other way of saying it - freedom of speech is sacrosanct and always will be. That is how I interpret you.
I think you should rephrase what you just said - it comes across very badly.
So, no measurements, too bad, but you can't get away with thinking you can just silence me like that. You only wish.
Cheers, Joe
-
Last edited:
Eliminating the potential for bias in the person conducting the test is THE reason for double-blind testing procedure. No scientific test can be considered valid unless all sources of bias are first eliminated, including those of the person conducting the test. You clearly represent the kind of bias double-blind testing is intended to eliminate. You piously point to your own sense of integrity as evidence for your lack of bias, yet you have before questioned the sense of integrity of others on the other side of this. Since you disagree, please logically explain why it is invalid to assume that you represent a source of bias with respect to this topic - if only subconsciously - based on your many prior negative public statements?
Last edited:
AND...?
Selling?
Buy a few dollars worth of parts from your parts supplier and try it?
WHERE IS THE CON?
To the Moderator, that post just insinuated I was doing something illegal. Is this not going a bit too far?
-
Last edited:
hmm you asked me to put myself in your shoes. I did, reported what I did and now I am some sort of evil person? BTW censure means something very different in UK to US so not quite sure which meaning you are after. You are free to say 'magic flooby dust' and I am free to say 'don't believe you'. Anything else is NOT freedom of speech.
I am sure that you do not mean to spread the word by claiming everyone who questions you is some sort of secret service agent stamping out freedom of speech, but once again it really really could be misconstrued as you trying to shut down any form of discussion. And of course you have nothing to hide, so really its just a case of agreeing the test protocol.
I am sure that you do not mean to spread the word by claiming everyone who questions you is some sort of secret service agent stamping out freedom of speech, but once again it really really could be misconstrued as you trying to shut down any form of discussion. And of course you have nothing to hide, so really its just a case of agreeing the test protocol.
Nobody is selling anything here. You misunderstood all about, and your disproportionated reaction is based on that misunderstanding.
The whole point here is that somebody state something about a reproducible phenomenon/effect, and it give out informations to be used by everyone interested in reproducing, experiencing or using that effect.
At least everybody is free to try it, test it, experience it, in the DIY philosophy of this forum, and then discuss about it.
Else, is difficult to be noticed the constructive part in your interventions (for sure far to contribute in any way to this thread).
Last edited:
That link it is to a quite private site, and should not have something to do with the discussion here, which is about this cap, the circuits around it, measurements, tests, and so on. The concept about this cap is not for sale, but for discussions. This it should be enough clear until now...
However, there is enough obvious, that many times, few members here try quite consequent to direct the discussions in wrong directions to discredit both the discussions and the meaning of this thread...
However, there is enough obvious, that many times, few members here try quite consequent to direct the discussions in wrong directions to discredit both the discussions and the meaning of this thread...
Last edited:
It's all so negative. Does it really have to be like that?
May I ask you something simple? Why don't you do it yourself... Do It Yourself.
You can do it... or else why be here?
I believe what Joe is doing is called hidden marketing.
Actually one believe about one or another in church, or similar places. We do something else here, if you was not clear about yet... At least your belief is not any contribution to this thread and discussion. If you do not have something else to contribute, then you may feel free to chose another discussion to contribute to. We may not need such here...
Last edited:
Here is what you say, Joe, on the commercial website where you are selling your mod for $1900:
"We have blind tested this filter and its positive influence is a no-brainer and very immediately obvious. But it also deserves being looked at more closely from a research point of view ..."
Maybe I missed it, but where is the description of your blind test? Isn't what people here (in, what, the third thread discussing your observation?) are asking for is "looking more closely from a research point of view" at what you call, in your promotional writings, the "Rasmussen Effect"?
You've shown that you simply do not know what the scientific method is. Your bluster is not a substitute.
My suggestion to the moderators is that this thread and any others dealing with your self-promotion should be moved to the Vendors forum.
Yes, but take a look at the Elsinore thread, literally thousands of hours spent and shared for free - I supplied about half a dozen of kits, mainly for those needing a helping hand... Hundreds of other people have built them, maybe close to a thousand, who knows, and not a penny from those.
A TOTAL FINANCIAL FAILURE AND I DON'T CARE !!!
I will put my record up against yours any day - and YOU have a website too - and you live in a glass house.
I may remind only that this thread is meant to discuss the concept about this cap, and not about persons, their private sites over the internet, or their private lives or businesses...
Can we please focus further on the subject, as it was positive going in the last time?
We have a man here who did some measurements, and presented some results. Nobody care about this?
Can we please focus further on the subject, as it was positive going in the last time?
We have a man here who did some measurements, and presented some results. Nobody care about this?
Last edited:
Yes, I do. Nothing for sale, unfortunately. The only money I derive from audio is payment for magazine articles.
So, ready to go to do some serious testing? All of your expenses have been covered.
No, what this thread is about is only a small part of what I do to the Oppo 105. So does Coris, so does Rick Schulz - in fact they are both using things I gave for free - just ask Coris here and he has not paid me a single cent. There are other Oppo upgraders that are doing things that I originated. Coris will tell you I was the first one to show that two clocks were necessary, he was skeptical until he tried it and confirmed it.
The same goes for the topic of this thread: It either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it will end up on the scrap heap. If it actually works, then now anybody can do it for free - if they want to throw a few cents my way - up to them. Hasn't happened yet - but others are making money from my ideas and good luck to them. Just give me alittle credit and things will work out in the long run. That's my philosophy.
There are more than one kind of blind test. What SY wants is a double blind test. There are other kinds. He insists his is the only valid one, we, several of us, disagree with him. It's a free world.
Part of the negotiations with the Moderators was that we should refrain from even calling it that - and I agreed. Not because it was wrong, but because of comment we wanted to avoid, so please refrain. Note that I have just censored my own name out, how is that for lack of ego compared to some of the others here.
Yes, I do !!!
Went to a funeral a little while ago in Canberra, afterwards went to the Canberra Wine Club for the wake - with a bunch of scientists from the ANU and we had some great reminiscences of one of the greatest machinists ever, known as VBK, a legend. BTW, the ANU is the Australian National University. So please don't lecture me on what is science or not. Thank you.
You are not aware: This was discussed with the Moderators even before the thread was first posted.
There is nothing for sale here - just something you can try for free. Pure DIY. Nothing to object to, right?
Unless you want to buy the parts from me? Promise to be reasonable.
Cheers, Joe
As I have already said I do not have a suitable DAC to modify. BUT I am willing to contribute towards getting a suitable number procured for SY to do some repeatable lab and double blind tests with.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.