|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.16.50.57
In Reply to: RE: A few observations on your observations posted by clarkjohnsen on August 01, 2007 at 10:10:22
that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre.....
As for the 52 recordings you have previously listed, perhaps you could please list just a few which have alternating polarities?
Just wondering, as I have not seen any recordings listed in any AA forum.
Stu
Follow Ups:
UncleStu:
"It is good to know that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre....."
Ya see... you might get farther with him, and this subject, if you quit the sniping. That crack wasn't necessary, and I don't even think it was accurate, just a reflection of your prejudices. I don't believe Clark is paid for his articles, he does it as a labour of love. You asked him for a listing of identifiable recordings, after complaining that he wouldn't supply any, and he just agreed to provide one, in an upcoming article. But that's not good enough, you want it right away. Well, I think he's in his right to delay publication, it's certainly not out of order for an author to do this. You imply the reason he's not favouring your demand and publishing the list before his intended plans, in order to please you personally, is because of his selfish interest in the "filthy lucre". And, while I can see the reasons for your antagonism toward him, do you really see no good reason why he would behave this way toward you? cj's done a lot to help the audio community, not the least of which is having "written a frikkin' book" on the subject of polarity, helping audiophiles get the basics right for the cost of a free tweak. The results of which seems to have received more flack than appreciation, in general. I know exactly where he's coming from, since in the last couple of years I've done my own little efforts to help the community improve their sound for free, and received far more flack than appreciation. So I can understand how one's tolerance for "snipers"will diminish considerably over time, as one is faced with this kind of attitude, over and over again.
I still think you both have a lot in common and can have many productive discussions, but you -both- have to want it. You just gotta lose the attitude.
(ME telling someone to lose the attitude.... now -that's- irony!)
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing.
Stu
> > For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing. < <
From what I have read of his posts and responses to it, in current and past threads on polarity on this and other AA forums, I think, as I have said, you both have valid points to make. But if you can't get beyond the antagonism, neither of you will be able to communicate productively. Which is too bad because it appears you both have a lot to talk about, of mutual interest. I think he could be more forthcoming in some of his explanations, but he shouldn't have to keep repeating himself if the answers can be found in his book. That's why one writes a book. It isn't "shilling" to ask one to "RTFM". That's also why FAQs were invented, because newbs keep asking the same questions over and over, and it gets tiring for experts to keep wasting time responding to the same things. For example, I believe the information you were asking about the 52 recordings can be found in his book, which is why they were not listed on AA.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!
clark
I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
Stu
CLARK WROTE:
"The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!"
STU RESPONDED:
"I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.
Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
Stu"
STU WROTE (EARLIER):
"The way things have been getting recently, frankly, disgusts and offends my thinking. While I certainly appreciate the civility you and May have extended towards me, others have disintegrated into diatribes I really abhor. The fact that they were not always aimed at me still upsets my sensibilities. We all can disagree but still do so in a civilized manner."
....Well, I tried. Good luck with your polarity issues.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
v
Never answer any question directly,...sidestep, sidestep. But that's fine: since I am merely a stalker, and a dimwit to boot, simply nipping on your heels with attitude (all descriptors taken directly from your posts).
Your actions speak for themselves and I am not intimidated by them or by your perceived credentials, nor your 'attitude'. Still I detect an infinitesimally small shift in attitude on your part in attempting to engage May in a dialogue. Maybe further stalking will actually have you answer simple questions on the topics you claim to be an expert in. Maybe salvation is around.....ahh, I'll just have to be patient,...very, very patient.
We have all tried to be nice and accommodating, but that approach was very brusquely pushed aside and taken, seemingly, as an open invitation for a continuation for rude and contemptuous commentary with no information. If you want respect, please remember the Golden Rule: you do know that one don't you? It does not demean the person using it. You don't even have to practice that with me, just apply it to others who post and in a consistent manner.
Until then, I'll have to remain the "dog nipping at your heels" (your quote).
8^)
Stu
s
disappointed you. Still the 'man' refuses to answer any questions even when directly put to him, and now he states he is coming up with a future article or book. What is the purpose of participating on a forum, if the only answer is 'buy my book from 20 years ago.' Check out his response on General asylum when a perfectly valid question appears and advice is asked for. The central questions are sidestepped and there is little or no attempt to share experiences or observations. Look at his posts to Rick above. I am sure the information in them is very enlightening.
As I have told you, we can disagree, but at least we share observations and there is a furthering of knowledge in that simple fact, even if we question the causality. The same applies to May Belt and GK. They can state things and I can do so and still disagree on causality, but at least there is verification of certain observations. Oh we may quibble on certain applications, but there is commonality of certain experiences.
Even those who do not believe in the 'tweak' have another avenue of exploration, which may appeal to their sensibilities rather than an outward condemnation based on a theory they may think not true.
I am not against polarity at all. I have been told out right by Clark that I do not understand the true issue. For a long time I stood back and said nothing, until I realized that a man who claims to have taken the works of others in order to put polarity on the map was not really interested in enlightening any of the AA members.
It is akin to Chicken Little running about proclaiming "The sky is falling" but refusing to elaborate. The confusion surrounding the issue is rife with inaccuracies and nebulous statements.
Addressing the issue is simple to me: first you establish that the effect can exist and is audible. There are certain caveats necessary to do so: a phase coherent speaker certainly is one factor. Secondly is a definition of what is supposed to be correct.
Under pressure, Clark recently restated his definition from 20 years ago, which had been also iterated by George Louis and further electrically defined by the proposed AES standard. Any movement towards standardization meets vehement refusal and denials, however, hardly helpful to a settlement of the issue.
Yet since I have been on AA (about 5 years), he has steadfastly negated everyone else's attempts at understanding. No examples have been provided (unless you purchase his precious book). That book is 20 years old, and it ignores most video conventions and applications and does not take into account new formats, some of which have come and gone. Now he says, in essence, stay tuned while I write up something new....
Those actions are what galls me. It does not attempt to share any real understanding of the issue: it condemns anyone else who strives to do original thinking on the subject, demeaning them and thoroughly disgusts most who strive for an understanding of the subject and who attempt to question or post on AA. Many simply quit in disgust.
Look at his harsh attacks of Truthseekerprime, who is making an honest attempt at an understanding of the audibility of polarity. There is no encouragement, no hints, no observations or examples offered to further his understanding and testing methodology.
Now in my thinking, this is a good sample of the audio Inquisition: where only one dogma can be acceptable. I do not mind divergent paths in thinking and in experiences. We are, after all, human and thinking will often be divergent. If I firmly believe in something, as you do, I am willing to state my experiences with it and will share the application and understanding of it.
Mind you CJ did not invent or discover the phenomena, he merely published a pamphlet based on the observations and writings of others. It is not to me, a proprietary 'tweak' nor is it something that no one else has noticed before. It is not patentable, and CJ did not have or claim primacy in writing of it (that's why he called it the Wood Effect).
I do not know why he even interjects in discussions of the subject because there is precious little that he does contribute. He could have been a leader in the subject but he seems to be a major stumbling block. He constantly harps about the attitude of others, not realizing that it is his own attitude that draws such reaction.
Too bad. As I have stated before, at first, I allowed him to browbeat me, and I turned silent for months. Now I refuse to allow him the satisfaction of being the 'grand inquisitor', allowing the preaching of only the dogma of 'Clark.'
Stu
that you have learned from Clark's posts.
8^)
Stu
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: