Home Isolation Ward

From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Isolation Ward ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy

>>I had written many posts going back many years. I would not recommend going back and reading those posts as they are exercises in futility.<<

Thanks, I think I'll take up your recommendation...

>>We have spent the better part of years butting heads about the whats and whys of the issues. Clark has claimed primacy in the issue and vehemently refused to elaborate or to even corroborate his statements. No specific recordings have ever been submitted in regards to the polarity issue, no specific speaker designs have been named. Such vagaries make affirmation impossible and his claims very nebulous. It does nothing to further his cause.<<

I understand your concern, that there is still a lot of controversy here about what consitutes a correct or incorrect polarity.

>>If you read the posts about the subject, you will notice that even those who support his point of view are regularly shot down by CJ. The only ones who gain his support are those who fully accept his statement that nothing can be done about the issue. <<

Well, being the pragmatic, realistic type, I'm not convinced myself that anything can be done about the issue of inverted polarity. If most audiophiles don't think much of it, what chance of recording engineers to take pains to get it right? But even those that do, it seems it would do little good, when there are so many ways it can be inverted throughout the chain (absolute polarity, speaker polarity, AC polarity, etc). If there is no easy, quick, objective way for the typical audio consumer to recognize when it is wrong and correct it, chances are it won't get corrected.

>>All those actions would be perfectly fine, iff (if and only if) Clark did not pursue the issue so doggedly. If you make it an issue, then you should provide validation and explanation, at least from my point of view. <<

That's a fair assumption.

>>Again, in the beginning, I was quite concerned for him, and tried my best to steer him towards a productive interaction. After years, I simply have given up. I do not believe he has the capability to be productive, although I would be very glad to be proven wrong. I suspect perhaps a medical condition may have interfered.<<

There's a medical condition now, that prevents you from being able to ensure that discussions on polarity will be productive? What is that called, "polaritis"? I'm sure cj has his own reasons for whatever he does, his own thoughts on the matter, and they may (or may not) have any relation to your own perceptions of such. They're only your perceptions, they are not absolute truth. You are free to think what you will, but I doubt cj cares about "proving you wrong", enough to even find out what that entails. While you both have an interest in the subject matter (which I think is a good thing), he may simply have different ideas than you about what can or can't, should or shouldn't be done about the problem. It's no different than being in the AES. They try to adopt standards collectively (and do their own share of arguing about audio criteria), but all don't agree on what the rest think. As it should be.... (I'm not one to believe in the "majority is right!" rule).

>>Again my position is that a question or disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack. I have never called CJ names, but admittedly his insults are, well, a bit galling. I can disagree with Posey and May, but there I feel there is some progress in our descriptions of experimentation and the procedures in doing so. We can still disagree as to the causality, but we have never resorted to name calling and insults. There is validity in being able to duplicate the experimentation. <<

Exactly. Which is why I feel that you still disagree with me, May (and other Beltists) about the causality of the tweaks you've experimented with. It appears you haven't yet performed the tests that would negate your theories (not that I can predict whether you will come to the same conclusion as we have, even if you do the tests). We should all at least agree that it's important to test a contradicting hypothesis (where it's easily possible), in order to progress in our understanding of a given phenomenon. If you were certain, say, the hand lotion tweak worked by static discharge, it would be incumbent on me to test this notion, if it contradicted my own.... unless, that could already be disproven by a greater (more encompassing) theory.

>>And if you notice, I do not dispute many of the Beltist tweaks nor GK's either. The disagreement is in the causality, and while I believe I can duplicate certain products and their effect, intellectual property rights restrict me from posting about them (unless others use similar ideas and are already in the marketplace). No written law, but it is my way of acknowledging their 'discovery' of such effects.<<

Yes, of course. I fully understand. So email it to me.... ;-)


"silence tells me secretly, everything..."

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]