|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
212.42.175.73
In Reply to: Re: John Dunlavy, Peter Walker, Joe D’Appolito to mention a few -nt posted by theaudiohobby on March 29, 2007 at 06:40:14:
Dear TAH,You disappoint me, is that really the only significant people you can think of?
Their "fame" is mainly based on the commercial success of their ideas and designs, is that really the most important measure you can come up with?
Whilst by no means wishing to demean the achievements of the people you mention, none of their products are anywhere near as ground breaking or original as you give them credit for.
Why not mention true innovators and contributors like, P. G. A. H. Voigt, Leo Beranek, Harold Beveridge, Phil Hill or Oscar Heil to mention some more individuals whose contributions to our understanding of aspects in the fundamentals of acoustics are far more significant and ground breaking?
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
Follow Ups:
"Their "fame" is mainly based on the commercial success of their ideas and designs, is that really the most important measure you can come up with?Whilst by no means wishing to demean the achievements of the people you mention, none of their products are anywhere near as ground breaking or original as you give them credit for."
That's rather ironic, because by stating that commercial success was the main claim to fame of John Dunlavy and Peter Walker, it certainly sounds like you're trying to demean their achievements.
Dear Oxia,You can off course choose to put that interpretation into what I said which perhaps goes to show that you have as much of an agenda as you accuse me of.
Believe it or not, but my main interest in discussions like this is to try to bring about some balance, by pointing out what separates genuine and fundamental scientific progress and advance of relevant knowledge and the more superficial achievements that are based more on commercial prowess, advertising and hype and in this regard the people I mention contributed to a real expansion of the understanding and knowledge base in acoustics and the people theaudiohobby mentions either used or ignored this knowledge to commercial ends.
My hope is that some of the readers will Google some of the names I brought up and perhaps read up on what they contributed and then draw the same conclusion as I.
My agenda, Mr Qvortrup, is to point out that you are needlessly and unfairly impugning the reputations and achievements of John Dunlavy, Peter Walker, and Joe D'Appolito, in order to play a childish game of one-upmanship with one of the inmates. What exactly was the point of that? To prove that you worship better idols than theaudiohobby? You could have taken the highroad and discussed the merits of Peter Snell's applied theories on their own, but instead you chose to have a pissing match and you dragged the names of Dunlavy, Walker and D'Appolito into it. If you want to continue the discussion on this level, that's your choice. Go ahead and please yourself. I'm done with you.
Dear Oxia,Firstly, I did not drag either of the people you mention into this discussion theaudiohobby did, and I then challenged him to give some examples that were more deserving.
Secondly, if politely pointing out the fact that there are more fundamental and important scientific aspects of acoustics than what the three designers have contributed is a pissing match, then what does that make your comments?
It may come as a terrible shock to you, but I have actually very little to prove here, other than realign and attempt to bring balance to the discussion.
So perhaps rather than accusing and being negative, it might be appropriate if you "took the high road" as you call it and put forward some real arguments for why they should feel insulted by my comments, a short list of achievements should suffice, we can then discuss further.
I am equally happy to discuss Peter Snell's achievements given the right opportunity and an environment where the respondents do not read all manners of political correctness and subliminal implied criticisms into what I say.
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
I suppose that you think your dog is bigger than mine too.
Whatever objections I may have about your comments pale in the light of the fact that you have done a better job than me in illustrating why your original comments were hyperbole, good job!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Dea TAH,Displaying your ignorance and need to have the last word yet again, well done.
Displaying your ignorance and need to have the last word yet again,The frustrated response of the outwitted!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Jesus, look who's talking! At the risk of sounding like PQ's acolite here, I find it amazing how much you consider your rhetoric a satisfactory stand-in for knowledge. Any chance to take a whack at your neighbor is justified, so long as it keeps you up on the podium with him. If you're serious about all of this, what not tell us why you think your heroes' contributions are more significant than his? Or is it just the air-time you want here?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: