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.

From the beginning Clark has shot me down. No biggie, but he has likewise stated that I do not understand polarity issues which implies I do not have a definition of it. Likewise he has disputed the proposed AES standards, as well as attempts by others, including George Louis, at tackling the issue. Mind you, we were, in essence, backing him up.

If you read the AES proposal, it has a rather elegant method for determining polarity by defining the movement of a microphone diaphragm and the associated electrical output, and then follows this signal all the way through the audio chain. Clark disputes their definition and flat out declared it as being useless, with no further elaboration.
That is no problem but when pressed for elaboration, he has provided nothing.

Finally in the last month he restated his definition. His restated definition is identical to the one that the much maligned George Louis has posted, and identical to the AES proposal without the electrical definitions. He quoted directly from his 20 year old text, which I had read, but his denials of everyone else's definition had led me to believe he had altered his definition in the 20 years since he published his pamphlet. It has taken only a year and a half of pressure to have him spell it out.

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.

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.

As for insights into why the issue is difficult for many to hear, he has provided precious little information. Research into the recording process is actually quite simple and there are numerous written documentary material out there. A brief research into crossover designs is also very fruitful. I do not believe Clark ever attempted a discussion of those points, which are necessary for an understanding of the issue.

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. You can not get that in a one liner for an answer, which as you know CJ is very good at. Sidestepping and insults are his standard fare when pressed (just look at his actions here). He proclaims that everyone else lies, calls people names, insults and berates them. That is simply not how to move forward on any issue.

Most individuals who have attempted a contribution to the subject have simply given up. I've noticed his method of browbeating anyone posting on the subject has been relatively successful in silencing any other opinions or questions. No forward progress has been made in the two decades that have followed printing of his pamphlet, despite his claims of reviewers, designers, and others who have written glowing praises of his work. I refuse to knuckle under his attempts at suppression.

I brought up the subject of peer related validation because CJ listed a number of prominent audio personalities that he claims have read his work and support him. Discounting those who have died, I do not see many of those luminaries offering support, even when many frequent AA.

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.

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. 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.


Stu

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Herbie's Audio Lab  

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 ]