|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
|
|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
In Reply to: aut concilio aut ense posted by Posy Rorer on August 2, 2007 at 22:57:11:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- My apologies for having - unclestu52 00:48:34 08/03/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
