Lucas van der Mee wrote on Tue, 21 November 2006 13:38 |
CRM0992 said “Then Dan bashes Apogee because of their inability to defend their marketing claims, and drew the ire of the forum operators. And the mods may have disagreed with his tone or methods, but the unaddressed questions to Apogee in those threads are still valid questions today as people waste thousands of dollars on clock boxes to "clean up their audio.”
Chris,
There is no inability to defend our marketing claims. The problem you may have had in getting our point of view was because we weren’t allowed to fully defend or explain ourselves in Dan’s forum. Dan had no problem deleting our posts and other’s who supported our opinion, when he did not like the contents.
If you’ll go through the thread again, you’ll see that Dan claims statements we never made, that Dan distorts Max’ and my words, whether intentionally or not and most of all continually keeps repeating the same questions instead of going into detail into what we really say.
Mr Lavry did not act like an unbiased moderator, rather, like he had an agenda. He was not mediating, presiding or acting like he should. He used a public forum to attack a competitor and a former employer, while not allowing the competitor to respond freely. Hence we decided to not take part in any of his discussions anymore and limit our responses to putting out fires when required.
Lucas van der Mee Sr. Design Engineer Apogee Electronics
|
Oh stop it Lucas. Max PM'd me personally and claimed that Big Ben makes systems sound better because listeners say so. He would not answer the question about added jitter at the converter chip using Big Ben (or anything else). All he said is that "certain kinds of jitter sound better, even in higher amounts". That is not a technical response to the question posed.
Somehow you were allowed to sneak a last post into Dan's forum.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/0/14324/200/931 /#msg_14324
Can anyone explain why Apogee has this privelege and no one else (probably not even Dan) does? For example, I was not able to reply even to threads not marked "locked" in that forum.
WTF is going on here?
This whole thing stinks.
And anyways, your response indicates that increased clock jitter can somehow result in better sound and you are basing your marketing claims on that. Although, in your marketing, you are not pointing that out, instead choosing to pump up the subjective opionions of your better-known customers.
The second part of questions re: BB can be summarized as:
"Can an external box reduce jitter in an attached device without a feedback loop telling the external clock what needs to be corrected?"
There is still a question as to whether your claims that "special jitter" with greater magnitude can improve audio performance. Even so, if the cabling and cable receiver/PLL is adding jitter, HOW CAN YOUR DEVICE KNOW ABOUT THIS AND MAKE CORRECTIONS? Doesn't this make sense to ask? Am I crazy? PLL's are much more jittery than a decent crystal clock. What is Big Ben going to do about that? Does anyone else feel like this should be answered and not just smokescreened over and over again?
It is misleading to your customers to claim that "snake oil" is the reason why using your product will give them better sound. A reasonable technical explanation for performance differences IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide if you wish to treat your clients fairly.
Chris
PS - Dan claimed many times he did not delete any of your posts, Lucas, so your statement to that effect is also misleading. Unless Dan lied outright, but I recall that it was agreed only a couple of Max's posts were removed (and Nika's).