Lucas van der Mee wrote on Fri, 17 December 2004 02:08 |
Dan , You think it is ok to down our products without knowing how they work , spec out and/or perform. You use your platform for pure marketing against us, while you claim in the same response that is not on topic.
The reason why people prefer the Big Ben over Aardvark is very simple. We perform better specs wise, we offer more features and our box is better value. You have yet to design a product that can beat the Big Ben, so I understand your frustration. But I do not understand your abuse of the PSW platform to release this anger. I consider that to be a sign of very low quality.
Lucas van der Mee, Sr. Design Engineer Apogee Electronics
|
Lucas,
First, I did not intend to restart this argument. In fact, I deleted Nika’s attempt to re-stir the pot. Nika insisted I comment. He complained to the people running the PSN about my deleting his message. Perhaps I should not have replied to his comments, but now that you are here……..well here we go again!
These are 2 of the questions asked previously on 11 6 2004. They are still not answered.
“THE BOTTOM LINE:”
I. QUESTION: WHICH SOLUTION PROVIDES LESS JITTER AT THE AD LOCATION?
1. A REASONABLE FIXED CRYSTAL
2. BIG BEN DRIVING A CLOCK INTO A CHASSIS EQUIPPED WITH A PLL VIA A 10 FOOT CABLE?
II. QUESTION: CAN ONE EVER CANCEL OR REDUCE A RANDOM NOISE AT ONE END OF A CABLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT KIND OF JITTER ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING AT THE OTHER END?
(can one cancel, remove or reduce the receiver and PLL noise, some of it unknown, some totally random, by driving it with a clean low jitter clock? Driving it with any clock?)
So now you are back once more still without technical input. You say:
“You think it is ok to down our products without knowing how they work, spec our and/or perform.”I also know you cannot fly by waving your arms, which is equivalent to the claim that you can have better jitter performance by driving an AD externally. And yes, lets stay technical: YOU SAID SPEC OUT: Thanks for reminding us all. What are the JITTER SPECS? We are particularly interested in data supporting the claim regarding reduction of the jitter inside the AD when Big Ben is hooked as external source.
“You use your platform for pure marketing against us, while you claim in the same response that is not on topic.”First, you guys came in here displeased with my general statements that internal clock is a preferred method. I guess it went against your marketing propaganda, and you tried to intimidate with “your engineering of the 21st century” and the rest of the bull. You are claiming it was started as pure marketing against you EVEN AFTER BEING SET STRAIGHT by some people on the thread. (Selective memory?)
Second, as you said, I do not make a crock, uh clock, so I am not in competition with you on that product. I feel clean. Do you?
“The reason people prefer the Big Ben over Aardvark is very simple. We perform better specs wise, we offer more features and our box is better value.”Hopefully you will desist from spinning “value and features” and talk like an engineer. Please remember this thread had nothing to do with values and features. The subject we are talking about is JITTER.
But now that you are here lets get into the engineering. Many people bought into your claims that driving their AD with Big Ben will reduce their AD clock jitter. We are not talking about whether people like what they hear when they use your clock. We are speaking as engineers about actual physical engineering principles that are SOLID. Your claims go against those SOLID ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES.
One of the visitors previously on this threat asked if you were going to offer an official apology to people around the world who believed the misinformation spewed about this product and purchased it.
“You have yet to design a product that can beat the Big Ben, so I understand your frustration.” My dear boy trying to insult me is silly especially since I was the one who designed the first Apogee “low jitter clock” and created the concept. I may design another one in the future. Thanks for the idea.
“But I do not understand your abuse of the PSW platform to release this anger. I consider that to be a sign of very low quality.”No technical comments? Only more personal attacks?
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
Let us see your “high quality” comments in the form of a technical defense of your design.
We begin with the following questions:
Question: Does an average AD operating with reasonable internal crystal clock have less jitter when driven by Big Ben? YES OR NO
If you say NO, the group will need to determine what steps your company should take to remedy the wrong that was done.
If you say YES, Then:
LETS HAVE YOUR TECHNICAL COMMENTS ANSWERING MY TECHNICAL COMMENTS (I and II above) (Marketing and personal attacks qualify as “low quality” responses. If you choose to disappear as you did last time without answering, well that is certainly your choice).
One can discuss concepts and principles without divulging what you call your “secrets”. I can help you along with the following comments in the form of general principles.
EXAMPLE:(Box A) cannot correct for jitter in another (Box B) without knowing what takes place at (Box B) is as universal and general as gravity! This is no secret.
EXAMPLE: An ideal clock with least jitter is based on having all cycles identical, thus there is no room for ANY modulation of the clock. This is another universal and general principle.
I look forward to hearing a professional design engineer’s response from you Lucas.
Dan Lavry