Lucas van der Mee wrote on Mon, 27 December 2004 18:40 |
Bob and Dan,
You are both “interpreting” our words...We haven’t claimed anything else...."Lucas van der Mee Sr. Design Engineer Apogee Electronics
|
Lucas,
Once again, no technical comments about the clock, instead you posted a denial.
Regarding your first point:
“l. The Big Ben is an excellent low jitter solution if you need a master clock.”Your literature makes people think they do need one when they don’t. But aside from that I am reminded of a scene from Monty Python. A knight on the ground with limbs cut off from a battle, lay there still cajoling the other guy present to come and fight. Here you are after all that has transpired, still trying to sell your clock on a forum dedicated to engineering issues.
Your second statement
“2. If you have to clock to a very jittery source, you’ll get better results most of the time by having the Big Ben cleaning it up first.” How much is
“very”. Also This statement hedges your previous statements.
NEXT:
“We have not CLAIMED that this is due to an external clock lowering the jitter. This is your own presumption and it is wrong.”If I state that a door is painted white, and you say I am wrong, you are in fact saying the door is NOT painted white without having to say the words. (The door is not painted white.) On Oct, 27, 04 an Apogee rep came here taking issue with my statement that the best method to achieve lower AD jitter is to use a good internal crystal whenever possible instead of an external clock (See my previous postings)
You did, in fact, take a stand that was OPPOSITE of what you are now saying. Regarding your current sentence,
ALSO 2:
"We haven’t claimed anything else.”OK. Yes, “
Let’s get it straight”. Apogee is not claiming that Big Ben will improve ADs as a clock source, compared to using AD under internal crystal operation!! It does not claim to clean jitter when used as a master clock.. Only when it resends a
“very jittery source.”AND AGAIN Your back door insult to me.
“but unlike Dan I do not say: “that cannot be”. I do trust the critical thinking and listening of my customers and investigated the results.”What results? Researched It? How investigated? What measurements? Graphs? Published where? We are not about listening tests here. But then again, I previously STATED why you could not publish results. Your claim to impact the sound ahead is an impossibility. I can investigate how I can fly like a bird. A gullible person may confuse investigation with actual results coming from an investigation.
So Lucas, what do you say to all the people that interpreted your
“A Cure For the Jitters” coupled with the claims of sonic improvements of ADs when driven by Big Ben as a master clock (You do not claim it any more) as a sure way to enhance conversion (relative to internal clocking?) Do you take no responsibility for it? Do you blame the dealers?
Apogee has done an excellent job of overstating the ability of this piece of gear. Your company’s marketing line,
“A Cure for the Jitters” coupled with claims of sonic improvements when the clock is used as a master clock, is at best misleading. Many do not understand the many types of jitter created during recording and transmission, where the problems are and are not and what the remedies are.
It has been my goal on this thread to try and enlighten people about the clocking concept and to raise the level of understanding. You could have help the enlightenment process. Instead we get hype and
“leaders with 21st century (secret) technology". And yes, taking a cheap shot by calling me an old 20th century theoretical guy. Well you are way out of your league.
The company you work for has gone a long way with advertising and a reputation made on the quality of my designs now called
“legendary and legacy” on the Apogee website. I am the authority on jitter and have been in this business from tubes to ICs. Leave the lame statements home and send the measurement results with a clear description of the test setup.
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com