[Steve Eddy]

Your signature gives no indication of this. Would you please update it for the sake of proper disclosure.

Why? I don't manufacture it nor do I sell it. I did the design under contract. I hope you don't expect me to list everyone I've ever done any contract work for, because if you do, I'm afraid I'll have to refuse.

se

[JohnR]

Why? I already said that - in the interests of full disclosure.

A little co-operation here would go a long way, Steve.

[AKSA]

John,

How would it be if Steve merely wrote 'Audio Transformer Design Consultant' on his moniker?

Would that be enough to let people know he is 'in the business'??

Cheers,

Hugh

[Steve Eddy]

Why? I already said that - in the interests of full disclosure.

A little co-operation here would go a long way, Steve.

I will be happy to co-operate and disclose any association I have with any company or individual whose products or services I sell or otherwise profit from the sale of (which at present is only my own company which has already been disclosed). However I don't feel that who I do or have done contract work for is anyone's business.

Sorry.

se

[Steve Eddy]

How would it be if Steve merely wrote 'Audio Transformer Design Consultant' on his moniker?

Would that be enough to let people know he is 'in the business'??

Why should I even have to do that? I have also done industrial design as well as graphics design. Would I have to add those as well?

The only thing that needs to be disclosed is any association where one profits from the sale of a product or service. That's all anyone really needs to know.

When I do contract work I'm simply paid for the job I've been asked to do. Period. I don't receive any sort of commission on sales and have no vested financial interest in the sale of the product. Therefore I don't feel that who I do contract work for is anyone's business.

se

[JohnR]

Steve, I don't think too many people are going to buy the strawman you've created here. Hugh's suggestion was quite reasonable, and your reaction to it unfortunate. The Industry Participant Guidelines simply asks that posters with a financial interest in the audio business disclose the nature of that interest in their signature, in order that everybody can have no doubt as to "where you are coming from."

In your case, this now appears to be broader than you had previously led us (by the contents of your signature) to believe.

I'll ask you again to please reconsider your position.

[andyr]

John,

How would it be if Steve merely wrote 'Audio Transformer Design Consultant' on his moniker?

Would that be enough to let people know he is 'in the business'??

Cheers,

Hugh

Trouble is, Hugh, SE is much more than "just" an Audio Transformer Design Consultant - fer instance, he has some ICs that I have seen advertised (although I can't remember where). 

Shirley what John wants to do is stop "sneaky people" from posts which are merely advertising for their products on his site?  If he searched through all SE's posts, I suggest he won't find a single instance of this - so IMO Steve does not need a "warning moniker".  (The fact that we know he's from the US means we take anything he says with 5 grains of salt!!  )

Regards,

Andy

[Steve Eddy]

Steve, I don't think too many people are going to buy the strawman you've created here.

And I'd like to think that not many would buy your claim that I have created a strawman here.

Hugh's suggestion was quite reasonable, and your reaction to it unfortunate.

Since I don't feel it's reasonable to require one to disclose who they have done contract work for, I don't feel that Hugh's suggestion was reasonable either (with all due respect to Hugh).

The Industry Participant Guidelines simply asks that posters with a financial interest in the audio business disclose the nature of that interest in their signature, in order that everybody can have no doubt as to "where you are coming from."

Unless you're intentionally being disingenuous here, you should take a moment to actually read your own rules. Nowhere do they say anything about "financial interest." What they say is "commercial interest." And as I've said, I have no commercial interest in the Ingot as I have no financial interest in any sales of the Ingot.

And that's really what's behind "where you are coming from." People want know (deservedly so) whether one has a financial interest in the sale of a product or service that they may be heaping high praise upon so that they may be able to judge that person's motives.

In your case, this now appears to be broader than you had previously led us (by the contents of your signature) to believe.

I'll ask you again to please reconsider your position.

And again, my answer is the same.

I have no commercial interest in the Ingot and am not obligated by the rules here to disclose anything for which I have no commercial interest in, which includes contract work I do for others.

se

[JohnR]

I fail to see how you can claim to have no commercial interest in products that you have been paid to design. And, really, the guidelines are written assuming that readers and participants in this site are willing to co-operate to make the whole thing work.

I'll ask the Great Hall for input on this, but at this point my own mind on the next course of action is clear.

[Steve Eddy]

Trouble is, Hugh, SE is much more than "just" an Audio Transformer Design Consultant -

Trouble is, I don't design transformers, and in the case of the Ingot, all I did was the industrial design. Mike already knew what he wanted circuit-wise (i.e. an input transformer hitched to a resistive attenuator). What he wanted from me was to design the chassis to put it in.

...fer instance, he has some ICs that I have seen advertised (although I can't remember where). 

Of course you can't remember where. I've never advertised integrated circuits before.

Shirley what John wants to do is stop "sneaky people" from posts which are merely advertising for their products on his site?

Yes. And stop calling him Shirley.

If he searched through all SE's posts, I suggest he won't find a single instance of this - so IMO Steve does not need a "warning moniker".

Thank you. I don't think I need one either as again, I have no commercial interest in the Ingot.

(The fact that we know he's from the US means we take anything he says with 5 grains of salt!!  )

Ha! No wonder you Ozzies all have high blood pressure!

se

[AKSA]

Oh Dear,

This is not looking good.

Steve, don't be pig-headed and take the moral high ground when all John wants is that you disclose that you are a professional audio transformer designer!!  Man, that's not so bad, heck, I design amplifiers and I'm still breathing!!  You have a reputation for arguing the toss, and that's cool, particularly as I know you are principled and only want the truth and never go for the jugular, but realise that this forum is John's outfit and he has to finely balance the needs of manufacturers and members.  Believe me, you will come off second best for no good reason;  he who stands on his dignity always loses his footing.  

I guess it's easier for me as I had a military career and I am used to following orders.  But there must be orders here to make it all work, and while I hold you in the highest esteem, having spoken to you on the phone (thank you for the calls, I was flattered!), this is a trivial request from John and I believe you are fast approaching quicksand.

John, could you explain precisely what you want of Steve in private, I'm sure he is listening......

And I wish you both a Happy New Year, and a harmonious outcome.  

Cheers,

Hugh

[Steve Eddy]

I fail to see how you can claim to have no commercial interest in products that you have been paid to design.

Because commerce, from which we get the word commercial, is about the buying and selling (and more broadly the transportation) of goods and services. Since I have no financial interest in any buying or selling of the Ingot, I have no commercial interest in it. My financial interest in it ended once the design was completed.

And, really, the guidelines are written assuming that readers and participants in this site are willing to co-operate to make the whole thing work.

And I see no reason why my refusing to disclose all contract work I have done which I have no commercial interest in makes anything NOT work.

I'll ask the Great Hall for input on this, but at this point my own mind on the next course of action is clear.

Well, do what you gotta do.

But before you do, I suggest that you amend the rules and inform everyone, including those who are not currently listed as manufacturers or industry professionals, that they must disclose everyone for whom they have ever done contract work for, even if they had no commercial interest in it.

se

[kyrill]

i completely agree with Steve
no present commercial interest, no present financial links

as i read the rules in now way i can figure out that yr signature should also be yr personal history book
of closed affairs
also

example A
i know a banker of the ABNAMRO bank who has given substantial loans, professional ones to at least 2 well known audio manufactures . His interest is that those 2 enterprises will survive and preferably blossom. If i follow Jonh's rigid interpretation of the the rules this banker should also put all his business contacts direct or indirectly linked to the audio world in his sig! Many of such information is however by internal banking rules not to be disclosed
His personal responsibility is to whom he is giving loans and he is personal accountable for this if it goes wrong. His financial and economical  interest in those businesses is real
Example B
Many ppl have shares and are therefore shareholders
Rigid interpretation must ask from all those ppl to publish their shareholder-ship of audio related companies
Example C
a painter and design artist has its own little marketing bureau and consults also to audiocompanies in how to set up their website. He has no interest in audio equipment but would like to think that higher on line sales are a result of "his" websites So how would his sig look like. if he has consulted dozens direct or indirect audio linked companies?

[Steve Eddy]

Steve, don't be pig-headed and take the moral high ground when all John wants is that you disclose that you are a professional audio transformer designer!!

Except that I'm not a professional audio transformer designer. I don't design transformers. I just design with them. But that's beside the point.

The point is, I don't believe it's anybodies business who I do contract work for as long as I have no financial interest in the sale of the end product and that requiring I disclose this is asking too much.

You have a reputation for arguing the toss, and that's cool, particularly as I know you are principled and only want the truth and never go for the jugular, but realise that this forum is John's outfit and he has to finely balance the needs of manufacturers and members.

I understand that. However I don't see how requiring that I disclose who I do contract work for serves any of the members. All it's doing is asking me to disclose that which isn't anyone's business but my own, and I choose what I may disclose or not disclose in that respect.

Believe me, you will come off second best for no good reason;  he who stands on his dignity always loses his footing.

But it IS for good reason (see below).

I guess it's easier for me as I had a military career and I am used to following orders.  But there must be orders here to make it all work, and while I hold you in the highest esteem, having spoken to you on the phone (thank you for the calls, I was flattered!), this is a trivial request from John and I believe you are fast approaching quicksand.

It's not a trivial request to ask for that which is nobody's business. Those who I have done contract work for, and for which I have no commercial interest, is no more anyone's business than to ask me to disclose say, my gross sales figures for the past year. 

se

[AKSA]

Steve,

I think I see your POV.  I understand Kyrill's points too, and I don't actually feel that all your business associations need be aired here. Perhaps some, but not all, but I do not make or enforce the rules.  That is properly the prerogative of John, and he's done a pretty fair job so far.

However, you must know you are escalating an issue here and that losing face is now pivotal.  John has asked you to do something you are reluctant to do;  I have tried to make peace;  you have become more strident;  John is being backed into a corner;  the inevitable outcome is that very soon you will leave the forum, both of you firmly holding to your ground.  I can speak for neither of you, and my position is rapidly becoming untenable, but it happened on my watch and I'm very disappointed because I like both of you.

Unless you can patch this up privately, out of sight of the membership, and capitulate somewhat to John, and simply ask him what he wants and show signs of compromise, essential in conflict resolution, then I don't see much hope.  It is now up to you to make this approach.

I would be disappointed, intensely so since you are a decent fellow and a great repository of transformer knowledge, but so be it.

Psychology is the single greatest determinant in human progress.....

Cheers,

Hugh

[JLM]

kyrill,

Just read a few dozen pages from the Promitheus TVC thread to find out about what I and others call colorations.

[kyrill]

thx JLM

[JohnR]

I see no reason why my refusing to disclose all contract work I have done which I have no commercial interest in makes anything NOT work.

That is not what you have been asked to do. It's really a very simple request: since you do contract design work in the audio industry, please modify your signature to indicate this fact.

JohnR

[andyr]

That is not what you have been asked to do. It's really a very simple request: since you do contract design work in the audio industry, please modify your signature to indicate this fact.

JohnR

Can I butt in here and recast what you want John?  (As a party outside of this dispute.)  Juzz to make it absoloootely clear! 

As I understand it (reading his posts), Steve Eddy currently has "Manufacturer, Q" as his "signature".  So wot he needs to do now is add another line - "Contract Audio Designer"?   

Regards,

Andy

[painkiller]

At a practical level I am looking at digital sources.  The new Cambridge Audio 740C with its anagram technology really appeals.  It uses twin Wofson DACS summed by a restive network into a series of op amps doing filtering and buffering.  Would it be possible to rip all those op amps out after the summing restors. take it to a transformer with a DACT connected across it then to a Soraya?  Reference Audio Mods do a similar mod on the 840C but charge $1000.00 for it.  Any takes on being able to do a mod like that on a 740C?

Thanks
Bill

Those Wolfson dacs are awesome. I have recently modified a 640C, which is allmost the same player but without the upsampling. All you need to do is take the signal from the output of the dacs (VOUTL on one dac and VOUTR on the other), through some good coupling caps, a volume pot and to your amp. These dacs put out very little noise, and filtering is completely unnecessary IMHO. This is especially true with the upsampling. The sampling frequency in your player lies far above the internal analog filtering frequency of the Wolfsons. The dacs also give some 1,2VRMS in differential mode and can easily drive a 5 k impedance.

The original version of the 640C sounds really crap (How can What HiFi? give it an award!?  ), but after the mod it sounds absolutely fantastic! Forget Reference Audio mods. This mod is cheap, reversible, and absolutely priceless.