0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 24670 times.
Your signature gives no indication of this. Would you please update it for the sake of proper disclosure.
Why? I already said that - in the interests of full disclosure.A little co-operation here would go a long way, Steve.
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'??
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, 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.
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!! )
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, 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!!
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.
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
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?ThanksBill
