|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 15:33:31 GMT
I have had records professionally clean by a rcm [ i dont own one ] I was not blown away . follwoing that , I had 2 peter Gabriel records , So: 1 professionally cleaned , 1 via hand clean bath , again i struggled to tell the difference .
I am not against wet cleaning I am against the majical properties bestowed upon a vacuum in hifi fora . I acknowledge their convenience .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 15:27:00 GMT
You keep banging on about it being an empirically obvious fact , but you will see I highlighted earlier how it is impossible to test the efficacy of a rcm over the wet cleaning vertical bath manual system* [ well regarded by m fremer in sterophile]
So how do you suppose people are reaching their conclusions . Many of the people banging on about their superiority have £695 mains leads and £50 fuses or numerous foo you have called ridiculous in the past . Seems to me you wish to rely on other peoples opinion only when it suits your argument .
* This would even for a subjective assessment require 2 identical records , equally dirty . I consider this to be an impossibility . New records would tend the defeat the object . I say this even accounting for ridiculous comments about cleaning the release agent
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 14:17:12 GMT
I am pretty sure Spinoza would have debated the factual accuracy off claims to the cleaning superiority of a vacuum wet clean over a simple wet clean . Shrouded as it is in irrationality , received wisdom and convention . Nah - he'd have tried one and settled the issue the obvious way. You don't debate whether its raining - you go outside and find out if you get wet. You debate why it rains... Your analogy is not valid . wet clean v vacuum wet clean arguments are analogous to arguing over whether the rain in manchester gets you wetter than the rain in leeds.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 9:05:15 GMT
I am pretty sure Spinoza would have debated the factual accuracy off claims to the cleaning superiority of a vacuum wet clean over a simple wet clean . Shrouded as it is in irrationality , received wisdom and convention .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 8:15:43 GMT
your argument amounts to I know best listen to me , accept what i say . You have given me bugger all to engage my brain except rhetoric . Sorry I do not accept what you say at face value for 2 reasons ,1: what you say is not evidence . 2: it is put in somewhat pompous manner . and what the fuck is a peer reviewed analysis of record cleaning fluid/technique . your personal attack on me for writing uncomfortable truths is par for the course . Sorry DQ, I had not realised the monumental depth of your ignorance, perhaps this will help dictionary.reference.com/browse/peer+review As for uncomfortable truths, as soon as you say anything interesting, or indeed accurate, I might pay some attention. Until that time, which I doubt will come, I'll just ignore your gum flapping I know what a peer review but your absurd suggestion i dont was clearly not serious and is just typical of your obfuscation . peer reviews encompass experts opinion amongst suitably qualified experts . to talk about peer reviews in the context of rcm efficacy is bollocks beyond belief .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 7, 2015 15:06:49 GMT
your argument amounts to I know best listen to me , accept what i say . You have given me bugger all to engage my brain except rhetoric . Sorry I do not accept what you say at face value for 2 reasons ,1: what you say is not evidence . 2: it is put in somewhat pompous manner . and what the fuck is a peer reviewed analysis of record cleaning fluid/technique . your personal attack on me for writing uncomfortable truths is par for the course .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 7, 2015 10:21:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 7, 2015 9:01:51 GMT
If my argument is weak , i dont actually see any rebuttal .
I have no problem with personal testimonies of satisfaction ,it is generalized bollocks i rally against .
I am now expected to believe that vacuum systems are 25% better based on dstewarts personal analysis of photographs taken for the purpose of marketing a machine . o dear .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 15:50:13 GMT
its efficacy . there is no way to establish not even subjectively the effectiveness of a vacuum wet clean as opposed to say one of those manual wet cleans .there is so much rubbish talked about the efficacy of rcm by middle age men salivating over there new toy purchase . i can appreciate it is convieniant but laugh at the wondrous powers ascribed to a not very powerful vacuum pump over gravity . Err.... Yes there is, it's called a microscope look on the Garrard501 site on the PRC section and you can see photos of before and after cleaning. Interestingly the images came from the Mormon Church Sound Archive, who use a Loricraft PRC you can see them here loricraftinternetshop.co.uk/ There are others that show manually cleaned records too. If I can dig them out I'll post them. A good manually wet clean is about 60-75% as good as vacuum. sorry , but you post of full of ambivalence and conjecture . you need to assume , visibly cleaner under a microscope equates to better sound quality , whilst logically it would appear to a reasonable assumption it is still an assumption and since when as logic been sufficient evidence in hifi where have you got your 25% worse figure from , your own marketing ? I remain very dubious about the difference between wet clean and vacum wet clean and this were your argument is the weakest . upodate - i wrote the above giving you the benefit of the doubt over the photos , post posting , i looked , those photos are laughable marketing spin . i find insufficient evidence to alter my opinion. I will however check out the garrad site .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 15:43:51 GMT
gaz you will be posting a picture of me eating a bacon sandwich next .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 15:36:04 GMT
What does that bit of ingenuity prove in your eyes ?
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 15:23:56 GMT
its efficacy .
there is no way to establish not even subjectively the effectiveness of a vacuum wet clean as opposed to say one of those manual wet cleans .there is so much rubbish talked about the efficacy of rcm by middle age men salivating over there new toy purchase .
i can appreciate it is convieniant but laugh at the wondrous powers ascribed to a not very powerful vacuum pump over gravity .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 13:04:21 GMT
dear readers , do you never get suspicious that your opinions always back up your own predicament , state of affairs and spending decisions and therefore are nothing but ideological comfort blankets .
If i find myself believing in things evidence or the lack of evidence tells me is crap like the superiority of vacuum based record cleaning machines [ sucking up embedded dirt my arse ] then i blame myself for being an idiot , i dont set off and try and convince people i am right.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 5:59:04 GMT
To throw any TQ gear in the bin is not the approach to take. I don't think it will help Colin at all. Colin has taken my TQ amp and modified it, he wants me to enjoy what I have bought not put it in the bin. I appreciate the sentiment though. Yes I'm looking forward to building the New big Class A. I bought two super duper toroidals for it, all specifically designed for the application of course. Could have cost me £60 for the pair, instead it was a bit more than that. Hopefully worth it, a spot on psu is key to any good power amplifier. That will be the amp you are currently selling for 3k. Dear me.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 5, 2015 10:27:15 GMT
I understand the sentiment, but throwing what I own in the bin isn't going to help Colin. it may give him a small temporal satisfaction from such a gesture of solidarity . and i would draw a parallel with he ivory trade , nobody now wants the tusk of a dead animal as an ornament even if it is historic ivory from a time when we knew no better , I look forward to a day when it is socially unacceptable to use TQ .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 5, 2015 8:44:36 GMT
Is there anything that we as a community can do for you to help out? Yes - dont buy TQ products and throw what you own in the bin , thus when they go bankrupt , he can laugh his head off and have his faith restored that the world can sometimes be a good place .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 1, 2015 11:04:33 GMT
2nd Vote Was me.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Apr 30, 2015 9:37:07 GMT
here is a recent comment from Colin Wonfor about TQ in an interview Issues with the Tellurium Q Ltd directors forced me to resign in July 2014 as director.
Why?
Because I believe they saw no need for me anymore and Geoff and co did not understand electronics and the complex way some designs are put together. This caused me great pain as I trusted them. It also helped to end my marriage, and forced me into a homeless situation and I became very ill in December – having just recovered in June from septicemia
I still on paper own 45% of TQ but I suspect I will never see any income or returns on that. Strange I wonder if he was related to Relph as Geoff never wanted the company to move from his home, but TQ grew far too big for a workshop in a large garden in Langport. So we got a large unit in Somerton were I was shipped out to be forgotten.
- See more at: www.hifianswers.com/2015/04/colin-wonfor-sets-the-record-straight/#sthash.TDLZZiVf.dpuf
--- Need I say more .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Apr 28, 2015 12:07:05 GMT
DQ correcting a typo! oops i didn't realise it could potentially be a typo as fortuitously it made a correct word . that never happens when i [frequently] make typos.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Apr 27, 2015 14:06:09 GMT
Great German bling ideal partner for those purveyors of Columbia matching powder inner most sanctums Marching , surely .
|
|