Ethan, I believe this kind of talk is the same sort of thing you so passionately asked me to prevent from happening to you. So, stop it, please. We can disagree without being dismissive and disparaging.
Now hold on there a minute Stephen! Yes, I did complain about Steve Sammet's incessant attacks on me personally, on my ethics (faking data), and my competence. You told me you PM'd Steve and told him to cut it out, and he did. For about a week. Now he's back with all the same accusations of fraud and incompetence, and you have done nothing. His posts maligning me are FAR worse than what I just said! Yet you call me out? You get Steve Sammet to stop disparaging me and I'll gladly stop disparaging him. But he started it, and he has been infinitely more personal in his attacks, and accused me of far worse than my mild post. Most pathetic of all is that I'm far more competent than Steve Sammet in the field of audio!
A few things to consider. First post #50920, page 9.
Since when is voltage regulation in the direct signal path? I thought Steve said he went to school for this stuff. Well, somebody has to graduate last in the class.
A voltage regulator circuit is in the direct signal path. Unfortunately, Ethan does not even understand what a basic thevenin equivalent circuit is, how the voltage regulator fits in, which is a first year if not first semester engineering topic. Take a look at another Ethan example.
In the "Accuracy" string, he has posted of using an RF filter, worthless below 150khz according to the specs, to solve an audio clicking problem below 20khz.
I think one can see from the above examples the huge discrepancy between what he wants you to think he knows, and what he actually knows.
By the way, Dup actually posted that 20-25khz -0.1db actually meant that the frequency response only extended to 25khz. Wow. (Actually -1db point is well above 100khz.)
So it is interesting to see Ethan's comment below
DUP arguably understands far more than most posters here about how audio really works,
I can understand Ethan's attempts to discredit me since I caught him red handed manipulating room graphs. Then he manipulated the RS graph (in 10 mic comparison) in an attempt to cover up the crooked room graphs. Of course his obviously poor understanding of even basic electronics as demonstrated just above. Now his praise of Dup's understanding of audio.
For about a week.
and Post #50711
The only "vendetta" going on is the one you started against me, totally unprovoked. If you have evidence of me being the first to toss stones please post a link now for all to see and I will apologize immediately.
Well, here is the post, #50531. Ethan claims he did not provoke any attack and I did. But here it is, on page 2. And see that I made no comments concerning Ethan before that.
I finally respond to Ethan on page 4, #50644. So Ethan clearly attacked first. Just check out "Accuracy" string for many many more misleading comments and outright deceptions.
Concerning Dup's comments about slew rate, slew rate is dependent upon both frequency response and peak output voltage. So one device could have a very narrow bandwidth and high voltage output, like in an amplifier, and have a higher slew rate than a device, like a preamplifier, that has a wide bandwidth and low voltage output. That is why bandwidth is more important than slew rate.
Next, Dup contends that my specs are poor, and recommends the 6n1p with stronger capabilities. Hmmm.
I provide information that the E88cc has better frequency response, lower distortion, higher slew rate than a 6n1p.
Dup starts in on my listen methodology testing, which he obviously does not understand. (Yet Ethan gives Dup two thumbs up as mentioned above.)
I then list the specs for everyone to see, #50725. (Correction: the distortion spec should read .015% including, not plus, noise.)
Page 6, post #50731, I explain how this all got started with Ethan's insinuations and condensending attitude in "Upgrade Paths" string, starting page 4. I also requested him more than once to please stop the insinuations.
Dup continues on page 6, "extremely limited" frequency response. Claims 20-20,000 is my preamps actual response, which of course is misleading information or he cannot read specs. 20-25khz is at -.1db with 100pf and 100khz load. (After thought: one might check to see who else mentions the load when doing specs.) As one can see, Dup does not understand specs.
#50812 Ethan tries diverionary tactic from the evidence I presented in Accuracy string, doctored room graphs. He could have refuted the evidence and proved me wrong here, or for the past 3+ months, but yet again he does not, but sidesteps the issue. So my responses are not baseless accusations.
Page 8 and beyond are attacks on my components and me.
As one can see, both Dup and Ethan are quite ignorant of basic electronics and constantly use unscrupulous tatics.