Richard Dunn - what a nice handsome young man

[joe]

Ah, but as the 'Music that really winds you up' thread demonstrates, the music some people love is the music other people love to hate. Would there need to be a short test to determine whether a potential poster qualified as a 'Music Lover'?

[Alfi]

FFS the only thing that really matters, at the end of the day is that RD's customers (whoever they may be) are happy with the product they themselves chose to purchase from him.

He really is the only one who designs a range of products that perform very well at a realistic price point of which you can return after a 30 day trial period and get full value back if you do not like what the product does. The purchased item also retains full value if you keep and use the product but wish to upgrade within a two year period - that is quite unique.

Sometimes I care not for Richards writing style as it can do him a disservice, but I really trust his abilities in producing great value and performing audio kit. That it also looks cute for WAF is a bonus and which can be very important for some audio enthusiasts.

Forum antics & associated bullshit likely puts a lot of people off the hobby and this is what the Doc is trying to sort out by way of his own style. Ironically, most of the ones who choose to fight this are the very reason for his style and the ones fighting it are usually found to be full of

Harping on about Richard's forum persona is not going to change him in the slightest, perhaps the ones who are trying to do so should just give up aa bad job because it must be so frustrating for the poor souls.

Alfi.

[Fretless]

We are all hobbyists looking to get that 'buzz' out of the music (whatever it is) that we as individuals like to listen to. Currently I have A Flock of Seagulls playing - might send many running in agony. An 'audiophile' hifi should let me hear it as close to the original as possible.

Richard Dunn, the designer, has also built guitar and PA amps, he knows how live music should sound. I have learnt to trust his judgement and rely on his experience - and I have been on the receiving end of his impatience, due to my own ignorance.

Richard is a teacher - if you want to learn he will help - if you do it wrong he will let you know.

I don't think that there are any sycophants on HFS. But there are many who appreciate RD's hard work and effort that has resulted in the experience-based knowledge he generously shares with those who wish to benefit from it.

[joe]

He's a bloke who makes and sells hifi, no more, no less. I would say that all designers would claim that their equipment lets you hear recorded music as close to the original as possible. (Whether it actually does is hard to determine, unless you were present at the recording session and/or have heard the master tapes).

[CN211276]

I go along with the previous posts. RD was shat upon by the flat earthers and all the at the time. So we're the buying public. His products and those of many others did not have a chance. The situation has changed in the internet age. Unlike some, he does not need to shill. On the contrary, it sees he might have to turn away business.

[hillsanddalesrover]

Harping on about Richard's forum persona is not going to change him in the slightest, perhaps the ones who are trying to do so should just give up as bad job because it must be so frustrating for the poor souls.

Alfi.

I think you are 100% right.

So does not the same apply to this forums campaign against Marco (and others) ?

Think about that.

[Alfi]

I have and in my opinion and answer to your question... No.

I don't give a stuff about AOS or PFM. RD didn't start the shit.....

But both arformentioned forum owners did and still do given any & every opportunity!

Go figure.

Alfi.

[Simon Hickie]

As far as I'm concerned I find RD's ideas to be a breath of fresh air in an industry dominated my marketing speak and products where the selling price can be made up of <10%% components and materials. His ideas on speaker design in particular have led to me undertaking a fundamental reassessment of what speaker design is all about. I may draw the line at never considering using a low pass filter though as a read through some of Roy Allison's ideas suggests it may be needed in some designs (e.g. the Allison 3).

[Simon Hickie]

I’ve been looking for an appropriate post to give the following analogy and this would seem to do.

The Ptolomeic model of the universe was the dominant model which lasted for some 1500 years until the 16th century. The model postulated that Earth was the centre of the Universe and that the celestial bodies such as the moon, sun and stars orbited the earth on spheres. It therefore encompassed the ‘conventional wisdom’ about how the Universe was organized.

However, it was observed that some bodies exhibited something called retrograde motion whereby they went backwards against the rest of the skyscape. To account for the discrepancy between what was observed and what the theory predicted, the idea of epicycles was incorporated for each of the wanderers or planets whereby a planetary sphere contained a additional circular element which accounted for the backward movement of the planets against the stars. The problem was that as observations became more accurate, a single epicycle proved inadequate for explaining the movement of a planet. So we then got ‘epicycles on epicycles’ to try to adapt the model to observed evidence.

Copernicus published his heliocentric model in 1543 which positioned the Sun near the center of the Universe, motionless, with Earth and the other planets rotating around it in circular paths modified by epicycles and at uniform speeds. Clearly the model was inaccurate as it contained what we now know to be incorrect. However, it was more accurate that what went before. Furthermore, the heliocentric model was not new, having been previously postulated by Aristarchus in the 3rd century BC. Arisstarchus even suggested that the stars were other suns that are very far away, and that in consequence there was no observable parallax, that is, a movement of the stars relative to each other as the Earth moves around the Sun. Since stellar parallax is only detectable with telescopes, his accurate speculation was unprovable at the time.

The point is that prevailing ‘conventional wisdom’ can prevail for a long time and can result in refinements of increasing complexity as it attempts to deal with actual observed phenomena. However, only by then ditching the model and coming up with something else either brand new, or perhaps a hybrid of old and new do we then make progress. I see the modern hifi industry as we know it to be very much of the Ptolomeic variety with a small number of individuals prepared to think differently and swim against the tide of conventional wisdom. The problem comes when those with vested interests in the prevailing system are threatened by those who dare to offer a different view which threatens to upset the status quo.

[Bigman80]

Why am I being invited to join in with an ego boosting session?

Have you actually bothered to read all of this thread Biggy? Perhaps if you did, you'd like to rethink your comment about this being anywhere near an ego boosting session or Doc lovefest.

The thing is Biggy, many of the people have posted negative comments on the way the Doc's internet persona comes across, but they also have an understanding as to why he is like he is. I've tried to tell you that in more than one thread, but for whatever reason, the penny still doesn't want to drop drop. You seem intelligent enough, but I do wonder if you really have the appetite to see the bigger picture? Perhaps any admission would damage your perceived standing on the Art of Smut? Who knows. But you do yourself no favours, which, if you are as genuine as you keep trying to make out, is rather sad.

The thing is Eric, What you can't seem to grasp is that you are as bad as Dr Bunsen Honeydew. "how!!" you may ask? Well it's quite simple you see. You blame the victim of his behavior - "But you do yourself no favors" I am intrigued to know why you seem to justify the method in which The Dr applies his "internet justice" The truth is Eric, I don't give a fuck about how the Dr has been treated on the internet. I don't give a flying fuck about how this creation of Richards mind has come to think of himself as the slayer of all things not "the truth"

Your statement "but they also have an understanding as to why he is like he is. I've tried to tell you that in more than one thread, but for whatever reason, the penny still doesn't want to drop drop" is again in defense of his internet behavior. EVERY bully has a background story as to why they behave how they do. You are suggesting i should "understand" his behavior, well, i do understand he has been treated badly and i do understand that previous to my creation on internet forums that he was shunned, badmouthed and ridiculed. A bit like the bully who's dad beats him and in turn he beats his victim, i suppose the victim of his beatings and emotional torture should understand and accept it shouldn't he? You seem to be an articulate guy, Eric which is why i can't understand why you defend and condone the behavior.(by defending it, you are condoning it) Whenever there is a challenge to the docs behavior, the same guys start throwing their insults and opinions into the matter to defend it. They are all part of the problem. There is an expectation or desire for Marco to change his ban policy etc, why not show him you are all actually decent people rather than a mob of bullies intent on inflicting your opinions and beliefs on the world.

The problem here is, HOWEVER the doc has been treated, it does not give him the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to treat anyone how he does. I have never said a bad word about NVA or RD PRIOR to his and his groupies attacks on me for being honest about what i hear. You don't like what i have to say, you don't like what i think and you don't like how i go about voicing my opinion and you don't like that i wont "fall in line" (you is the royal use of the word and not aimed at an individual)

That is not an excuse to slander, bully, name call and humiliate anyone.

Yours,

Golden ears (condescending nickname given to me by someone on this forum. Condescension)