(07-12-2017, 03:31 PM)chaosvrgn Wrote: Annoyed at a certain person who had the ideal amount of loops modeled for him, only for him to claim he didn't "see how that would work since they haven't met." Backward ass logic, considering Shannon uses the models to make the subs in the first place.
Clearly that's for me...also that's a vast oversimplification of what I said. I didn't see how you could be so granular to tailor something like this to someone you've never evaluated in person in any way. That doesn't mean I had no intention to follow it, or that I wasn't grateful, just that I didn't get how it could be accurate given the circumstances.
My post stated soon after Shannon said that to me, he said he wanted people to experiment with loops, to give him new data to work with etc. I took that to mean me also, it was a basic tiny misunderstanding. Regardless, I'm getting the best results I've had ever on this at 2 loops now anyway when I went back to the normal recommended dose after testing at varying numbers of doses. And 2 clearly being the best for me now, which I will continue doing until V3.2 as it's clear that somehow now 2 is making good for me.
I said all of this in my journal, and maybe even in that exact post you partially referenced...after Shannon and I talked about it and it being so meaningless and being squashed. Maybe you just stopped reading at that point and based some opinion off only that. I doubt you're just posting this for the creation of drama or instigation, so I'm sure you didn't read the rest so you didn't see everything else. Just know it was a basic misunderstanding, I'm grateful for the modeled loops, but after a good period of testing, it was clear 2 is now far superior to anything else I've used based off my real life dealings. This would've been clear if the rest of my entries were read.
I hope this puts all of this to bed finally.
I'm happy to see your results are getting better and better! In time, maybe we can all experience something similar. Cheers man!
