Jump to content

firedog

  • Posts

    11888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

4 Followers

Retained

  • Member Title
    Masters Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

30240 profile views
  1. Yep, with active speakers, plus sub, and RPi you can have a complete pretty much full range system for about $1000. Same with DAC, pre, amp and conventional speakers. Especially with some of the integrated products around today. This isn't junk, but very good sounding. No, not like a five figure(s) system, but really good. Streaming? It has it's downsides, but having access at the click of a mouse to almost any music I can think of? And in good quality? I couldn't even have imagined such a thing for the first 50 or so years I was alive, and I had already owned several good systems by that point.
  2. Interesting. Big fan of both. I haven't been a huge fan of Todd's previous covers. They never seemed to add that much or give a new perspective on the originals. Well done, but nothing more. Hoping this will be better. The Title track sounds pretty good in that link.
  3. "But to suggest that Bob Stuart’s diligent efforts to assure that his invention is heard and understood represent some sort of hucksterism is simply bizarre." No, it's simply backed up by the facts. Bob Stuart had a lot of respect as an engineer. The MQA hucksterism and the intentionally misleading statements marketing it went quite a ways towards besmirching his reputation. What's bizarre is the continuing refusal of so many in "the industry" to acknowledge that.
  4. Sorry to say, this post reveals that you haven't learned much over the years and continue to misunderstand and misconstrue the argument: The post in question was taken down because it was ridiculous and I'm sure Chris received objections (I know he did). Again, it's the minority of the reactions here, and not very significant. Certainly not representative, as you try to imply. SQ was never taken off the table. But it was widely acknowledged here and other places that SQ was subjective, and not really a useful subject for debate. What was said was that many didn't hear the supposedly obvious SQ improvements brought about by MQA. Mostly what was objected to were falsehoods used to back up subjective claims of universally superior SQ. And that happened frequently. In fact, it was the basis for many MQA claims of sonic superiority. Fremer was attacked not for what he liked, but b/c he wrote that review of an MQA recording and clearly had less than zero understanding of how the technology worked. He used his misunderstandings to back up his claims of superior SQ. He then doubled down on his ignorance in the comments section, where his misunderstandings were pointed out to him and it was suggested he understand the tech before posting false statements about it in his reviews. He absolutely refused to deal with the basic facts when made aware of them. THAT calls into question his "ethical core" and IS a moral failing. Totally unprofessional. So it wasn't "just his opinion about sound" that was criticized. Finally: No. It's a bellweather. Especially since your publication and Stereophile continued to double down on the support for MQA and promote it after the legitimate criticism was revealed. And repeatedly, for years. The "greatest scientific revolution since Copernicus" claim (my paraphrase) was never revoked. Nor were the factually false claims of MQA written about or acknowledged (and especially not in special "from the editor" columns) in the same manner in which MQA was promoted. TAS may have some good subjective reviews, but the MQA episode revealed how it really operates. It thus calls into question the reliability and honesty of the subjective reviews themselves.
  5. I'm totally of that age, have a turntable and an LP collection. I NEVER (and I mean never) play them, and don't miss it.
  6. I've written before about an audio ecosystem that includes many constituencies - manufacturers, hobbyists, journalists, recording professionals, musicians, and others. We all should be watching out for each other's interests. That's what will keep this thing going. Agree. But some leaders in the ecosystem said we should accept MQA even if it wasn't good for the consumer, because it was good "for the industry" JA2 wrote an editorial where he basically said just that. That's not watching out for each other's interests - that's abandoning the interests of consumers, musicians, and others - Those that aren't engaging in corporate profit making thru music. That's one of the things that most upset me about the whole MQA episode. It was basically "the industry" trying to force a format on the consumer that didn't bring any real benefit, yet added costs and complexity.
  7. Well, I can think of a few writers -and one in particular - who seemed to make a point of writing about MQA files in EVERY review, without exception.
  8. Uh, spinning discs are digital and also anonymous. You don't need vinyl for anonymity.
  9. You are correct. I don't like big corps having my info - especially for free. But unless you want to be disconnected from the Internet, you can't prevent it. I see Roon as so valuable to me personally - and that's dependent on internet access - that I'm willing to give up the information. It was the same before with LMS - it's nothing new. Maybe part of the solution would be for Roon to sell a version for the local library only, and no info going back to them - but I doubt they'd ever do that. The better big term solution would be for companies to eitther; a) pay users in order to collect info on them; or b) a user option to opt out of info and uploading it to the Net or at least a choice of what info is uploaded. In the case of Roon, say I could allow my music listening habits to be uploaded, but not info about my devices, home network setup, etc. I should also be able to tell companies they can't sell or pass on my info without my express permission. This could be done. But unless legislation mandates it, companies will never do it.
  10. Yes, they've said if they are supplied a hi-res FLAC version, that will replace the MQA. If not, the MQA will be retained. Apparently b/c it will be, in that case, the closest thing to hi-res they have.
  11. Listening to it now on Qobuz. Not the greatest sounding album, but not terrible. My main impression is that the bass and upper mids are too dominant. But that gives it a bit of a thick sound, maybe that's what she wanted.
  12. Great piano version. Very enjoyable orchestral version. Good sound.
  13. Almost nothing new will be produced in MQA. And hi-res versions will be there instead of most of the MQA that was there before. The MQA selection will be pretty small. Peter will have to suck it up and listen to hi-res flac.
  14. What is Peter Veth listening to now that there's no serious source for MQA? Maybe he bought lot's of MQA-CD's.....
  15. Yes, I get that. But I'm not entirely convinced that the extreme VC on Morning Glory was entirely an "artistic" decision, and not just "lets make it louder than everything else". Maybe that's not a real distinction, I sort of think it is. On this one, it seems to me they were purposely going for the sound of distortion.
×
×
  • Create New...