Jump to content

Arg

  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Needy and insecure

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I reckon this is a case of sour grapes from someone left out of the new bandwagon. Don’t give it so much credence, Chris. Why? Because this whole “overseen by the artist” and “artist’s original intent” message is the real scam. The general rule is that it doesn’t happen, and never happened.
  2. I dunno. I didn’t say there’s an agenda. I said MQA seem to engage in agenda management. We seem to be able to say whatever (short of slander), as often as we want, on every other topic.
  3. Chris, have you even once posted something to say we've heard enough about Amir "in the MQA thread"? What's the difference? If it's time to go "back to MQA", do you think something hasn't already been said about MQA? Like what? Part of the issue with MQA is the agenda management that seems so noticeable. Certain people seem to be central to the attempts at agenda management. I believe that to discuss this is about MQA. Character assassination is a different thing of course, and should be stopped at the first sign. cheers
  4. I think you are trying to over-control the agenda here. My questions are serious, legit, and not in any way character assassination. Your questions of JA were practically Dorothy Dixers. No wonder you got such prompt and courteous service. Repeat: I think you are trying to over-control the agenda here. Why don’t you move on, instead of all of us having to, at your direction?
  5. Not so quick, however, to deal with the more nuanced issue I raised on conflict of interest. Perhaps @John_Atkinson didn’t notice the implied questions. As a professional journalist, how about being sceptical when a company guru spins how wonderful is a new product? Even more so when the product has the potential to intertwine itself into the industry production flow and cost consumers money for (until independently proven) no significant benefit compared to free alternatives? How about rigorously taking to task all advertising claims and, similarly, all word of mouth claims, website claims, and white paper claims? And if the reason for going soft on such journalistic standards, is that it could imperil the journalist’s own pay packet or even employability, how does he feel about THAT conflict of interest? Or is it more about the industry model than the consumer-interest model of journalism, where the journalist (and the media who employ him or her) are more into promoting industry welfare than the consumer interest? If that is true, why come and wade here in the slush-pond of public discussion forums with the great unwashed mass of consumers and enthusiasts, if your interests are more in defending industry guru claims than being a sceptical, rigorous, investigative, technical journalist with our interests at heart?
  6. I would expect nothing less. It’s important that the free gear goes to the right person. ONLY KIDDING!!! More seriously, though: I get it that it’s a useful element of assessing opinion to know the source, and know whether to add or subtract weight to the opinion, based on who says so. For example #1, if Floyd Toole says something about anything audio other than how good his book is, I will view it in a more positive light and be less demanding of evidence. I get it: a little bit of shortcut-thinking is useful and a time saver. For example #2, knowing that Robert Stuart stands to make or lose a lot of money with the fortunes of MQA, gives good rational reason to mark his opinions and proclamations about it DOWN or even to DISMISS them outright. Being a professional, John, I would be astonished if you haven’t reached the same conclusion about conflict-of-interest. It would be unprofessional to think otherwise. Mr Stuart could be a certified genius on the topic, in fact probably is, but that only means he could pull the wool over more people’s eyes more convincingly, when self interest and profits are directly at stake, as they are in this case. What is needed in this case is independent verification. What any professional who has any commitment to the interests of the consumer (where the word “professional” is used to indicate knowledgeable, high standards, and truth-seeking, as opposed to opinions-for-sale) should be saying about MQA is “I can’t endorse this until you make it easier, for ANYONE who wishes, to independently verify the claims.” I would HATE to THINK, John, that decades of exposure to the Commercial Magazine Business Model has worn you down in this area. You can demand real names as a matter of professionalism, but also need to call out conflicts of interest at every turn, for the same reason. cheers
  7. He (Amir) is quite transparent about it. It is not a boast about his hearing ability: it is to refute people wrongly saying “no way, no one, no how, can you tell if a music recording is 16 or 24 bit.” It’s in one of his videos. He had to pick out a lead-out section of a track where music levels are very low, put the ABX gear on A-B repeat of 2 seconds, and crank the volume, and listen to the noise difference. He literally says, “you could say I cheated”. He also openly says that neither he nor anyone would have a hope of telling them apart in listening to music passages at normal recording levels. Nothing wrong with that IMHO, and point well made. P.S. to the general discussion in this thread: didn’t Chris encourage discussion of MQA instead of character assassination?
  8. IIRC he specifically took exception with using a test signal in the ‘folded’ frequency range. I can understand that concern. And I thought that was consistent with John Dyson’s point.
  9. Agreed. But doesn’t this back up what Amir was saying about testing MQA with inappropriate signal and misinterpreting the results?
  10. This is just a conspiracy theory.
  11. Well — MP3 or AAC can make that claim.
  12. "This is a review and detailed measurements of the Schiit Modi 3+ DAC. It was kindly sent to me by the company for testing and costs US $99 from the company direct." link: https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/schiit-modi-3-review-stereo-dac.18480/ Maybe check YOUR facts...
  13. My strange mind is struck by how the carefully cultivated symmetry of your setup is unbalanced by the wooden table added to support one too many components than can fit into the rack. 😁
  14. I will not endorse as Product of the Decade any product that is not available to large swathes of audio consumers. Please check the global distribution extent of products before making awards.
  15. I totally agree and thank you very much to haggis for doing it.
×
×
  • Create New...