JVS Cheerleads an MQA CD..Sis Boom Bah!

[christopher3393]

21 hours ago, crenca said:

I also noticed that Christopher3393 is playing the role of civility police again.  Snitch is the technical descriptor...

 

For the record, I did not report these posts to the moderator but simply posted my own response.

 

I can find zero evidence that "snitch" is a technical descriptor. Informant is, but I don't see how this fits, particularly since the only informing I did was by public posting.

 

"Playing the role of civility police"  is quite loaded, clearly negative.

 

I would prefer to address this by PM, but you've made it quite public, so here is, in part, your reply:

Crenca, you did not show me the minimal respect of questioning the contents of my post that you are responding to.

 

I think you are fully capable of examining your own conscience and discerning the intent in your heart when you, for example, post about ML. You have never, to my knowledge, expressed that your history of interaction with ML would lead you to ask what role your own posts to him had in the near inevitable events that followed. That the sole responsibility is MLs is, imo,  simply not a viable response. So I'd like to suggest to you that some of your posts, and some of your overall tactics here, strike me as irresponsible.

 

I also find some of your remarks uncharitable toward the person you are criticizing while finding excuses to justify this behavior that I don't think would stand up to any real, careful, scrutiny.

 

Synonyms for uncharitable that, imo, may apply at times to some of your posts and to select posts of a few others here: mean, mean-spirited, unkind, selfish, self-centered, inconsiderate, thoughtless, insensitive, unfriendly, unsympathetic, hard-hearted, uncaring, unfeeling, ungenerous, ungracious, unfair.

 

Rather than being an overly aggressive pc "snowflake" misportrayal, I think I have been very patient and moderate in my exchanges with you generally, and have tried to reason with you numerous times. My patience is being tried at this point.

 

I would hope we could get past this. But I don't think it will be easy.

[Shadders]

HI,

Meridian has always been associated with high quality, and advanced system design. As it has been sold to investors who see it as high end, then i cannot see the Meridian name being used for lower priced products.

 

Not sure if they have the ability to re-enact the Tag-McClaren name as a brand for hifi (maybe not - McClaren may object), but they could easily design high performance systems with an acceptable price tag, and keep some British brand going. They would be competing with Cambridge Audio, or Audiolab - but then, hifi is in decline.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[firedog]

4 hours ago, realhifi said:

I have.  I have read it online and just received the print version of the magazine and to be honest was distracted by other articles in it and (stupidly) missed it in the contents section.  Now, I've said it a number of times so I don't think it needs said again that I flat out missed it.

Your contention isn't that I'm blind for missing it (I somewhat could accept that) but that I am a liar.  That's not cool my friend. 

You don't need to defend yourself anymore. Too many people around here have gotten paranoid and love to accuse  others of being liars. It's easy to do if you don't have to actually prove it. All that matters for them is that you've done something they consider suspicious.

[Tintinabulum]

40 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

40 years of financial losses tell me how good Meridian is

Personally I put some music on and listen, that tells me how good Meridian equipment is. Maybe there's a forum for bitching about your hate figures, I'm not sure this is it though. Hifi anyone (computer based)?

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

You don't need to defend yourself anymore. Too many people around here have gotten paranoid and love to accuse  others of being liars. It's easy to do if you don't have to actually prove it. All that matters for them is that you've done something they consider suspicious.

 

I agree. The Russians are laughing their asses off at the MQA-related drama here on CA.

[Tintinabulum]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

At roughly $800 used, clearly they clearly held no value.

 Indeed they have depreciated like any number of things. Surely this just points to what stunning value they are now? You'd have to hear them to know. I have the advantage there of knowing. But sound quality isn't really what this is about is it (unfortunately)? Its about Meridian = MQA + Hate.

 

Hate on!

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

 Indeed they have depreciated like any number of things. Surely this just points to what stunning value they are now? You'd have to hear them to know. I have the advantage there of knowing. But sound quality isn't really what this is about is it (unfortunately)? Its about Meridian = MQA + Hate.

 

Hate on!

i HAVE heard them by the way. And they did sound good. Not $12,000 good. But good.

 

And to say they have "depreciated" like other things is pretty funny.

[Tintinabulum]

13 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 Not $12,000 good. But good.

 

And to say they have "depreciated" like other things is pretty funny.

 $800 good (which is what were talking about)?

 

I think the $12.000 is a bit on the high side.

 

There have been worse investments...(paying for my sons education for instance).

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

My price is accurate. In fact, i even demoed the 5200 series, which jumped to $14000.

 

Yes, $800 good.

[Tintinabulum]

What year? DSP5000s, not 5200s.

 

[Tintinabulum]

Historic price lists here

http://www.meridian-audio.info/show.php?compid=435

[Spacehound]

40 minutes ago, Shadders said:

 

 

HI,

Meridian has always been associated with high quality, and advanced system design. As it has been sold to investors who see it as high end, then i cannot see the Meridian name being used for lower priced products.

 

Not sure if they have the ability to re-enact the Tag-McClaren name as a brand for hifi (maybe not - McClaren may object), but they could easily design high performance systems with an acceptable price tag, and keep some British brand going. They would be competing with Cambridge Audio, or Audiolab - but then, hifi is in decline.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

I think some guys on camels  in the desert might  object.

This week it's their turn  to own  McLaren and some expensive  'Swiss' watchmaker.

 

AudioLab is Chinese but was once called TAG-Mclaren. Cambridge audio is UK designed and owned but Chinese made.

 

"What a tanged web..etc"

[Ralf11]

An MQA watch would be an interesting item...

[Indydan]

19 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

There have been worse investments...(paying for my sons education for instance).

 

 

 

Is your son GUTB?   

[Brinkman Ship]

21 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

What year? DSP5000s, not 5200s.

 

???early 2000s, I don't know exactly.

[Spacehound]

59 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

'Personally I put some music on and listen, that tells me how good Meridian equipment is. Maybe there's a forum for bitching about your hate figures, I'm not sure this is it though. Hifi anyone (computer based)?

At the price you paid it's fine. That's always been Meridians problem.

 

MQA Ltd. lost £3.2 million of  'Administrative Expenses'  on a total annual  turnover of £29,000 (which is considerably less than mine). I wish I knew how to do that. 

[hsmeets]

4 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

The truncated version does not light up the blue quack light on my DAC.

 

And what happens if you only truncate/mask 1 bit (the least significant) from the file? 

 

And what happens if you mask e.q. the 20th bit to zero (thus outside the encrypted MQA part).

 

Aside from that a file maybe becomes unlistenable, does the MQA authentication detect this? 

[crenca]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

For the record, I did not report these posts to the moderator but simply posted my own response.

 

I can find zero evidence that "snitch" is a technical descriptor. Informant is, but I don't see how this fits, particularly since the only informing I did was by public posting.

 

"Playing the role of civility police"  is quite loaded, clearly negative.

 

I would prefer to address this by PM, but you've made it quite public, so here is, in part, your reply:

Crenca, you did not show me the minimal respect of questioning the contents of my post that you are responding to.

 

I think you are fully capable of examining your own conscience and discerning the intent in your heart when you, for example, post about ML. You have never, to my knowledge, expressed that your history of interaction with ML would lead you to ask what role your own posts to him had in the near inevitable events that followed. That the sole responsibility is MLs is, imo,  simply not a viable response. So I'd like to suggest to you that some of your posts, and some of your overall tactics here, strike me as irresponsible.

 

I also find some of your remarks uncharitable toward the person you are criticizing while finding excuses to justify this behavior that I don't think would stand up to any real, careful, scrutiny.

 

Synonyms for uncharitable that, imo, may apply at times to some of your posts and to select posts of a few others here: mean, mean-spirited, unkind, selfish, self-centered, inconsiderate, thoughtless, insensitive, unfriendly, unsympathetic, hard-hearted, uncaring, unfeeling, ungenerous, ungracious, unfair.

 

Rather than being an overly aggressive pc "snowflake" misportrayal, I think I have been very patient and moderate in my exchanges with you generally, and have tried to reason with you numerous times. My patience is being tried at this point.

 

I would hope we could get past this. But I don't think it will be easy.

 

Nope, it won't be easy - but as the bumper sticker says, nothing worth doing ever is.

 

If I recall correctly, I was (and I remain) critical of ML's position about audio in general, blog moderation in particular, and toward many here who were banned by him for disagreeing with him (on his blog).  I make no apology or defense of those facts - if you don't like it then I submit it is your problem.  In my defense however, I thought a very broad moderation needed to be taken toward ML as it quickly became evident that he has some real issue(s) (I called it a "tick", others used similar language) around his impulsive insulting, NSFW language, etc.  I was often the target of those attacks, but I never reported him (that I recall - no doubt I scolded him) - others did however and he as banned.  Indeed I kept engaging the substance of his arguments (when possible).  Did you forget this?  What more could have I done "responsibly"?  As far as I can tell you have a false recollection/understanding of that exchange.  Of course, nobody is innocent, pure, etc.  Mistakes were made no doubt.  So what?  Time to move on.

 

As far as this thread, if you did not report (i.e. snitch) then I stand corrected and I sincerely apologize.  Mine was a reasonable assumption based on a correlation of your non-contribution to the substance of several threads except to complain of the "tone" of others.  Yes, you and I (and others) have reasoned extensively on this.  Now, we are at an impasse.  You don't agree with me, I don't agree with you - indeed so much so that I put it this way:    We are from different cities, with different customs and different understandings as to what it means to be "civil".  Mine has a far greater tolerance to a kind of bar room honesty - unlike you, I have no problem calling someone a "wanker" in a certain context.  Yours (as I see it) is much more rationalistic, dogmatic, and impersonal approach - you think there is something inherently evil in "wanker".   I comes to this:  all those descriptors you used (e.g. "mean", "insensitive", especially "unsympathetic",  "hard hearted" & "ungenerous") IMO apply to your philosophy of "civility", not mine!  You are the inflexible, dogmatic, moralistic finger wagger in the room who professes his own innocent when he is judging.  You are, despite your own belief and self description, most intolerant.

 

However perhaps I am mistaken.  I don't believe I am, not in essence (we no doubt are from different cities) but perhaps I have overestimated your dogmatism, or perhaps I am not picking up signals of toleration and generosity and humaneness from you that you in fact are putting out.  In that, I am willing to step back and have a digital beer with you.  We don't agree, but let us find a way to toleration and perhaps even respect.

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

Mine was a reasonable assumption based on a correlation of your non-contribution to the substance of several threads except to complain of the "tone" of others.

 

This is precisely the basis of my "civility police" observation.

[John_Atkinson]

10 hours ago, Spacehound said:

And  page 51 omitted from  the contents pages? We are not as dumb as you appear to think.

 

It's listed there on the first Contents page, p.3. Even mentions that demonic acronym "MQA."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, hsmeets said:

 

And what happens if you only truncate/mask 1 bit (the least significant) from the file? 

 

And what happens if you mask e.q. the 20th bit to zero (thus outside the encrypted MQA part).

 

Aside from that a file maybe becomes unlistenable, does the MQA authentication detect this? 

I used the wrong truncation method. New research available, which shows MQA files can be manipulated and the blue light will still shine:
 

 

[Spacehound]

9 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

It's listed there on the first Contents page, p.3. Even mentions that demonic acronym "MQA."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

I know that. It's why I pointed it out.

[realhifi]

4 hours ago, Spacehound said:

I know that. It's why I pointed it out.

My whole point in that post (in which I erroneously missed THE article on MQA) was that there was a wealth of information to be found in the major audio publications on Hi-Fi, music and the Hi-Fi industry which absolutely dwarfed any MQA mentions. 

[mav52]

9 minutes ago, realhifi said:

My whole point in that post (in which I erroneously missed THE article on MQA) was that there was a wealth of information to be found in the major audio publications on Hi-Fi, music and the Hi-Fi industry which absolutely dwarfed any MQA mentions. 

 

[Spacehound]

23 minutes ago, realhifi said:

My whole point in that post (in which I erroneously missed THE article on MQA) was that there was a wealth of information to be found in the major audio publications on Hi-Fi, music and the Hi-Fi industry which absolutely dwarfed any MQA mentions. 

It doesn't matter. Maybe you, me, and some others went too far. We should all bear in mind that we are not killing babies here. It's just an entirely 'passive' hobby, which are the easiest type  of all hobbies, though it has its 'cognoscenti' interests.

 

And unlike some others who usually appear fairly briefly  trying to sell us something,  and are very often 'economical with the truth',  we have no financial interest in any of it.