Jump to content
Computer Audiophile

firedog

  • Content count

    7,787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About firedog

  • Rank
    Masters Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Prior processing? Are you referring to MQA deblurring on the ADC side, as it were? Before applying the MQA compression algorithm?
  2. Looking around after I read the article, saw that there is now a wireless HP70 version. Would be interesting to hear a comparison if anyone has heard both.
  3. Politicians will make up reasons and justifications for what they do that have little or no connection to reality - be it "immigrants are the cause of the rising crime rate" - when they aren't and there isn't one; or even to blood libels that were believed about Jews in Europe (and still are in some quarters). The actual facts are often irrelevant to many, and narratives seen as the Truth are repeated over and over again and believed. Personal narratives about what is happening often have no connection to reality and are believed for generations, even when good research and subsequent events show them to have been baseless.
  4. firedog

    An Open Letter to "MQA Partners"

    Maybe people who started to jump on jhaagenstad’s case when he first appeared here and discussed his still undecided approach to MQA - just b/c he wasn’t “all-in’ against MQA - should take a lesson not to jump to conclusions.
  5. The point is that you can’t use it as a Roon endpoint over Ethernet in the way you describe. For that you would need a Roon endpoint/Ethernet streamer between Roon and the DAC. You can use the DAC as you are describing over an input that isn’t ethernet, in other words, with USB if you want those high sample rates.
  6. No, You got yours from the “revisionist” alternate history invented by Confederate sympathizers. As soon as the war ended many people in the South built up an alternative fantasy history version of what had happened that they believed The fact that those elderly people were alive during Reconstrunction doesn’t mean their memories and POV stand up to historical scrutiny.
  7. 9 hours ago, firedog said:

     

    And "the War Between the States"? That's a Confederate euphemism to hide the fact that it was a war about protecting/getting rid of  slavery, not about states rights - the states rights argument was just a cover argument for the protection of slavery.

    You want me to call it The Civil War? Because that too is a misnomer. The Balkans in the 1990s; those were civil wars. The Storming of the Bastille, that was a civil war,  Texas Independence, THAT was a civil war. The 1861-1865 affair was not a civil war because it was two separate countries in different regions of the continent fighting against each other not general members of the population fighting against each other in the streets of New York City or Boston, for instance. I could call it what my great grandfather called it when I was a toddler: "The War of Northern Aggression". That's more correct semantically. 

    9 hours ago, firedog said:

    The situation after the Civil War in the South was that there were organized bands of White terrorists who did everything they could to prevent freed blacks for holding office or even voting.

    That's where your history is faulty. After the War, Federal Troops occupied the South and Carpetbaggers (I'm sure you've heard of those) came down from the North to exploit the South. They put newly freed African Americans into positions of authority and police chiefs, fire chiefs, sheriffs, public works administrators, even mayors. Of course, these African Americans were not qualified, having had no education (it was against the law during slavery in the South to teach African-Americans how to read or write. Of course some slave owners did it anyway). Secondly, the war had taken all the money out of the South. Plantation owners had land, but no money to hire workers to work it. There were few jobs, so many African Americans, needing to feed their families formed gangs who pillaged the countryside. A Confederate General Named Nathan Bedford Forest started the Ku Klux Klan as sort of a police force to keep these roving bands of rogue African Americans in check and to oust them from these public offices that they were ill qualified to occupy. They also used terror tactics to keep these newly freed ex-slaves from insinuating themselves into Southern Society. As the Federal Troops withdrew circa 1875, the Carpetbaggers went with them (often leaving town on a rail, tarred and feathered!). It was then that Southern towns and cities instituted a a group of rather draconian laws to keep the African American and white populations of the South apart. Meant only to be a stop-gap arrangement while the South rebuilt their towns, cities and infrastructure, it soon became institutionalized, unfortunately, as things like that so often do. Measures were designed to keep African Americans from voting, to keep their wages low and to keep the two societies apart. Because the plantations owners in the South had no money to hire their ex-slaves back to work the plantations, the share-cropper system was instituted whereby the big land owners would lease out their land to individuals to farm and the farmer got to keep and sell part of his crop.

    What I said in an earlier post was that whether or not Jim Crow was deemed necessary or not, as a stop-gap measure until the economy and infrastructure of the South was rebuilt, after a generation or so, it became the norm, and when it should have been dismantled, it wasn't. It became the way of life in the Southern States. It took the Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's to finally get Southerners to wake up and see that what they were doing was wrong and needed to stop.   

     

    9 hours ago, firedog said:

    THOUSANDS of black people were murdered to accomplish this aim - including lovely incidents like opening fire on a group of black people haveing a political meeting in a hall and slaughtering all of them on the spot. Or burning the businesses of Whites who voted Republican (in those days the party that supported freed black slaves). Virtually no law enforcement against these actions. The only time the "law" sided with the freed slaves was when the Federal Government imposed martial law in order to stop the slaughter and violation of civil rights. By the mid 1870's people in the North tired of the whole issue and refused to interfere any longer to protect the freed slave population. 

    Of course. But that's what Jim Crow BECAME, not what it started out to be. And that was my only point. A point that you seem to have missed in your zeal to paint me as one who was trying to justify the practice. 

    9 hours ago, firedog said:

    Basically, the intent (and outcome) was to turn back all the gains made by the end of slavery and the passing of the additional amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing freed blacks their rights. Slavery didn't literally return, but freed slaves in the south  had all their political and economic rights taken away from them until the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's.  

    Again, of course. All the results of the Jim Crow Laws are as you state. I'm not disputing that one bit and I'm certainly not defending it. I marched in too many Civil Rights marches, and attended too many rallies (including the one before the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 where Dr. MLK gave his "I have a dream..." speech) in my teens to short sell the evil of the Jim Crow Laws and the misguided attitudes of many Southerners including older members of my own family

    But at least I know the REAL history of the region and haven't had my head filled with revisionist and apologetic nonsense. It's not your fault, of course. It's what you were taught.  

    There is no need for you to comment. I don't want to continue down this conversational path. If you want to know more about the reality of this subject, I suggest that you look for pre-1960 American history books or older sets of encyclopedia - Before the revisionists stepped in! 

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. gmgraves

      gmgraves

      I expected nothing less from you, actually. So before the 1960's, history books were wrong and people who lived through it and whose version of life mirrored what the history books said, were lying? I see! Only revisionist history is correct. Have it your own way. 

    3. firedog

      firedog

      Didn't say they were lying. People believe lots of things to be true that aren't. People in the South basically refused to accept the outcome of the war and went about trying to reverse the results. (We still hear from some of them today).

      This was not because of what people in the North did or because of the policies of the Republicans, but because that's what they wanted: To keep the black population without the vote, etc. And this had nothing to do with whether an individual black person was literate or not. Lots of whites also were unededucated, but the reaction to them wasn't the same.

       

      I can find you Germans who lived through the rise of Hitler and WWII who are convinced lots of what happened back then didn't, or that have various alternative histories/explanations/justifications for what happened. Just because they believe it, that doesn't make it true. Same for all those old people you refer to. That's why there's more to historical research than personal anecdotes.

       

      History- as in other fields, more sources are found, more research is done, and ideas change. Even some of those who supported what you think changed their minds later.

      Not everyone who wrote before the 60's agrees with your ideas, ether. That's another misunderstanding on your part.

    4. gmgraves

      gmgraves

      I'd say you were possibly correct were it not for the fact that what I'm saying was taught in the schools from history books that agree with what my elder great grandparents said was the way it was. Then in the 1960's the narrative started to change. Suddenly, while the Federal Government was busy instituting Affirmative Action Programs and African Americans were being given their justly deserved equal rights, the history books started to change. Now, in the aftermath of the War Between The States, the former slaves were being persecuted for no reason other than they were black. And whereas before, we were given reasons for the draconian measures known collectively as Jim Crow, now it was just because white southerners were mean. One of the two possibilities ring awfully hollow to me. 

  8. Sigh to you. What an arrogant reply. I've verified for myself how I think the first MQA unfold sounds. With dozens of examples. Archi's results, with all due respect, are a very small sample and prove nothing. And, as he himself just wrote in this thread they may also be a result of the test tracks he used, which weren't exactly sourced from modern quality hi-res recordings.
  9. Don't think that is really true. Once the MQA "process" for compression is applied, you are getting an altered master with some bits stripped away. So if you don't like the sound of the first unfold, it may be because of the changes introduced by MQA.
  10. firedog

    MQA is Vaporware

    Yep.
  11. I think you need to brush up on your history. How is it "understandable"? It's only "understandable" if you don't have a problem with racism and terrorism. And "the War Between the States"? That's a Confederate euphemism to hide the fact that it was a war about protecting/getting rid of slavery, not about states rights - the states rights argument was just a cover argument for the protection of slavery. The situation after the Civil War in the South was that there were organized bands of White terrorists who did everything they could to prevent freed blacks for holding office or even voting. THOUSANDS of black people were murdered to accomplish this aim - including lovely incidents like opening fire on a group of black people haveing a political meeting in a hall and slaughtering all of them on the spot. Or burning the businesses of Whites who voted Republican (in those days the party that supported freed black slaves). Virtually no law enforcement against these actions. The only time the "law" sided with the freed slaves was when the Federal Government imposed martial law in order to stop the slaughter and violation of civil rights. By the mid 1870's people in the North tired of the whole issue and refused to interfere any longer to protect the freed slave population. Basically, the intent (and outcome) was to turn back all the gains made by the end of slavery and the passing of the additional amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing freed blacks their rights. Slavery didn't literally return, but freed slaves in the south had all their political and economic rights taken away from them until the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's.
  12. Hi Jud- Not sure how your reply had anything to do with my post. I think I was saying, in a different way, pretty much what you said.
  13. Because it has become a back and forth between 2 posters that is repetitive and doesn't advance the topic.
  14. If you are offering a public service - such as a hotel or restaurant, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to people who don't fit your personal belief system. Providing them with service is not endorsing their lifestyle or beliefs. Unless this principle is applied, it can lead to the refusal of service to just about anyone, based on "my personal belief". In the recent case in the US: I don't think a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. He is being asked to perform the service he is business for - baking. Baking a cake - for anyone - isn't a violation of his beliefs, as he doen't have a belief against cake baking. He should, the other hand, be allowed to refuse to actively take part in a gay wedding ceremony - as that might violate his beliefs. But there's a difference between being asked to take part in the actual ceremony or celebration and being asked to provide a service to that ceremony.
  15. Of course there are. First, your right to directly call for violence is limited. One of many examples: try threatening the President of the United States. And there are situations where you can be convicted of a crime for encouraging a crime. Students in school don't have absolute freedom of speech - they aren't allowed to be disruptive with speech, and schools have the right to limit or prevent speech seen as disruptive to the normal functioning of a school. Furthermore, you keep missing out on the point that the 1st Amendment only means the government can't limit speech - it doesn't mean speech can't be limited in all types of situations.
×