Civility

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

He is often brought up as an example of a great contributor who was driven away, a loss for the forum according to many. He was a very gracious communicator generally. But he had some subjective views that I think some members just couldn’t tolerate. To condemn the way he was treated puts me in a tribe in your eyes but it does not in mine. 

 

This doesn't match my recollection of what happened. I won't name names but, as I remember it, he was treated quite rudely by someone from the "trust your ears" camp. 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

...and as we like to say around here, may you enjoy abiding union with the mother goddess of supreme wisdom. 

 

Be careful. It was a statement like this that got ML banned...

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Tom, it was in jest about the whole affair. I forgot the winkie.

 

So did I

[kumakuma]

22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 That is incorrect. It was due to a build up of hostile posts over a period of time, mainly from your side of the fence .

 

Perhaps we disagree about which side of the fence the individual I was referring to is on.  

[kumakuma]

55 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 That is incorrect. It was due to a build up of hostile posts over a period of time, mainly from your side of the fence .

Several members, including myself are still in contact with  Barry.

 

If Barry told you that the objectivists drove him away then it must be true.

 

I do find this a little odd though as it seemed that everyone here (except the gentleman I mentioned) treated him with a lot of respect. I don't personally remember him saying anything that I disagreed with and I was sorry that he decided to stop posting here.

[kumakuma]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I've been reading Barry's posts since the middle aughts, and even conversing with him (but not in a few years now).  I also never remember him saying anything that I disagreed with.  And I personally adore the mastering job he did on the original Led Zeppelin CDs, AC/DC Back In Black, GnR Appetite For Destruction, Dokken's Under Lock and Key, and many, many more.  While I admit it's a nerdy take on things, he is literally a bit of rock and roll history to me.

 

His Bob Marley CDs are also very good.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

samuel, wgscott provided no evidence whatsoever. Nor have you answered my questions to you regarding your affirmation of his position. So as stated, the claims are groundless; no reasoning or data provided to support them.

 

I took Bill's post as his opinion, rather than a strong scientific claim. 

 

The fact that seven people liked his post indicates that others agree with him.

 

Before you ask, I cannot provide evidence for my claims that Bill's post was just his opinion or that liking a post indicates agreement with the opinion of the poster.

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 A group of us has done that on numerous occasions over the years in Sydney. Au.

Neither do most members have any degree of confidence in the ability of those who demand these things to set up fool proof tests over the Internet. Far too many Objectivists refuse to accept that even Internet transfer may affect final results, which is why I prefer to send physical media wherever possible. Even then, there is no guarantee that the equipment used by the recipient is of the same calibre, due to the huge variety of equipment available, including Software used for playback, and even the quality of the DAC used, as well as the rest of the playback chain including Speakers, and perhaps Headphone Amplifiers and the actual headphones used, even the type of music used !

 

I can count on one finger the number of people I've encountered in my lifetime who believe that transferring binary data over the Internet changes it's sound quality.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I can name at least 3 prominent people for starters :

Cookie Marenco who supplies Uncompressed Zips for this very reason, Barry D. who refuses to supply his recordings via the Internet, and Martin Colloms.

Anyway, I am out of this yet another,  in the vindictive series of threads designed only to attack Audiophiles.

It's interesting that we no longer see people like these participating in this forum due to a small core group of "know-it-alls" following them around like a bad smell.

 

 

Barry makes his music available for download via his website:

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

  

[kumakuma]

Just now, esldude said:

Those are samples.  He won't sell his recordings that way.  If he did I probably would own more of them. Just a convenience thing. 

 

Scroll through this page and you can see that downloads of each of his albums are available for purchase:

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/purchase.htm

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

yes, but be careful! References to Barry might  fall under:

 

 

I agree. Alex's post was a textbook example of using authority figures to justify an irrational belief (that binary files deteriorate when transferred over the Internet).

[kumakuma]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

He didn't originally, and for the reasons quoted. Is he now making his Audiophile 24/192 DVDs available for downloading, or only samples ?

 

Full albums in 24/96 and 24/192 uncompressed formats:

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/purchase.htm

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yeah but  the ASS wants us to "toughen up", stop being "wusses", take no offense at being called the Taliban! I wanna go into the schoolyard and play too!

Saving Bill the trouble...

 

 

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The plug in copies the files, resampling them if not in the "right" form, to a tmp directory on the hard drive - and uses those. It doesn't just play the specified files A and B - which is sorta the idea, I would have thought ...

 

Watching what files are being created on the hard drive, while the ABX is working, tells one the story.

 

 

Were you using Release 1.X or Release 2.X? 

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Not sure, this was some years ago - is this a known change in behaviour?

 

2.X was released in late 2014 and may have addressed some or all of the issues you had with 1.X:

 

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,107354.0.html

[kumakuma]

5 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

He,he. A mile wide and one inch deep. Idle chatter is what Heidegger called it. But do go on, Dr. Bilious.

 

 

 

You seem to have a lot of anger for someone who calls himself a "Senior Monk". Perhaps adding Bill to your ignore list might be a better approach than these ad hominem responses.

[kumakuma]

53 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

You are suggesting ad hominem on transparently vacuous posts? Senior Monk is humor, Tom. I am not affiliated with any religion.

Part of my doctoral work was on this essay, just to clarify:

 

http://web.uvic.ca/~bwb/Links_files/Heidegger Word of Nietzsche.pdf

 

You guys so often resent how your expertise is not given proper respect. Bill is showing absolutely no respect for anything but the philosophy he agrees with, But demands respect for the science he agrees with. I find this hypocritical. It lacks intellectual integrity. And he has not yet denied that he is an anti-religious bigot. I believe this is a genuine possibiilty. Don't you?

 

I've enjoyed much of what Bill offers and what you have offered. Sometimes we disagree. So be it. This might be one of the times, but it is hard for me to accept that you don't see through his ruse.

 

What are you trying to defend? Bill is a great contributor here. But sometimes, he is really disingenuous and dismissive, imo. The very thing many object to regarding posts on audio technology.

I get people don't like the way I respond, but I'm not doing any more than giving what I get. I thought you advocated thick skin.. He doesn't know shit about what he is addressing.  he knows little or nothing about the philosophy he is shitting on, but wouldn't tolerate people shitting on science.  Underneath the surface, he;s attacking me. It is so transparently and truly ad hominem. Maybe you are a bit biased here. I would understand that.

 

Tom, there are a lot of games going on here. I believe you are sincere. But wgscott is not.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject. They help me to better understand where you are coming from.