Apology to Schiit team and everyone here

[17629]

"I also believe competent DACs from somewhere around $500 and up will sound the same if you compare without knowing which is which. There are some DACs at all price points that do things to sound different, to have a boutique sound, those I am not referring to in this case."

 

I'm not sure I get what you are saying here. I can easily hear differences in dac's costing more than $500, but I don't understand what you mean by boutique sound? Different designs sound different. Why would you expect something else?

[esldude]

"I also believe competent DACs from somewhere around $500 and up will sound the same if you compare without knowing which is which. There are some DACs at all price points that do things to sound different, to have a boutique sound, those I am not referring to in this case."

 

I'm not sure I get what you are saying here. I can easily hear differences in dac's costing more than $500, but I don't understand what you mean by boutique sound? Different designs sound different. Why would you expect something else?

Because I believe in fidelity. Once achieved transparent fidelity should sound the same at all prices. If something sounds different, it has a sound of its own. Those sounds are sometimes confused with being something more because they are different. When they are more because something not in the source signal has been added.

[徐中銳]

As a public forum, are opinion of your mishmash reply being less than acceptable scholarship ? It's subjective rhetoric rather than objective referencing of serious scholars and their publications ? Ah, no difference then than everyday Posts about Hi-Fi by...

Hindsight is 20-20, as they say. As an American, I see that the Japanese started WWII, and they attacket the US. They also were ruthless and cruel throughout their expanded dominions and they killed untold tens of thousands. The US policy was to invade the main islands of Japan with a ground assault in 1946. Casualties of over half a million American soldiers were anticipated, and a further million + Japanese casualties. Even after the Emperor recorded his surrender speech, members of the Army general staff ranged through the palace the night before it was to be broadcast, looking for the recording, so as to destroy it to prevent capitulation. That doesn't sound much like Japan's heart was in surrender at all. Another point is how many of us, here on this forum, would never have been born if our fathers or grandfathers had been one of those killed in the invasion! The way I see it, all of this justifies the action taken. Is it regrettable? You bet. Should we be sorry that the Japanese government's stubbornness made such a solution necessary? Absolutely! Should we apologize for ending a war that they started by using a weapon so terrible as to make continued resistance unthinkable? Absolutely not!

 

Firstly' date=' both my parents are Chinese.[/font']

 

Secondly, if you hold gmgraves' views, is it from rigorous studies into the matter or, simply, received wisdom ?

 

Extracting, say for example, from Wikipedia's Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki's Impact on surrender section :

« Varying opinions exist on the question of what role the bombings played in Japan's surrender: some regard the bombings as the deciding factor,[158] others see the bombs as a minor factor, and yet others assess their importance as unknowable.[159]

 

The mainstream position in the United States from 1945 through the 1960s regarded the bombings as the decisive factor in ending the war; commentators have termed this the "traditionalist" view, or pejoratively the "patriotic orthodoxy".[160]

 

Some, on the other hand, see the Soviet invasion of Manchuria as primary or decisive.[161][162][163][164] In the US, Robert Pape and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa in particular have advanced this view, which some have found convincing,[165][166] but which others have criticized.[167][168]

 

Robert Pape also argues that:

Military vulnerability, not civilian vulnerability, accounts for Japan's decision to surrender. Japan's military position was so poor that its leaders would likely have surrendered before invasion, and at roughly the same time in August 1945, even if the United States had not employed strategic bombing or the atomic bomb. Rather than concern for the costs and risks to the population, or even Japan's overall military weakness vis-a-vis the United States, the decisive factor was Japanese leaders' recognition that their strategy for holding the most important territory at issue—the home islands—could not succeed.

[169]

 

In Japanese writing about the surrender, many accounts consider the Soviet entry into the war as the primary reason or as having equal importance with the atomic bombs,[170] while others, such as the work of Sadao Asada, give primacy to the atomic bombings, particularly their impact on the emperor.[171] The primacy of the Soviet entry as a reason for surrender is a long-standing view among some Japanese historians, and has appeared in some Japanese junior high school textbooks.[171]

 

The argument about the Soviet role in Japan's surrender has a connection with the argument about the Soviet role in America's decision to drop the bomb:[163] both arguments emphasize the importance of the Soviet Union. The former suggests that Japan surrendered to the US out of fear of the Soviet Union, and the latter emphasizes that the US dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviet Union. Soviet accounts of the ending of the war emphasised the role of the Soviet Union. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia summarised events thus:

In August 1945 American military air forces dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima (6 August) and of Nagasaki (9 August). These bombings were not caused by military necessity, and served primarily political aims. They inflicted enormous damage on the peaceable population.

 

Fulfilling the obligations entered into by agreement with its allies and aiming for a very speedy ending of the second world war, the Soviet government on 8 August 1945 declared that from 9 August 1945 the USSR would be in a state of war against J[apan], and associated itself with the 1945 Potsdam declaration [...] of the governments of the USA, Great Britain and China of 26 July 1945, which demanded the unconditional capitulation of J[apan] and foreshadowed the bases of its subsequent demilitarization and democratization. The attack by Soviet forces, smashing the Kwantung Army and liberating Manchuria, Northern Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, led to the rapid conclusion of the war in the Far East. On 2 September 1945 J[apan] signed the act of unconditional capitulation.

[172]

 

Still others have argued that war-weary Japan would likely have surrendered regardless, due to a collapse of the economy, lack of army, food, and industrial materials, threat of internal revolution, and talk of surrender since earlier in the year, while others find this unlikely, arguing that Japan may well have, or likely would have, put up a spirited resistance.[160]

 

The Japanese historian Sadao Asada argues that the ultimate decision to surrender was a personal decision by the emperor, influenced by the atomic bombings.[171] »

Speaking of asking for forgiveness, I've heard that our President is going to Hiroshima Japan next month to apologize for the US using the atomic bomb on them! He's going to apologize to them because the US stopped a horrible war that they started! It's ridiculous, it's every kind of wrong, and if this were still the REAL United States of America, foreign policy-wise, he would be labeled a pariah if he did that. Now, if his plan is to tell the people of Hiroshima (and don't forget Nagasaki) that the US is sorry that circumstances made it necessary to take those actions, then I retract my criticisms. But somehow, I don't think that's the intention.

[17629]

Because I believe in fidelity. Once achieved transparent fidelity should sound the same at all prices. If something sounds different, it has a sound of its own. Those sounds are sometimes confused with being something more because they are different. When they are more because something not in the source signal has been added.

 

I still don't get it. How do you determine what transparent fidelity is to begin with? If I play 2 different sounding DAC's for you, how do you select which one has a higher level of fidelity? Or are you talking in theory? For example: Under ideal circumstances, x,y and z should be true?

[17629]

"As a public forum, are opinion of your mishmash reply being less than acceptable scholarship ? It's subjective rhetoric rather than objective referencing of serious scholars and their publications ? Ah, no difference then than everyday Posts about Hi-Fi by..."

 

Complete BS. Your argument can't hold a drop of water. Not even the stuff that comes out of the water cooler at Marantz. Every piece of information you bring up in your reply to gmgraves is subjective opinion. They even tell you this as you read it. Now, if you're going to ask me to cut and paste examples from your post, I can't. I tried to, but there was no way I could quote parts. I would have had to include everything, so if you want an example, just read the entire post. Its one big example.

[徐中銳]

Your antipathy towards me is amusing in its inept expression. Keep going, no doubt you're entertaining many others who...

 

But I, I won't Ignore-list you anytime soon even if I'll ignore more your neediness for my response.

"As a public forum, are opinion of your mishmash reply being less than acceptable scholarship ? It's subjective rhetoric rather than objective referencing of serious scholars and their publications ? Ah, no difference then than everyday Posts about Hi-Fi by..."

 

Complete BS. Your argument can't hold a drop of water. Not even the stuff that comes out of the water cooler at Marantz. Every piece of information you bring up in your reply to gmgraves is subjective opinion. They even tell you this as you read it. Now, if you're going to ask me to cut and paste examples from your post, I can't. I tried to, but there was no way I could quote parts. I would have had to include everything, so if you want an example, just read the entire post. Its one big example.

 

Hatemonger' date=' prove it, quote to readers evidence behind your scurrilous assertions about me.

 

[/font']

You say the same thing about everyone. The whole web site is out to get you, including the owner. You even start conspiracy theory threads and go on like a little kid about it. Grow a pair of nuts and move on already.

 

Your prejudice towards me is as ridiculous as what you've wrote' date=' if not more so.[/font']

 

I was replying to an, arguably important, aspect of gmgraves' Post because no one else did. Your ignoble prejudice...

 

Actually, I did read everything in your quote. Just not from Wikipedia. In the US, history is usually a requirement for any type of degree and its hard to miss WW2. The points you make may be true, but they're still just speculation. The fact that we bombed Japan to scare the Russians, and that it wasn't necessary because Japan was weak and close to surrender, and new Russian involvement against Japan was sure to defeat them, can only be speculation. And given the circumstances surrounding all this, speculation about how all these events could have been played out if different actions were taken, is guaranteed to be an issue among the worlds historians. I don't know if Wikipedia mentions this or not, but speculation strongly suggests that if Truman didn't bomb Japan, and the American people found out that we could have, he would have been impeached.

 

Now let me ask you a question. How does the topic of nuclear war apply to the OP's apology to Schitt and everyone else here? And would your post be the same if the company in question was Marantz, and not Schitt?

[esldude]

I still don't get it. How do you determine what transparent fidelity is to begin with? If I play 2 different sounding DAC's for you, how do you select which one has a higher level of fidelity? Or are you talking in theory? For example: Under ideal circumstances, x,y and z should be true?

It begins with basic measured fidelity. Then you can measure input vs output. If you have done recording that is another reference. One not everyone has of course.

 

If you only listen, yes you might only say they are different, and pick which is your preference.

 

Where things often fall down is should you do unsighted level matched comparisons many differences disperse and disappear.

[master]

I'm not sure that I follow what you mean. The Ignore List takes the content of original posts by persons on that list off your view of the forum. However, if someone else quotes that post in a reply, then it is seen in that context in your view of the forum. Are you saying that you would prefer that the content of those posts also not be viewable when repeated in a quote?

 

I see the persons avatar and name followed by a message that the post is hidden. There is also button to click that says "spoiler" that enables me to open and read the post. And yes, I would also prefer to have quoted passages hidden.

 

Meh, it's a first world problem, and it is really a very short list.

 

I'd rather not see anything... not even blocked on your list, or quoted by someone else, and also not the threads started by the blocked individual.

 

That said, even this limited blocking helps, quite a lot actually.

 

Someone pointed out to me there is so much good stuff here... I really shouldn't be having any time to even bother with the bad stuff.

 

Good advice that worked for me.

[gmgraves]

Because I believe in fidelity. Once achieved transparent fidelity should sound the same at all prices. If something sounds different, it has a sound of its own. Those sounds are sometimes confused with being something more because they are different. When they are more because something not in the source signal has been added.

 

Agreed, but so few audiophiles are in a position to judge transparency due to the fact that they are using, for the most part, commercial recordings to judge sound quality. And let's face it, nobody other than those present at the recording sessions could possibly know what the recording is supposed to really sound like. So, how can one judge system transparency, when they have no way of knowing when they have achieved it? The second point, of course, is the question of whether or not, with current technology, true transparency is even attainable at all? So, what's the answer? If it sounds good, do it? That seems to be a viable point of view these days, and with the current inability to positively answer the first two questions, that might be ultimatelty, all we have.

[firedog]

As a public forum' date=' are opinion of your mishmash reply being less than acceptable scholarship ? It's subjective rhetoric rather than objective referencing of serious scholars and their publications ? Ah, no difference then than everyday Posts about Hi-Fi by...

[/font']

 

Academics write lots of things. Sometimes they write them just to be different and just to get their name out there in published papers. Writing something that contradicts the accepted view is one way of doing this.

 

I always ask if some new historical theory passes the "smell test" or the "common sense" test. In this case I think the idea that the Japanese surrender was because of the Soviets just doesn't pass that test. Clearly the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs had a decisive effect, especially on the Emperor, and that is well documented. Without his position and actions, I'm not sure the military wouldn't have continued to fight anyway.

 

There was a famous article a few years ago analyzing rainfall records in the United States at the time of the American Revolution. The authors concluded that the low rainfall rates showed that there must have been a food shortage, and that was the actual reason for the revolution, not any of the reasons normally given. A well documented, well reasoned, and footnoted analysis was provided.

 

There was just one problem: there are lots of contemporary accounts of life at the time, and food shortages are never mentioned as an issue. Does anyone seriously think something as important as a food shortage wouldn't get commented on in any of these accounts? So that published article doesn't pass the "common sense" test.

 

I'd also chaulk this one about WWII up to well written academic speculation with lots of footnotes. Not convincing, no matter how many papers get written about it.

[徐中銳]

I've not taken a side on whether it was necessary or not for atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ; whereas gmgraves has. However, his reasoning, thus far, are shoddy, superficial, supplicating.

 

What argument can you present to convince me and others per your position ?

[esldude]

I've not taken a side on whether it was necessary or not for atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ; whereas gmgraves has. However' date=' his reasoning, thus far, are shoddy, superficial, supplicating.[/font']

 

What argument can you present to convince me and others per your position ?

Okinawa

[Solstice380]

Agreed, but so few audiophiles are in a position to judge transparency due to the fact that they are using, for the most part, commercial recordings to judge sound quality. And let's face it, nobody other than those present at the recording sessions could possibly know what the recording is supposed to really sound like. So, how can one judge system transparency, when they have no way of knowing when they have achieved it? The second point, of course, is the question of whether or not, with current technology, true transparency is even attainable at all? So, what's the answer? If it sounds good, do it? That seems to be a viable point of view these days, and with the current inability to positively answer the first two questions, that might be ultimatelty, all we have.

 

It IS all that we have. Unless the recording companies are going to start mass producing commercially available reels of flat transfer tapes and we all have the same tape player that they do! Everything else is a fabrication with some gear being closer to "real". All digital is an approximation of analog... by definition.

[bluesman]

Hindsight is 20-20, as they say. As an American, I see that the Japanese started WWII!

No they didn't. Hitler moved on Czechoslovakia in March 1939 & war was declared on Germany by the UK and France in Septermber as I recall. Japan entered the fray in 1940.

[lateboomer]

Academics write lots of things. Sometimes they write them just to be different and just to get their name out there in published papers. Writing something that contradicts the accepted view is one way of doing this.

 

I always ask if some new historical theory passes the "smell test" or the "common sense" test. In this case I think the idea that the Japanese surrender was because of the Soviets just doesn't pass that test. Clearly the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs had a decisive effect, especially on the Emperor, and that is well documented. Without his position and actions, I'm not sure the military wouldn't have continued to fight anyway.

 

There was a famous article a few years ago analyzing rainfall records in the United States at the time of the American Revolution. The authors concluded that the low rainfall rates showed that there must have been a food shortage, and that was the actual reason for the revolution, not any of the reasons normally given. A well documented, well reasoned, and footnoted analysis was provided.

 

There was just one problem: there are lots of contemporary accounts of life at the time, and food shortages are never mentioned as an issue. Does anyone seriously think something as important as a food shortage wouldn't get commented on in any of these accounts? So that published article doesn't pass the "common sense" test.

 

I'd also chaulk this one about WWII up to well written academic speculation with lots of footnotes. Not convincing, no matter how many papers get written about it.

Thanks God at least still got people that talk sense. If Obama is going to apologize to Japan than I feel sorry for people that voted him. What next? Apologize to Indian tribes for grabbing their lands or to those got killed in civil war? This kind of mindset is no different than those that think Charlie Hebdo victims should share some blame because they blasphemed the religion of peace. Or holocaust is faked and gay people should have equal right in adopting a child like normal couple. It really shows lack of common sense.

Even majority of Japanese conceded the 2 atomic bombs is the decisive factor in their surrender. By the way, I am also Chinese descendant.

[sandyk]

What next? Apologize to Indian tribes for grabbing their lands

 

Why not ?

We finally got around to doing that in Australia to the Aborigines.

Anyway, what has WW2 and U.S. Politics got anything to do with an apology to the designer of Schiit products ?

[Jud]

Regarding the historical discussion: Secretary of State Kerry stopped short of apologizing for dropping the bomb, so he did not commit the (to some folks) unpardonable sin of saying we regret (regardless of one's view regarding its necessity and efficacy) the deaths of 140,000 people in the blink of an eye.

 

I think it is possible to understand that in terms of the war between the US and Japan, the Japanese started it, and that the Allies' victory in the Pacific was a much better result for the world than a Japanese victory would have been; and yet to feel whether or not use of atomic weapons resulted ultimately in fewer people killed and maimed on both sides, the killing of 140,000 men, women and children is a terrible, regrettable thing.

 

Now how the heck did this point come up in the middle of an audio forum? Apologies? OK...I guess.

[17629]

I've not taken a side on whether it was necessary or not for atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ; whereas gmgraves has. However' date=' his reasoning, thus far, are shoddy, superficial, supplicating.[/font']

 

What argument can you present to convince me and others per your position ?

 

 

Its a trick question. Whatever your position is on an issue, you can rest assured that everyone else's opinion will be the opposite. That said, I don't think anyone here feels the need to convince you of anything. Believe whatever you want.

[firedog]

Thanks God at least still got people that talk sense. If Obama is going to apologize to Japan than I feel sorry for people that voted him. What next? Apologize to Indian tribes for grabbing their lands or to those got killed in civil war? This kind of mindset is no different than those that think Charlie Hebdo victims should share some blame because they blasphemed the religion of peace. Or holocaust is faked and gay people should have equal right in adopting a child like normal couple. It really shows lack of common sense.

Even majority of Japanese conceded the 2 atomic bombs is the decisive factor in their surrender. By the way, I am also Chinese descendant.

 

I'd just like to point out that my previous post doesn't in any way mean that I agree with the above or that something like it is the intent of what I wrote.

[firedog]

Why not ?

We finally got around to doing that in Australia to the Aborigines.

Anyway, what has WW2 and U.S. Politics got anything to do with an apology to the designer of Schiit products ?

 

Only that at some point the WWII atomic bombing was thrown in as an aside, and it went from there. The beauty (?) of forum discussion.

[Norton]

Thanks God at least still got people that talk sense. If Obama is going to apologize to Japan than I feel sorry for people that voted him. What next? Apologize to Indian tribes for grabbing their lands or to those got killed in civil war? This kind of mindset is no different than those that think Charlie Hebdo victims should share some blame because they blasphemed the religion of peace. Or holocaust is faked and gay people should have equal right in adopting a child like normal couple. It really shows lack of common sense.

Even majority of Japanese conceded the 2 atomic bombs is the decisive factor in their surrender. By the way, I am also Chinese descendant.

 

Wow - that is the most offensive post I have ever seen on this site. And unlike the OP, one that most definitely merits an apology.

[bluesman]

Wow - that is the most offensive post I have ever seen on this site.

Responding to this kind of foolish, inconsistent babble dignifies both the source and the content well beyond their worth. Of course, everyone has a right to his or her opinion and the 1st amendment says it can be expressed freely and without restraint (which, sadly, also means crudely and without reason or supporting evidence). But there's a lot of nonsense in this thread and more than a few others that's wrong, weird, entirely off topic, incredibly inflammatory, and/or of no value to the CA community. In my personal opinion, to which I am legally entitled and which is not binding on anyone else in any way, the OP is not nonsense - but I could be wrong.

 

...and one that most definitely merits an apology.

That's unfair There's a level of passion behind these florid emotional excrescences that dwarfs any underlying emotional intelligence. And you know what they say about love.....

 

[PopPop]

No one in Washington has said that any visit to Japan by President Obama would include an apology by him, for our actions in WWII, have they? Really?

[lateboomer]

Why not ?

We finally got around to doing that in Australia to the Aborigines.

Anyway, what has WW2 and U.S. Politics got anything to do with an apology to the designer of Schiit products ?

Would that help? Like the guy in the Bridge of Spies is asking. Should you all western colonists leave Australia in peace and give back the land to Aborigines? Or should you both looking this as part of delicate human history with respect and try to build better future for everyone? If I were Japanese that supported aggression to other countries but unfortunately my loves were killed by atomic bombs, would Obama apology give me comfort? He would only rub salt to old wounds and I would throw him with eggs if he dares to apologize. You can't treat apology lightly and we should always treat this as one of the darkness moment of human history and vowed never to repeat this.

 

My English is not that good, so what I wrote previously may misconstrue as offensive. If you could point out what I said is wrong, I will take it back with apology.

[tne]

Do you people really want to have these silly pointless political discussions on CA?

Please back to the silly pointless (fill in topic of choice) audio discussions.

 

I need to reconsider not using the Ignore List on CA, but about 80% of the whiney self-absorbed MFers here would be on it immediately.