Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[firedog]

Why do any of you care? If you don't respect him or his opinion, don't go to his site. More page views only help him.

I think ML's site is often informative and helpful. I like that he reviews and compares competing components and tells us how they sound different to him. Many sites never do this; I find it useful as it gives me a reference in getting an idea about how items sound relative to one another.

He was rightly banned from this site for abusing the PM mechanism. But it is also true that the nasty posts on various threads were not just initiated by him; some were initiated by others. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, LCC0256 said:

"stir up the animals"? Bannon like?  That comment coming from you and your fellow fascists wannabe's at Berkley (Who by the way  are CONSTANTLY shutting down free speech) is f@8k!n@* laughable. This is a forum for computer audiophile not political discussions. You just can't help yourself can you. 
 

Uh, he's not at Berkeley and has nothing to do with any shutting down of free speech.

But then, why would you care about facts before you spout inverctive based on nothing?

[firedog]

59 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

 

Well - he did lose his temper. I was surprised to see him here. I don't expect, for example to see Michael Fremer here. The thing is, in my belief, he should have not done the fym thing. Period. Not sure what is his relation to Sterophile - there seems to be some between Audiostream and Stereophile - but I see him and believe that he should see himself as a journalist. And as such, you should always see yourself as representing an institution, be it Stereophile  or Audiostream, even if he owns it controls it, etc. 

 

That is the baseline. So if you represent an institution, such reactions (gfym) are avoided. Note, I did not say should be or even must be. Categorically, it is not done.  A serious journalistic institution, whatever the subject, will at the very least reprimand him or more.

 

But, if he seems himself as an evangelist, then well...  you begin to understand, but of course, it does not mean is appropriate. 

 

I had a post exchange with him -  I immediately noticed the stand-offish posture. I tried to apologize and deflect, even when he was sarcastic - while never retracting my positions. It seemed like the right way to have an exchange with him. And indeed,  that exchange never got to the gfym level.

 

But I have to the conclusion that, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, that he is definitely not a journalist. And I don't mean training. There is a basic distance from the subject that it is not in him or his  approach to the subject/industry etc. He probably will not agree and may even take offence but, Michael (and I know he will lurk and read) I am trying to say this out of dispassionate analysis and with as much respect as I can frame it.

 

He is more like a commentator and/or analyst  and above all, an evangelist. Now, they are allowed to have a point of view.

 

But again, if affiliated to an institution, gfym is still unacceptable.

 

v

 

 

 

 

 

Professionals often don't participate at forums or give up after trying  b/c they are hounded by a small number of impolite and ignorant posters who often disparage their motives. Why waste your valuable time at a forum when that is the response?

That said MLs attitude didn't help and his PMs were totally out of line - not just for a professional, but for any reasonable adult. 

 

I don't know the technicalities, but his blog etc is part of the Stereophile family, my understanding is he is an employee of some type. 

 

I'm not sure he sees his  role first as a traditional journalist. I think he sees it more as something akin to a movie or art critic - whose role is to inform us about the field and give us his/her personal insights. He does seem to have some good listening skills. We can then take his written insights for whatever we think they are worth. 

 

It's clear his POV is that the technical stuff is secondary and the point for him is what brings more listening enjoyment. He doesn't seem to think the  the how, why, or "science" behind it  are very important, just the end result. So he has no issue with saying ethernet cables make an SQ difference. If that's what he heard, placebo effect or not, that's what he cares about. 

Since he often states that POV pretty clearly. at least over at his site I don't think there is any point in challenging that. At a forum like this one he is a legitimate target (as a critic, not as a person).

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

They display extreme intolerance to dissenting viewpoints and if not frankly uncivil behaviour, skirting the edges with sarcastic remarks meant to offend. IMO it is cyber bullying and is almost cult like in its goal to ridicule audiophiles. Ironically they bleat if their unsolicited impoliteness is returned or not "tolerated".

 

Part of the credo is to bastardize the term audiophile to mean delusional individuals that warrant ridicule and they are incessant and zealous in this prime "objective". "Objectivist" may therefore be a fitting title in the context of their prime objective. In reality the term objective has also been bastardized to mean their subjective interpretation of data IMO.

 

Mind you, this website is an *audiophile* website. So it is a little strange that they participate here unless for the prime objective.

 

I am not defending the ML now infamous comment, but it is no surprise that he was set upon. Other professionals have experienced the same fate and left. BD comes to mind. Yeh, I get ML was unliked and that he was considered a trouble making troll by some, which I find a bit rich of the accusers to be honest. His "sin" was to offend the delicate sensibilities of the cult by having the audacity to hear differences in ethernet cables. Perhaps there was more to it. He dared to assert his authority on a matter that the cult has supreme ownership of the truth.

 

Oh . <----- I declare immunity

Who are "they"? My paragraph you quoted wasn't referring specifically to ML, but to professionals in the field in general. There have been a few here who stopped participating - not because they were arrogant (in fact the opposite was true), but because members here were.

If I was a successful professional in a field and stated my point of view in a reasonable manner, I probably wouldn't want to return to a forum where my motives are doubted and certain members with much less knowledge than mine insist on arguing points they know a limited amount about. 

[firedog]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - Michael and I have exchanged emails this afternoon. I don't believe I'll be receiving a holiday card from him this year. 

Let's hope he didn't make any comments about your mother or about solo sexual activities he suggests for you to do....:)

[firedog]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:25 PM, esimms86 said:

And Firedog, I hear what you're saying but they also say that, under Mussolini, the trains ran on time.

 Just noticed this quote. Did you know that truism has been checked and found not to be true? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rear-window-making-italy-work-did-mussolini-really-get-the-trains-running-on-time-1367688.html

https://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/11/the-problem-with-mussolini-and-his-trains/507764/

http://professorbuzzkill.com/did-mussolini-make-the-trains-go-choo-choo/

[firedog]

https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-drm

I started a thread on this topic. I suggest posting contrary evidence at his site.

[firedog]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I saw John Atkinson at the McIntosh event in NYC last week. He told me that it's a popular saying in Russia and isn't seen as something negative. 

 

I'm being 100% honest.

You might want to remind him that ML isn’t Russian and his home isn’t in Russia.

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

Ok Mercman,

As Mr Lavorgna is banned from this site and you say you have not been involved with MQA yourself, perhaps you could ask him what he says  to this, all of which has been demonstrated, thus proven,  by several sources, many not part of CA, and including several 'industry' sources (bear in mind they demonstrated it too, so it is not merely any 'anti-MQA bias' they might have),  and tell us what his answer is:

 

MQA demonstrably degrades the original by adding artefacts that were not in the  original, and reduces everything to 17 bits at most,  Also anything above 96 is totally fake, even the noise. So  the result  can't possibly sound  'better'.  Also, it doesn't save space/transmission  requirements   to  any worthwhile degree, often not at all, and is rarely 'authenticated'. So what's the point of MQA?.

 

His answer (to me): 1) You don't understand the meaning of "authentication" as MQA defines it.

2) It doesn't matter if it is only 17 bits, as you can't hear it. In other words (my interpretation based on what he writes) MQA processing makes the music sound better - what it does to the file, therefore, doesn't matter.

 

 

[firedog]

17 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

 

Darko turned commenting off on his site contemporaneous with the first of a bizarre set of articles about whether he and others were part of a conspiracy to deceive their readers.  Of course they are, and he knew he'd be slammed if he allowed comments on that first article.  Don't think he's allowed them since.

He, like several other site editors, saw that a very small group of the total reader base made almost all the comments, and decided that it was, therefore not really useful.

[firedog]

I just accessed the site, no problem. Looks nice. I'm sure the haters will hate it, but it seems like a nice resource to me and he made some  equipment recommendations, including budget ones. That's a good thing that audiophile sites often ignore.

He also seems to have lined up some advertisers, so I think the site will be around for a while.