Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[plissken]

12 minutes ago, motberg said:

third sentence

 

The fact is that both screens and shields and the copper balanced twisted-pairs in a UTP cable will behave as an antenna to some degree.

You need to read the article in full and then gain appreciation for that 3rd sentence and the context it is written in. 

 

"The good news is that the balance performance of the cable itself is sufficient up to 30 MHz to ensure minimum susceptibility to disturbance from these noise sources regardless of the presence of an overall screen/shield"

 

Anyways I'm a huge proponent of wireless. 

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, motberg said:

to me "minimum susceptibility" is not the equivalent of "immune" but if that is how you read it then OK..... 

 

In the context of 20-20Hz, where their graphs are listed in the MHz.

 

Again read, take in the full context, comprehend. 

[plissken]

50 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Bizarre to me that everyone associated with Stereophile is doubling and tripling down on MQA. And I haven't seen where they've addressed the points raised by Linn or Schitt. Nor has JA addressed the special attention given to his own recordings that birthed his new world.

 

In my own comparisons using Tidal and my non-MQA DAC, I found MQA SQ to be notably worse than 24 bit PCM.

 

It's typical of what happens to outfits that have realized they've painted themselves into a corner. They understand that the only way not to sink is to bail water. 

 

They don't understand the ship is going to sink anyways. 

[plissken]

8 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Do you seriously believe that?  He auditions and reports on more product in a month than this site does in a year. If you don’t think that’s saying something about both his veracity as a reviewer and reporter you are sadly mistaken.  Pretty sure he does not need to gin up controversy to be relevant. 

 

He also thinks there are 'readily apparent' and 'easy to discern' differences in data cabling.

 

So all he's managed to do is make up a larger volume of fabrications.

[plissken]

Just now, realhifi said:

My question was pretty clear. What do you think “they” are trying to win?  Specifically Mike Lavorgna. 

 

Ad Revenue! Jesus wept.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

And a steady stream of nice stuff to play with.

I lump that in with revenue 

[plissken]

And all it takes for Lavorgna to ban someone at Audio Stream is to have a civil difference of opinion.

 

Just ask Archimago, John Scully, KirkMC.

 

In a back and forth over Ethernet cables I offered to come out and bring a switch and some cabling and do this blind with him. The response is that I should go fuck myself. 

[plissken]

51 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I can't say I didn't expect the dodge.  Your actions speak for themselves.  No speculation required.

 

EDIT: I see your post asking for clarification.  Looks like @plissken is a big hit over there. 

 

Since Plaskin is reading this thread:

 

I'm not dumping anything on you. As a matter of fact I'll extend you the same offer I have anyone else that thinks they can hear the difference in like constructed Ethernet cables and used for IP data:

 

My $5000 to your $1000. Travel expenses paid by the loser. 

 

All on your setup but bias controlled and I'll make a like constructed cable right there in front of you. 

 

Two rounds of 10 simple a/b and you need to hit 90% accuracy with your boutique Ethernet cable being chosen as the superior sounding cable.

 

I'll bring the server, switch, client computer. Everything from the USB port on the client computer on back is all yours. 

 

I trust in your ears. Do you?

 

** if you feel more comfortable not putting $1000 up then just travel expenses. 

[plissken]

7 minutes 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.

 

I must have missed his accent in his videos. 

[plissken]

5 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

 but I don't assume he is lying.

 

I don't assume he's telling the truth either. What he could easily do is show everyone he can run a four second 40 yard dash instead of saying he can. I would tend to give him credence at that point. 

 

Fact is that neither Lavorgna or Plaskin have done anything to baseline their hearing acuity wrt to differences where none can exist. 

[plissken]

20 minutes ago, Mercman said:

First off, I can't exclude anyone from posting at AS. The few that were banned, went far beyond what I would call just posting an opinion.

 

Really? 

 

I would be interested in what John Scully said to get banned. 

[plissken]

2 hours ago, Mercman said:

You are amazing! You can  see a picture of just one wall and know the room sounds terrible. 

 

I'm done posting at CA for today. This is just too much! I think I liked you guys better when you called me names.

 

I've heard Michaels room on the YT videos. Very sub-optimal unless you are into highly reverbrent rooms. 

 

That was over YT no less. 

[plissken]

25 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Not quite. I said that I was told by my Russian-speaking daughter that while the phrase GFYM can indeed be meant as a literal exhortation, it is also in use as a general exclamation. A quick Google search retrieves this: "ёб твою́ мать which literally means '(I) fucked your mother', but . . . may also be used as an exclamation in which it can mean 'I’ll be damned!'" As in ""CA sure has a lot of posts about MQA - GFYM!"

 

Perhaps Michael Lavorgna has Russian ancestry :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

So this conversation you had with Chris isn't defending Lavorgna telling people to either go fuck their mother or go fuck themselves, or any derivative. 

 

Got it 

[plissken]

Ha, I was lurking here at CA in 1978 when it was being ran on an HP PDP 11.

 

Back then I fed my DAC with paper punch fanfold.

[plissken]

12 hours ago, Tecnik1 said:

   On 10/12/2017 at 4:00 AM,  plissken said: 

I doubt Chris has anything to worry about in this regard. 

 

I've most likely been the most vocal with him. But here's the thing, I wasn't really involved the the thread and it was Raf of all people that ML did his typical semi-psychotic two face routine with. IMO ML is a little bit 'off'. 

Read more  

 

Chris has to worry about people like you. He should have banned you from CA a long time ago.

 

Agreed.

 

I wonder how many sock puppet accounts you would have to spin up to get Chris to oust me for no good reason.

[plissken]

4 minutes ago, eclectic said:

 

A bit like this then. 

 

 

Ah, the old analog ladder DAC. It was made by Craap.

[plissken]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Later on, when I had left the missile trade and moved to IBM, we helped make this for the London Science Museum.

A replica of Babbages' Analytical Engine (1837). It works perfectly, even though it is deliberately made to '1837 precision',   except they had to change the gearing on the handle as it was too hard to turn. The input is punch cards same as the original.

It doesn't have a USB socket, unfortunately.

 

 

That's cool.

[plissken]

Just now, Spacehound said:

This is even cooler. Literally.  And its  bits can be zero, one, or both at the same time.. 

You can access it for free over the internet and do real stuff on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have a direct link for this? I can google also ;-)

[plissken]

4 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

In one posting he wrote:

 

"...being a fan of westerns and an expert in karate (when honestly, if you did call me a coward I would actually kick your ass if given the opportunity to meet face to face)"

 

In another, he wrote about words being "duel-worthy". Today he writes "...if said in person, would qualify to be challenged, perhaps with a punch in the face"

 

I don't know who Bill Brown is, but it's not hard to see a pattern in his postings.

 

Lavorgna has done the face to face stuff with me to. I would like to meet him publicly. Preferably on a panel about Ethernet networking intersects audio.

 

That would be fun. 

 

May be get Plasking and that guy from AQ that doesn't know what he's talking about. Take care of it all at once. 3 turkeys and one stone so to speak. 

[plissken]

Just now, crenca said:

 

plissken, what is your understanding of "ethernet noise"?

 

On a properly implemented PHY it's simply not a problem. It's certainly nothing that a cable is going to fix. Plug a cable in, turn up the volume on your computer, start a large data transfer. Hear anything? Measure anything? 

 

Do the same thing again and play back a 1Khz tone and measure. Anything other than 1Khz? 

 

Do the same and use a 11025Khz signal (16/44.1) and using ARTA and a decent ADC. Look for jitter components both with a file copy going on and without. See any difference? 

 

Ethernet will send data ahead of what is needed. The computer/streamer (NAIM's newest cache ~2:30 worth of 16/44.1) will buffer it, and often put the PHY into low power or no power modes. 

 

There was a run of Pi's that the PHY didn't have a magnetics package. You knew it because both the video and audio outputs were swapped with EMI. 

[plissken]

16 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting. 

 

I've always thought computer audio is the best true descriptor, no matter how someone is playing audio that isn't physical. Name one device that doesn't have a computer inside, yet plays audio from files or streaming services? They all have some type of processor and operating system, thus a computer.

 

 

 

It's because Lavorgna, yet again, fails to grasp the simplest of concepts. He doesn't realize what the textbook answer of a computer is. network streamers are indeed computers. I've SSH'd and Telnet'd in a more than a few of them. 

 

Some are based on linux, some based on QNX, there are other OS's also driving them. 

[plissken]

10 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Or did you go to Stanford? 

I received my B.S. in Karate @ Stanford