I Now Consider The Stereophile Staff Snake Oil Salesmen

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

2) That they deliberately withheld information.

 

If folks "deliberately withheld information" from me, I would ask myself why.

 

[Indydan]

51 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

So you're one of the guys who encourage friction and anger here, for your personal amusement.  That's good to know.  Not a good thing, but good to know your attitude.

 

Dale, weren’t you banned from Head fi for a while? Isn’t it possible that you are the one who creates friction with others?

 

Every time you show up, the thread goes to shit. Why is that Dale?

 

 

[Indydan]

54 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

 

I practically invented computers.  That makes you a "user".

 

LOL

 

Aren’t you the guy that on Stereophile, compared himself to great historical figures like Martin Luther King and Ghandi?!

 

Your comment was deleted, or I would have happily provided a link.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I had to go back and confirm that this Dale Thorn is the same one whose reviews on headphones I have read.  Lots of them.  While I really don't want to add girth to his seemingly immense ego, I have to say dude has lots of interesting things to say about a lot of different headphones.

[crenca]

21 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I had to go back and confirm that this Dale Thorn is the same one whose reviews on headphones I have read.  Lots of them.  While I really don't want to add girth to his seemingly immense ego, I have to say dude has lots of interesting things to say about a lot of different headphones.

 

I also have always enjoyed Dale's headphone reviews.  Also when in doubt I look up his EQ curves as well.  Perhaps there is some kind of physical law of the universe which says that if you review audio equipment, a bit of eccentricity is your reward...a warning to us all.

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I had to go back and confirm that this Dale Thorn is the same one whose reviews on headphones I have read.  Lots of them.  While I really don't want to add girth to his seemingly immense ego, I have to say dude has lots of interesting things to say about a lot of different headphones.

Yes, his headphone reviews are good as far as I can tell. He should stick to that. Or at least not attack people when they try to help him.

[Indydan]

Good headphone reviews?!

 

Well not this one! He says the Shure 940 is as good as the Sennheiser HD 800!

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/shure-srh-940-headphone-review

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Indydan said:

Good headphone reviews?!

 

Well not this one! He says the Shure 940 is as good as the Sennheiser HD 800!

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/shure-srh-940-headphone-review

I very rarely use headphones, so I can't judge his assessments, but they're not written in the angry, preaching tone he uses here.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I very rarely use headphones, so I can't judge his assessments, but they're not written in the angry, preaching tone he uses here.

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, Indydan said:

Good headphone reviews?!

 

Well not this one! He says the Shure 940 is as good as the Sennheiser HD 800!

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/shure-srh-940-headphone-review

 

I don't think he ever makes that sort of statement, he just compares the frequency response which he terms as "similar", admits he's using the iPod Touch to drive them, etc.

 

Besides nobody bats a hundred, and I bet that day he was trying very hard not to whistle... ?

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I don't think he ever makes that sort of statement, he just compares the frequency response which he terms as "similar", admits he's using the iPod Touch to drive them, etc.

 

Besides nobody bats a hundred, and I bet that day he was trying very hard not to whistle... ?

 

And I'll pile on by saying "sounds like the HD800" is not necessarily a compliment (in my experience).   The HD800S is a completely different kettle of fish.

[Ralf11]

12 hours ago, firedog said:

...

But as far as what is called PRaT, I think I've heard it. Probably has more to do with the speakers themselves (how "quick" they are and how well integrated and time aligned the drivers are) and possibly something in the particular speaker/amp interaction. 

 

That is what I suspect as well

[Ralf11]

5 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

Yes, like surface noise, clicks, pops and static. I really do miss those things...

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

And Al Gore invented the internet.

 

He misspoke but was perhaps the single most important person in Congress who helped allow the current internet we know to propagate.

 

I agree with your point regarding Mr. Thorn, and his unusual input sensitivity, which seems to be coupled with a thorny output.

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

That is what I suspect as well

 

PRaT, it's all bone conduction

 

Now somebody go make me an offer on those Legacy Studios....though I admit PRat is probably not their strength.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

LOL

 

Aren’t you the guy that on Stereophile, compared himself to great historical figures like Martin Luther King and Ghandi?!

 

Your comment was deleted, or I would have happily provided a link.

Napoleon?

[Tintinabulum]

Yawn

 

[NOMBEDES]

14 hours ago, firedog said:

We won't argue that point, but I will make 2 others:

 

1. Many people who think digital doesn't equal analog playback either haven't heard really good modern digital playback, or they have much more invested in analog and digital and are setting up a rigged comparison. 

2. I can make a high quality digital recording of an LP or a tape. If I play them back on the same system no one can tell the difference. The digital version has all those "analog" sounds that digital supposedly can't capture. If digital is somehow lacking, then this wouldn't be possible.

 

See also:https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qa-9-usb-ad-converter

where JA says this about 3 LPs he digitized using the

...but there was no doubt that with a 192kHz sample rate I could not distinguish between the LP and the digital rip. And believe me, I tried. I A/B'd the two versions until blood came out of my ears and I was heartily sick of this music I hadn't heard for, in some cases, decades. When, in An Oxford Elegy, John Westbrook declaimed "Come, let me read the oft-read tale again . . ." for what must have been the tenth time, I felt like screaming "No! Don't read it again!"

 

Almost all LPs today are produced from digital masters. Yet LP devotees rave about how much better they sound than the digital master itself (which is often available). So what are they hearing? It isn't some "undefined" aspect of music that digital "hasn't nailed down" -  because their LPs are recorded digitally.

 

It's fine if you like analog better. But it isn't because digital is lacking something. What it means is that analog adds some kind of euphonic distortion that you prefer, not that it is more accurate to source.  
 

 

 

Very good point.  However, for most audio consumers who want to explore systems such as you describe, that is systems which can present such outstanding results, digital is just too damn hard.  

Library management, connectivity issues, special software programs,  upgrades to operating systems which make drivers disappear.  Inviting your audio buddies over just to have the computer, server, streamer crash.....the list goes on.

 

When higher end digital audio achieves the LP or CD standard, that is, set it and forget it, then we will have something.  Until then, the have a hobby best suited to computer scientists and the advanced hobbyist.

[Ralf11]

iTunes (Mac) makes it all very easy

[Spacehound]

33 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

iTunes (Mac) makes it all very easy

In the UK we all use one of these. 1942. Designed by Alan Turing himself.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It's got a lovely  warm tube sound. And can speak MQA-encrypted German too

 

 

 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

In the UK we all use one of these. 1942. Designed by Alan Turing himself.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It's got a lovely  warm tube sound.

 

For an early general-purpose machine, check out the WITCH, also at TNMOC. It's a decimal floating-point computer built from tubes and relays. Makes a comforting clicking sound when it runs.

 

 

[Albrecht]

9 hours ago, Spacehound said:

You don't know the answer so mine must be right.

Or there's a mis-understanding about what exactly science is: or at least the significant difference between Engineering and Investigative Science. (Read: this happens a lot).

[Spacehound]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

For an early general-purpose machine, check out the WITCH, also at TNMOC. It's a decimal floating-point computer built from tubes and relays. Makes a comforting clicking sound when it runs.

 

 

It could use a USB magic box.

I thought of explaining computer audio by way of relays, and so stop this 'signal degradation' nonsense. But then they would talk about sparks........

[Spacehound]

12 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Or there's a mis-understanding about what exactly science is: or at least the significant difference between Engineering and Investigative Science. (Read: this happens a lot).

Yeah, they only see  the end result.  Get the 'invisible to them' science right and the engineers part is almost  inevitable. 

 

And most people think science is a belief system. It's an UNbelief system.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Or there's a mis-understanding about what exactly science is: or at least the significant difference between Engineering and Investigative Science. (Read: this happens a lot).

Scientists strive to discover the nature of the universe. Engineers shape it to their liking.