Bits is bits?

[AnotherSpin]

21 minutes ago, firedog said:

There are things about Darko I like, but his technical understanding is clearly limited. And unfortunately, like many (not all) audio writers, the minute what he writes is challenged on technical grounds, he falls back to the traditional position "don't tell me what I hear", etc. While that is definitely true, he is essentially telling other people that what he hears is some sort of broadly applicable yardstick. 

 

Which is probably not so bad at all. People tell others what they hear and others may want or not want listen. There is no such thing as universal audio truth and wouldn't be.

[AnotherSpin]

11 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Certainly. The objection should not be what sound someone prefers, rather when people proclaim technical reasons that are outside reality. These pseudo technical proclamations are often ill disguised marketing attempts. Sort of like selling American cheese as organic aged Parmesan — you are free to like your cheeseburger with American cheese, just be honest.

 

According to Scientists all cheeses taste the same.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

The article doesn't list an author. 

 

Nobody cares, do they?

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

There is a universal audio truth ... any reasonable playback system can be evolved to a status, using knowledge and focused effort, where one is no longer aware of the playback chain in the listening; but only what's on the recording. This is something that I've have confirmed repeatedly - and what's on the recording is plenty enough to keep you mighty happy, .

 

The problem is "reasonable playback" for you would not necessarily be reasonable for someone else. Hence your truth can not be universal. In general sense, anything changeable couldn't be truth.