Jump to content
IGNORED

Bits is bits?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mansr said:

I'm confused. Did Dorko write that silly article?

I struggle to imagine anyone taking him too seriously.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, 4est said:

I struggle to imagine anyone taking him too seriously.

 

Here, out of provocation?  🔬

 

Outside, people dazzled by his apparent place as an authority?  Droves funneled in by SEO results will accept him as a serious reliable vetted insider source to be tapped.  

 

Association to exclusivity, apparent ease and peculiar heredity with it, being laid at his feet out of a most tender respect for his profound divinations.  LATFH, couldn't pick him out of a lineup to be honest.  Feel sorry for the audio cop who had to write him up if someone else did.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, sandyk said:

In other words it becomes Censorship of those with differing points of view.

 

Presumably you continue to post your views to get a reaction?

 

You must understand by now that some of your ideas are way outside the norm, and presumably you enjoy tweaking everyone?

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 I am NOT sidestepping the argument, neither am I agreeing with all the contents of the quoted article.

 I am simply saying that it is no longer  possible to have a rational discussion in this forum without members such as Ralf11 and several others deliberately attacking the poster and using insulting phrases.

 This amounts to a bullying and disruptive tactic that leads to others with different views not even joining in the discussion.

This kind of behaviour is even more prevalent in the MQA thread, where I have already made it perfectly clear that I also hear degradation caused by MQA processing.

 

In other words it becomes Censorship of those with differing points of view.

 

If you are not sidestepping the argument, then please to point to some evidence in support of the specific claims made in the argument.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

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.

 

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.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
mail?url=http%3A%2F%2Fntc.soundestlink.c
mail?url=http%3A%2F%2Fntc.soundestlink.c

Our new guide is filled with fighting words that shouldn't be fighting words.

  • "There are no digital signals."
  • "Digital cables are cables."
  • "Time is irrelevant to a data stream."
  • "Digital signals can be distorted."
  • And finally, the Mad Hatter-esque "Clocks aren't perfect".

Digital products offer significant upgrade paths. Don't lose out because of misinformation.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, crenca said:

The above is the misinformation that just showed up in my inbox...

 

I also got spammed with this.  The worst thing about it, is that it reads like Soviet propaganda - it is well written and uses semi-accurate stmts. to make specious arguments.

 

All in service of selling stuff to people who likely do not need it.

 

Kevin should be ashamed.  I am unlikely to buy equipment from them again.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, marce said:

If bits aren't bits what are they then?

meta-bits susceptible to meta-problems.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

https://www.upscaleaudio.com/pages/bits-is-bits

 

This is what is in the Darko article.  I guess a cursory view of it I didn't realize it was lifted verbatim from AQ.  Not surprised. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...