My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[firedog]

20 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

While I completely agree, I suspect this ship has already sailed.  Look at all the polite posts made by the polite people celebrating (politely, of course) the conquest of those rude rational thinkers!

 

CC took the gloves off completely, so this thread is an exercise in utter futility IMHO.  CC believes without reservation that the "true believers" should never be made to feel uncomfortable or have to justify their irrational beliefs.  I don't think there's anything else to be said.  And let's not beat around the bush, True Believers spend way more money than rational thinkers.  Despite CC's protestations, having a forum that never challenges irrational thought will be a draw to the True Believers, and that's clearly where the money is.

 

All that's left is for Quint to pop in and declare that Chris made the right decision, and Scoggins will be suddenly unbanned and all will be forgiven.  I wouldn't be surprised if Chris actually apologizes.

 

This is the new day that has dawned here.  Let them sing "ding, dong, the witch is dead" to their heart's content.  It's not the witch that died, but they'll never believe that.

 

Best to just boycott the forum completely I think.

Writing posts that make you sound like a "true believer" in conspiracy theories and the type of thinking behind them isn't a very convincing argument for your position. I think you have completely misread Chris and his motives. 

 

I suggest that to back up your assertions you should setup some surveillance equipment at Chris' house so you can see him sitting around his cauldron with Scoggins and Quint, cooking up some evil potions that induce irrational thought in every audiophile who drinks a cup. Be sure to post the video on YouTube or at ASR so we can see it. 

 

I promise to apologize to you for this post as soon as you do so. 

[firedog]

13 hours ago, rickca said:

@The Computer Audiophile, please tell me you have no plan to invite Lee Scoggins back.  All he did was try to promote his upcoming articles and continue the MQA obfuscation.  I see no connection anyway between introduction of the Objective-Fi subforum and the idea of bringing Lee back.

Can you not drink Sam T's Kool-Aid please? He for some reason felt compelled to throw that out there. We don't need to have a feeding frenzy every time some chum is thrown into the water...

[firedog]

52 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Are you saying that the process of comparative listening, and investigating differences in various systems is somehow "irrational?"

 

Many objectivists would say that sighted listening comparisons are irrational, as your conclusions from them are unreliable, by definition. 

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

 

@firedog

Thank you for answering.

I think that what you write is 100% correct: does that necessarily lead to the next step in the objective thought process that comparative listeners are irrational "fools" that objectivists should not be made to suffer? So, not only wrong? And, doubly wrong that somehow irrational "fools" are treated with equality?

@TheComputerAudiophile: Do you perform metrics on what sub-forums are most popular on Audiophile Style?  

I don't think it's fair to say that's the "next step" in the thought process. Not all the objectivists think non objectivists are fools. Some just think they are misguided, others don't really relate to it. 

BTW, I also don't think sighted listening for comparison is worth much, but since often no other way of listening/comparing exists for most of us, that's all we can do. That doesn't make us fools - unless we refuse to acknowledge that our sighted listening is of  limited usefulness, at best. 

[firedog]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing.

 

This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉.

I specifically asked there if other than features and/or looks there is any SQ reason to buy a DAC that costs more than $500, if a $500 DAC like a some of the Toppings measures "state of the art", according to the measurements Amir does. I couldn't get a straight answer out of them. 
Some of them seem to acknowledge that the filtering on a DAC can make a small difference. They haven't slagged off on the expensive DACs Amir has measured like the Holo or the Mola Mola, because they measure so well. But the comments there are mostly "it still isn't worth the money b/c it doesn't sound better than my $500 Topping DAC, or my Benchmark DAC" variety. 

 

I'd like to believe that's true. My unscientific testing/listening indicates it isn't, even though I agree that the difference in SQ is not as dramatic as audiophiles tend to describe it,  and for that a large premium is paid. 

[firedog]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Is that because you think that certain measurements are "missed" with something like the MolaMola that allows for it to make the system "sound better." Or, - is that the downstream amp/speakers are affected differently by each? Or does it matter?

No, just based on my listening, which is usually sighted.

 

Miska implies that not all  the relevant measurements are taken by sites like ASR.

 

It may also be that an item like the Mola Mola does a better DA conversion and/or is a better preamp. Some of the really expensive DACs have proprietary DA conversion, it may be that those algorithms work better than the ones most commonly found in DAC chips.  I'm not really sure how that shows up in conventional measurements, or if it does. Acc'd to the ASR POV we can't hear a difference between a DAC that has noise/distorition at -115 or -120 db and a much more expensive one that has it at -130 db. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

If the SACD was, in fact, created from a 16/44 master, it's a ripoff. You are paying SACD prices for hi-res DSD and you are not getting it. Years ago, there was a scandal regarding a Norah Jones SACD that was created from the 16/44 CD master.

I don't think it's a ripoff if they are open about the source. Some people would prefer the SACD anyway. But they should know what they are buying.