fas42 Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 9 hours ago, hopkins said: "The Tambaqi is telling you what's really in the recording..." OK, he's, yes, just hearing what's on the album 😀 ... good to see that this unit delivers the goods. Nothing in his description of what he was getting in the presentation was unusual, or surprising; only someone who has never heard what accurate reproduction is like would possibly have issues with how he talks of what he heard as it played, in particular, those progressive rock, etc, albums. 👍 Link to comment
Jud Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 11 hours ago, Allan F said: "Very negative" is a relative term. But, two negative reviews from the files of Stereophile: EAR Acute Classic CD Player, review by Art Dudley Bryston 7B SST2 monoblock power amplifier, review by Michael Fremer Yep, negative. Seven years apart, I noticed. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Allan F Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 2 hours ago, Jud said: Yep, negative. Seven years apart, I noticed. Picky, picky picky...🙂 I didn't do a search for negative reviews. I referred to two that I immediately remembered reading because I was interested in the EAR Acute, and I had a Bryston 14B ST amp at the time of Fremer's review. In fact, I had an interesting exchange of email correspondence with Fremer regarding his review. Jud 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 8 hours ago, hopkins said: Analog sounding can be understood in different ways - read any topic on this site dealing with analog VS digital if you are not convinced. I could understand Guttenberg's qualification of a DAC sounding analog as "distorted, inaccurate, but pleasing". Not to most people or authors in the context of the sound of DACs. In fact, the goal of a number of DAC designers has been to sound more like analog, meaning more like vinyl. You might want to do yourself a favour and take Chris' hint regarding your high horse. "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 25 minutes ago, Allan F said: Not to most people or authors in the context of the sound of DACs. In fact, the goal of a number of DAC designers has been to sound more like analog, meaning more like vinyl. "Analog" can also be understood as not being highly "detailed" (because too much detail is bad ?). In fact, in another of Guttenberg's videos, he feels the need to wax about this for some time, just to clarify exactly how something can be "analog" yet "detailed" :) "this isn't the sort of DAC that screams at you uber-resolution, clarity ... well, it's very high resolution, extremely high resolution, but it's balanced by extremely high musicality". He continues, to explain what "musicality" means: "[musicality] means that instruments sound tonally like themselves. A piano sounds like a piano. A clarinet sounds like a clarinet. You just hear the true sounds of instruments" Man, this guy needs to talk to @bluesman ! He should probably also have a word with @The Computer Audiophile :) 25 minutes ago, Allan F said: You might want to take Chris' hint regarding your high horse. Don't blame me for Guttenberg's amateurish reviews. I am sure he is a nice guy, but so are many other people who don't spend their time publishing BS on youtube. Link to comment
Allan F Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 29 minutes ago, Allan F said: You might want to take Chris' hint regarding your high horse. 12 minutes ago, hopkins said: Don't blame me for Guttenberg's amateurish reviews. I am sure he is a nice guy, but so are many other people who don't spend their time publishing BS on youtube Thanks. Q.E.D. 🙂 Qhwoeprktiyns 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 So if you listen to Guttenberg carefully, since some have chosen him as the "expert" here, this is what he is saying: - detail is really good - but you don't want things to sound only detailed - you want things to sound as they really are (musical) Now I am getting confused here. Are we talking about the possibility that a DAC will produce "fake detail" ? So that the detail it produces is not the detail of the real instrument ? Or does he mean that there is something else that the DAC produces which is not a "detail" ? If it is not a detail, then what is it ? A "non-detail" piece of musical information that would somehow "balance" or "complement" the detail ? What is this man saying ? Does Guttenberg even know himself what he is saying ? Perhaps its like "matter" and "anti-matter" that make up the universe. Detail is matter, yet we need the "anti matter" ? Yin and Yang. This guy is really deep ! Help me out here... Of course, those of you who claim that we cannot know "how things really sound" are in luck, as you will not have to explain what your "expert" of choice means since he is not in agreement with you. Link to comment
John Dyson Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 43 minutes ago, Allan F said: Not to most people or authors in the context of the sound of DACs. In fact, the goal of a number of DAC designers has been to sound more like analog, meaning more like vinyl. You might want to do yourself a favour and take Chris' hint regarding your high horse. It is *so* sad that the original complaint about 'digital sound' back in the 1980's was caused by a profound difference in signal processing. We still have that 'digital sound' affliction for both new analog and digital consumer recordings, but now the argument has degraded into 'counting the number of Angels on the head of a pin'. Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted September 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2021 18 minutes ago, hopkins said: So if you listen to Guttenberg carefully, since some have chosen him as the "expert" here, this is what he is saying: - detail is really good - but you don't want things to sound only detailed - you want things to sound as they really are (musical) Now I am getting confused here. Are we talking about the possibility that a DAC will produce "fake detail" ? So that the detail it produces is not the detail of the real instrument ? Or does he mean that there is something else that the DAC produces which is not a "detail" ? If it is not a detail, then what is it ? A "non-detail" piece of musical information that would somehow "balance" or "complement" the detail ? What is this man saying ? Does Guttenberg even know himself what he is saying ? Perhaps its like "matter" and "anti-matter" that make up the universe. Detail is matter, yet we need the "anti matter" ? Yin and Yang. This guy is really deep ! Help me out here... Of course, those of you who claim that we cannot know "how things really sound" are in luck, as you will not have to explain what your "expert" of choice means since he is not in agreement with you. I don't watch his videos much but I'll take his enthusiasm for the hobby every day over the excessive negativity and nit picking that you exhibit in these posts. The Computer Audiophile, Allan F, Qhwoeprktiyns and 1 other 3 1 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, kumakuma said: I don't watch his videos much but I'll take his enthusiasm for the hobby every day over the excessive negativity and nit picking that you exhibit in these posts. But at the same time you have no problem taking the time to post a peronal and negative comment about me. Moreover, If the subject matter does not interest you, or all you have to say is this type of comment, then don't post in this thread. As I said, I am sure Guttenberg is a nice guy, but the quality of his reviews leaves a lot to be desired. I am not the one who chose to quote him as the "expert" here. Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted September 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2021 9 minutes ago, hopkins said: But at the same time you have no problem taking the time to post a peronal and negative comment about me. I'm sure my feelings about your posts are more a matter of taste than accuracy... AudioDoctor, The Computer Audiophile and DuckToller 3 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 2 minutes ago, kumakuma said: I'm sure my feelings about your posts are more a matter of taste than accuracy... Ooh, so smart - that makes your contribution so relevant here... kumakuma 1 Link to comment
firedog Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 I don't believe there's such a thing as "analog" sound. It's just a crutch we use because it makes it easy for us to get an idea across. I'm also not sure there's agreement on what "analog sound" means. What some people call "analog" I might call in some cases flabby or grainy or even distorted. Some tube setups sound this way. That isn't "analog" - it's just an exagerrated tube sound based on distortion that some people consider euphonic. Good analog doesn't sound that way. It isn't always warm with lots of bloom. Good digital doesn't sound harsh. It sounds precise. It can sound warm, just not overly so. I've also heard analog that sounds harsh. It comes down to the recording and the equipment, not the format. kumakuma 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 51 minutes ago, hopkins said: So if you listen to Guttenberg carefully, since some have chosen him as the "expert" here, this is what he is saying Who chose him as the expert? Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Who chose him as the expert? Back up a page. There is very little consistency in what someone like Guttenberg says. He's produced hundreds of videos - the probability that all of it is intelligent is very low, especially when he seems to strive for "volume" more than "quality". However, when you read his article that was linked in this thread, you really wonder about him. "I was in a strange mood last January when I posted this on Facebook: "Do speaker designers strive for accuracy, or for a 'sound' they think potential buyers want?" I doubted that any designer with two working ears would even attempt to design speakers that merely measured well—there must be at least some subjectivity in their process. " How does "subjectivity" in the process demonstrate in any way (or not) that they would be producing "a sound they think potential buyers want" ? These are two completely different and unrelated things. Then he quotes Andrew Jones (who I have a lot of respect for). What Andrew Jones explains is very basic, and is exactly what we have gone over before in this thread: there are two steps - the recording, and the audio playback. But he does explain that he strives for "neutral" which does mean something. "There is no way to capture an original performance for replay over two channels that can represent the "truth" of that performance. All we can get is a facsimile that is the producer's attempt to capture what he wants to convey to you. As for a studio recording, it is a total construct and has no "original." Therefore, as a speaker designer, my goal is to try and keep the speaker neutral so it is agnostic to the type of music and, to a degree, the replay level." To which Guttenberg concludes "Holy crap. That was a blast of fresh air". Sorry, but this man is an idiot. Probably a very nice one, but still an idiot. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, hopkins said: Back up a page. There is very little consistency in what someone like Guttenberg says. He's produced hundreds of videos - the probability that all of it is intelligent is very low, especially when he seems to strive for "volume" more than "quality". However, when you read his article that was linked in this thread, you really wonder about him. "I was in a strange mood last January when I posted this on Facebook: "Do speaker designers strive for accuracy, or for a 'sound' they think potential buyers want?" I doubted that any designer with two working ears would even attempt to design speakers that merely measured well—there must be at least some subjectivity in their process. " How does "subjectivity" in the process demonstrate in any way (or not) that they would be producing "a sound they think potential buyers want" ? These are two completely different and unrelated things. Then he quotes Andrew Jones (who I have a lot of respect for). What Andrew Jones explains is very basic, and is exactly what we have gone over before in this thread: there are two steps - the recording, and the audio playback. But he does explain that he strives for "neutral" which does mean something. "There is no way to capture an original performance for replay over two channels that can represent the "truth" of that performance. All we can get is a facsimile that is the producer's attempt to capture what he wants to convey to you. As for a studio recording, it is a total construct and has no "original." Therefore, as a speaker designer, my goal is to try and keep the speaker neutral so it is agnostic to the type of music and, to a degree, the replay level." To which Guttenberg concludes "Holy crap. That was a blast of fresh air". Sorry, but this man is an idiot. Probably a very nice one, but still an idiot. Still didn’t see anyone reference him as an expert other than you. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Still didn’t see anyone reference him as an expert other than you. You are right. I am wrong. No one specifically referred to him as an expert. Link to comment
DuckToller Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 I feel that SG is a friendly middlemen for the Audio Industry into the media landscape. This is a business model nowadays. He can make a good living with some nice audio equipment in his NY appartment, he looks like he is a pro in his job, which obviously he loves as much as Chris loves his job. Would I take his advice as premium content for making a purchase decision? Surely not. But I may like to get some notice for gear I did not yet have on my interest list. I loved - for example - his visit of a NY appartment (home invasion chez @miguelito) with Avantgarde speakers, Audio Note amp and a Rossini DAC. However he is not talking to this forum, but via YT and CNet to a different audience, he has another type of followers than Chris, I would guess. Does I need to critisize him for that (business model)? I think not, as I am old enough to understand why he - for example - expressed quite generously his love for the Kanto TUK, which I reviewed too, though with another outcome. So what? Most of the members here are educated enough to understand what's on with stereophile or Cnet reviews. A good part of this forum's population may have bought equipment after reading about it here, and just a minority - to my memory - felt that their experience with these products had been diametrally different in a way that they need to discuss the initial review's content. To conclude: Many members have their own personal way to deal with reviews here and elsewhere, and you ( @hopkins ) seem to have a very special way to express your disagreement with reviews/reviewers, which hasn't got quite the same relevance for other people, I'd reckon. Given your analytic skills and your way to moderate topics, I wonder why you get so much occupied in deconstructing / debasing other peoples output? You just can't be wrong ? Tom The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 31 minutes ago, DuckToller said: To conclude: Many members have their own personal way to deal with reviews here and elsewhere, and you ( @hopkins ) seem to have a very special way to express your disagreement with reviews/reviewers, which hasn't got quite the same relevance for other people, I'd reckon. Given your analytic skills and your way to moderate topics, I wonder why you get so much occupied in deconstructing / debasing other peoples output? You just can't be wrong ? Tom I never said I disagreed with Guttenberg's "reviews" (or at least the conclusions). I pointed out inconsistencies with the article that was linked. It is common for professional reviewers to hold the view that everything is subjective and a matter of taste. It makes their job "sustainable" in a way. However, in reality, they often contradict themselves, as others do here. When you think of it, one would assume that professional reviewers would in fact have more faith in "universality". It is a bit of a contradiction to make a living writing about a topic if you don't believe there is any value in doing so. That being said, I do not think he is a good journalist, and judging from that article he may not be very smart either. Is it forbidden to say this? I'm not the one who wrote the article! If I want to quote his videos and make fun of what he says, why would anyone be offended? Is this forum a Guttenberg fan club? I opened this thread because I was curious to get other people's points of view. If I had wanted Guttenberg's, I would not have done so. I did not open this topic to go on a rant about reviewers in general, or Guttenberg in particular. However, introducing his point of view in the conversation and having people "liking" it gives me the right to give my point of view as well on what he has to say. To be honest, his reviews crack me up. The level of BS is epic. I really laughed when I heard him talk about the level of detail of the Kula, and its musicality. If you don't see the absurdity, then I'm sorry for you. The Mola-Mola may be a great product. Not the point. It's too bad that Guttenberg came into the discussion in the first place. Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted September 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2021 @hopkins Forgive me for another off topic post but have you tried meditation? 20 minutes a day has really helped me become less of an a$$hole. Of course, not a perfect solution as my posts today show quite clearly. The Computer Audiophile, Allan F and AudioDoctor 1 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 7 minutes ago, kumakuma said: @hopkins Forgive me for another off topic post but have you tried meditation? 20 minutes a day has really helped me become less of an a$$hole. Of course, not a perfect solution as my posts today show quite clearly. Nice one. Perhaps implying that another forum member is an asshole (as you just have) should be a signal that it's time to close this thread? Link to comment
kumakuma Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 13 minutes ago, hopkins said: Nice one. Perhaps implying that another forum member is an asshole (as you just have) should be a signal that it's time to close this thread? I'm sure Chris would be more than willing to oblige if you ask him. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
DuckToller Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 36 minutes ago, hopkins said: I never said I disagreed with Guttenberg's "reviews" (or at least the conclusions). I pointed out inconsistencies with the article that was linked. It is common for professional reviewers to hold the view that everything is subjective and a matter of taste. It makes their job "sustainable" in a way. However, in reality, they often contradict themselves, as others do here. When you think of it, one would assume that professional reviewers would in fact have more faith in "universality". It is a bit of a contradiction to make a living writing about a topic if you don't believe there is any value in doing so. That being said, I do not think he is a good journalist, and judging from that article he may not be very smart either. Is it forbidden to say this? I'm not the one who wrote the article! If I want to quote his videos and make fun of what he says, why would anyone be offended? Is this forum a Guttenberg fan club? I opened this thread because I was curious to get other people's points of view. If I had wanted Guttenberg's, I would not have done so. I did not open this topic to go on a rant about reviewers in general, or Guttenberg in particular. However, introducing his point of view in the conversation and having people "liking" it gives me the right to give my point of view as well on what he has to say. To be honest, his reviews crack me up. The level of BS is epic. I really laughed when I heard him talk about the level of detail of the Kula, and its musicality. If you don't see the absurdity, then I'm sorry for you. The Mola-Mola may be a great product. Not the point. It's too bad that Guttenberg came into the discussion in the first place. Am I mistaken, or did you heavily edit your initial response? Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, kumakuma said: I'm sure Chris would be more than willing to oblige if you ask him. And you have the nerve to reply... Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 19, 2021 Author Share Posted September 19, 2021 4 minutes ago, DuckToller said: Am I mistaken, or did you heavily edit your initial response? Sorry, yes, I got carried away adding to the initial post. Link to comment
Recommended Posts