Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Currawong

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They are. You can post as much as you like about what LHLabs/Larry/Gavin and everyone else has done. I get it though. You aren't allowed to do something and you're not happy. Heck, I get it. I think the matter should be on the front page of every audio forum out there. However, they do not allow discussion of legal cases, or anything that may become one, under any circumstances. I'm seriously confused by how the distinction between allowing people to post what they like about a company, and posting about legal cases is not abundantly clear. Please read the bolded text again, at least 5 times, with extra emphasis on the last 3 words. It is really that simple. So you don't want people warning people about LHLabs on Head-Fi, and all the history of what went on erased from the forums?
  2. Since when has blatantly lying to consumers ever been OK? I only wish MQA had tried to make a push in Australia with their original marketing. They would have had their ass handed to them on a platter by Consumer Affairs. Digital, 35 years ago -- that was a fair call. I will never forget how bloody awful the DDD CDs were, such as Enya's Watermark. I don't think you can really compare digitisation of music, which can be freely and openly done, and innovated upon, with the closed, proprietary MQA system. A better analogy would be MP3, encoding of which originally required a licence, and now no longer does. Maybe once MQA becomes free and open.... (as if it would). Regardless of that, if they'd stuck to the facts, and just started out with new, readily available recordings made entirely using the MQA chain, without the lossy compression, they might have gotten good attention as a "better" mastering system. They could have saved the compressed, "folded" version for TIDAL.
  3. I read it again. I replied to your comments about qualifications. Since you weren't specific about what "qualifications" you were looking for in the people you mentioned, and since the word assumes at least some kind of official degree, I responded as such. Given your experience, you're the kind of person I'd be interested in seeing equipment reviews from. Your comments about the press ignoring valid criticism was what I was talking about, from another angle. My guess is that they made excuses to themselves to ignore it.
  4. While I cannot speak for anything Jarek has done regarding anything else, I confirmed last night, and I can say for absolutely certain that the only reason posts were deleted in that thread on HF were due to a strict policy of not allowing discussion of legal matters. While I might wish that they'd relax that policy in this instance, they wont.
  5. As an ex-admin of Head-Fi, I can say for certain that that kind of BS does not go on there.
  6. This reminds me a bit of the story told by a mechanic to which a car was towed. The owner stated "It's not the battery, I'm an engineer." or words to that effect. So the mechanic tested everything else under the hood, eventually coming to the conclusion, verified by testing, that it was indeed that the battery was dead. My point is, attacking members of the audiophile press because they may not have some kind of engineering credentials has little merit, as I don't believe that qualifications alone, but approach to learning and understanding the technology behind a product is more important. By the same logic, being a well-known musician would surely be qualified to talk about musical playback, but if you've had any experience with musicians, they tend to know the least about the gear they use or anything technical involving sound. Regardless, just about anyone with any serious audio engineering knowhow is, or works for a manufacturer of audio gear. I think that, more usefully, a better approach to reviewing or discussing audio technology would involve a more critical eye towards any technology or the claims within, or, like Stereophile does much of the time, a balance between subjective impressions and technical analysis. Some more caution and reservation when declaring supposed fact would be in order too. Again though, I think the issue with MQA and the audiophile press is that a well-known friend of theirs suddenly came out and said that he was going to revolutionise music mastering and delivery and they believed everything he said without critically examining it. All the analysis from this forum was so full of noise, especially the abusive critique of the audiophile press, that for a long while it gave them an excuse to ignore everything as just noise from people with nothing better to do than make noise on forums.
  7. I was thinking about John's work, but recall how Stereophile stated in 2016: "By all appearances, the MQA revolution is poised to do for the music industry what the latest Star Wars blockbuster is doing for movies. MQA may not be the final frontier, but it is scrubbing clean decades worth of digital files beset with temporal blur (timing errors) and quantization distortion and computational-induced noise." all of which was subsequently shown to be impossible. While Bob's words that I posted above are more reserved than they were, he has instead resorted to suitably undefined terms such as the "the definitive sound", and this after trying to re-define "lossless" as something that isn't lossless.
  8. Here's a good example. We know, for a fact that you cannot completely remove distortion caused by these things from digital music. If that's not true, I'd really like to see the papers written with proofs showing how it's done. It's funny he says "No-one is trying to be evil". Only lie repeatedly I guess. While I might agree, another point of view is that people were losing their temper against those people who kept coming into the MQA threads and repeating what has been proven to be BS (bovine excrement, not Bob Stuart) and refusing to address the facts presented to them. If there was any arguable error in this, it was, IMHO, that the reasons for their beliefs were because of advertising money that their publications receive (in the case of people like Scoggins). I believe it was because the members of the trade publications are good friends with many in the industry, even those people whose design ideas are questionable, and their response is more likely the result of defending friends being maligned after being treated to what was to them, an initially impressive audio demo. I forgot what I was going to reply to this. 😂 Oh, I was suddenly reminded of this classic: All Archimago, mansr, crenca and others did was point out that the existing "evil empires" wanted to try and use this to control music delivery, and that what MQA promised was actually a bunch of lies. 😉
  9. https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/70374166 Translated summary: Seems the Da Vinci was a complete dud with a 100% failure rate. If only everyone had known this years ago.
  10. Head-Fi went through this years ago, and I ended up spending over half a decade being a quite brutal moderator to stop the anarchy starting up again. Here's the reality: Everyone can be put on a standard deviation grade curve -- most people are moderate and sensible, however people at the ends of any spectrum, the extremists if you like, cause 99% of the problems. If they don't blatantly accuse others of being everything bad under the sun, they push things to the limits, and push back if you enforce your rules against them. While there is a natural tendency to want to say that you want a place where a variety of views can be expressed, saying that in itself is a trap, as in reality that desire will be hijacked by extremists to push their agendas. Extremists are noisy and motivated to push forums into the ground in their desire to have them bend towards their beliefs. The best thing to do with them is ban them outright. They can shout to death about everything falsely negative about you. But after it becomes possible to express an opinion without being shouted down by these people, the majority, normally afraid to post because of these people, are more likely to participate again. The problem is likely not one with rules, so much as it is a problem with a small handful of people.
  11. it's an adaptor for using IEMs that are very sensitive with amps that they otherwise would have a lot of hiss with. Nothing magical and it does what it says it does.
  12. I used to be staff on HF, and while I wont go into details as to why, anything mentioning lawyers or legal matters is forbidden. They simply and absolutely don't want to have anything to do with any legal matters whatsoever.
  13. Much of that issue is Roon, among others, are using a version of the Chrome browser, essentially, to provide the user interface, instead of taking the time to probably write good software. Since browsers are massive bloatware, it can easily end up using 1GB of memory.
  14. Posted as much on Roon's forums, but this whole provenance thing -- well, how hard would it be for labels to checksum files and set up a server with an API? Of course, that would assume that their real interest was actually serving their end-customers....
  15. If you're a potential target for a SIM-swap attack, the solution would be to get a second phone with a number that you ONLY use for account recovery. Then even if someone does a SIM swap attack on your regular phone number, since it isn't connected with any of your online accounts, it can be used to break into them.
  • Create New...