Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Currawong

  1. I've never seen anyone write that. The very problem is so-called objectivists trying to make someone else "feel like a second class citizen" by putting out their beliefs as superior, in a manner akin to a religion. It was especially frustrating in the MQA threads, as if I forgot to bookmark a post with important information, it would take me hours of going through page after page of crap to find it again. Since I've been wanting to make a video about MQA, that alone has put me off.
  2. The irony is that an objective approach to audio is a subjective choice made by the individual.
  3. The hardcore objectivists would be the ones drinking water and telling us all that is wrong with beer in passive aggressive tones.
  4. I might ask why you're connecting to anything on the internet from a root login.... but anyway.... As FTTH is most common in Japan, there is, or maybe was, a service that intended to stream DSD (!!!). I don't think I need say more.
  5. While I'm an admitted hypocrite in writing what I'm about to, as I've done this myself occasionally, I think that this attitude of using the forums to make people you* disagree with look like fools, is unproductive to the conversation. I think it contributed significantly to negating much of what was discovered about MQA in the threads about it, as now people who like MQA consider anyone who posts negatively about it a troll -- on other forums too. This is the very kind of issue about the inability to separate arguments from the people arguing them that is being discussed here. *And I don't mean "you" specifically, but people in general. I'm saying that this is unproductive, not trying to point fingers at anyone specifically.
  6. This is a very important point. It's really a few noisy people with extreme viewpoints in one direction or another who cause the most fuss. The vast majority, who are not extreme, get put off. The internet is very much like this, where people with extreme beliefs drum up the most division. Since it is tiring to make a lot of effort putting forward sensible discussion in the face of these people, most people give up. Knowing one's limits are important too. I sometimes get asked why I don't do blind tests in my reviews. I know that the person asking is just trolling, but I always make the points that many of the differences I hear between components took a lot of effort to discern, and either I doubt I'd pass a blind test on them, nor would they matter for most people. That's simply being realistic. Darko recently made a good video about what people new to hi-fi should care about, and what they shouldn't, using his own system and reviews as an example. I think it did a great job of bridging the gap for those who don't know what is important when starting out.
  7. What is a counter argument to something subjective? What is a counter argument to something objective? Much of the problem is that the idea of countering someone's subjective impressions has been to say that their impressions are impossible, or imaginary. As Chris pointed out, a genuine counter-argument would be that someone experienced things differently. Take the Schiit Unison thread. Someone made a post a short while ago saying that the Regen had a negative effect with the Unison USB, whereas it had had a positive effect with the Gen 5. Actually, that's not an argument at all, but a data point. That is real "balance", where people can talk about their experiences. Often the behaviour of many so-called objectivists is irrational. They seem so intent on wanting someone's impressions of a product to not be true, that they will draw upon any argument they can to argue their subjective belief. That is far removed from actual science. Real science, as I've already pointed out, would be to test hypotheses as to why people have particular impressions, using electronic analysis and measurement. There are a bunch of underlying assumptions in this post that I believe should be considered. Firstly, the assumption that objectivists takes on things are correct. The attitude that the most obnoxious objectivists I've encountered use is, essentially, that because "it is science" that everything they say is correct, and whenever they mention science, it invalidates any subjective impressions. It seems not to matter if an objectivist has zero qualifications, has never manufactured a product in his (I've never encountered a "her") life, or even done a science experiment outside of high school, "Science" is put forward like "It's God's will". An observation a moderator made on another large audio forum, which parallels my own, is that these people often don't have much money and can't afford fancy audio gear, so they attack people who can. The objectivists "shouting louder" is because people refused to join what amounts to their religion, and they seem to want to ruin peoples' enjoyment of the hobby, not help them enjoy it more. Like you though, I started spending more time on AS to read the MQA threads. I wanted to understand the technology deeper. But as much as the technical research done by people like mansr helped, it was tiring wading through page after page of back-slapping, congratulatory belittling insults thrown towards MQA supporters. When I was moderating Head-Fi, I stated to many people that technical criticism of technology was totally welcome, but personal attacks against anyone, including manufacturers we not. Time and time again, technical criticism was used to personally attack and insult the owners, often active on the forums, of particular companies. The issue seemed to be that certain people cannot separate objective criticism, with a subjective desire to denigrate other people. You mention how "an engineer or scientist is looking at the situation". The good scientists and engineers sure as heck aren't looking at the situation as "This person is an idiot" but either "How can I explain this better to the customer so they understand it" or "Is this something I should look at closer or test to confirm what is going on?". Look at people such as the team from Chord Electronics or Schiit Audio as shining examples of how this is done. This is because scientists, engineers, and so-called science can be wrong and, most importantly, science is almost entirely incomplete. The purpose of science is to develop greater understanding. It is not to belittle people with!
  8. I put a Unison board in my Yggy not too long ago, and so far, between a 2012 Mac Mini direct to the Unison input and a Soundaware D300REF sending AES, I haven't been able to tell the difference. That's a good thing I reckon.
  9. I don't think that the issue is disagreement, so much as it is about the issues Chris described is post from that thread, which I quoted below. A genuine scientific approach involves making a hypothesis from an observation (in this case, subjective impressions) and testing it. This is completely different to the issues forums have, where a bunch of so-called objectivists try and put people down who don't worship science and disagree with the possibility of anything existing outside their own belief system. When a genuine scientific approach is taken, there is much to learn. For example, I felt that a particular DAC had a slightly warmer presentation, or maybe more bass, than another, during listening comparisons. Going into the measurements, I found a particular pattern in the crosstalk where there was a bump in the bass around certain frequencies that correlated with what I was hearing. Answer found!
  10. It seems to be rather like ISIS, with pockets of true believers continuing the fight.
  11. It sounds like the manufacturers are quietly telling MQA to f-off, with a couple of exceptions. It's something I'd have to verify, but I suspect that manufacturers added it at customer/fan request, but when the product hit dealers, they found that all but a very rare few people had any idea what it was, and they didn't want to have to explain it to those who didn't. Given the marketing was almost all BS they are now avoiding it altogether. Forum argument PTSD? 😂
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. As an ex-admin of Head-Fi, I can say for certain that that kind of BS does not go on there.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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. 😉
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  • Create New...