Jump to content

Albrecht

Members
  • Content Count

    959
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Albrecht

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's just the kind of appeal to authority/cult of personality, fascist post that I expect from an anti-science naysaying troll.
  2. From your posts here, - hard to believe, - spike...
  3. It is clear that you have little to no understanding of the principles, nor the definition, of what scientific investigation means or is... "You've identified yourself as a "Knowledgeable Listener" just above" not true ""This shows that you are not knowledgeable." not a logical deduction, - AND, - a little training in Science, Reason, Logic, and the fallacies would help you not only with your ability to produce cogent arguments, - but also help you to acquire knowledge based on evidentiary principles (and not wild hearsay) and appeals to an (alleged) authority figure. You can really do science for yourself, - it's fun.....
  4. Well, - your observational statement may be true as far as the "audio press" (there isn't really an audio press), - especially as I believe that you are referring to in the online sites like Six Moons, Soundstage, & print like What HiFi, Stereophile, Absolute Sound etc. Yes, - there is bandwagon jumping, - like other art-crafts reviews, - like movies. That's an entirely different experience than evaluating equipment and room treatments in playing back a recording. Meaning, - one does not hear the results of group-think when conducting BETTER tests and evaluations. There are many reasons why Ed Meitner's DACs are indeed better than many others, - and NONE of it has to do with groupthink as the test of time is in direct contradiction to the fad of groupthink. Your example of MQA is almost spot on. (And, I do say almost as in some cases, - MQA DOES sound better. In that, if you compare MQA on a $70K system, - it's going to sound better than a Sharp boom-box. There will always be a misapplication of components). MQA can sound "better" or "worse" depending on the context. " So lots of people saying they hear something proves zip on it's own." Do you think that i was saying that? If so, - that would be a straw man. As thorough, listening comparisons, measurements, internal components/parts evaluations, design topology, are all parts of this evaluation process. (Blind and Sighted: in addition to evidence gathering in evaluating products in many different contexts, - all play a part in the gathering of evidence and knowledge that has formed a relative consensus). The goal is not whether any particular DAC has the lowest jitter, (even though that can certainly help), the goal is whether that DAC makes the recording & listening experience "sound good" according to the person who likes listening to the recording(s). You can speculate about it or you can actually test (listen) to it.... Yes, there is group-think and bandwagon jumping and fads, - but those don't last for long, and the cream gets to the top and fads that don't actually perform better, go away pretty fast....look at the colossal failure of MQA.
  5. "the only difference between me and you and others" Uh..you have made an incorrect assumption about my person
  6. It gets to be a PITA to write out "multi-function computer" as opposed to "streamer." Both are also a bit ridiculous. But older folks are likely to not call their baby-cam, microwave, refrigerator, or new "smart wallet," - a computer.
  7. Marce doesn't have the knowledge of comparative experiences to back up the attitude he has... Let me clue you in: knowledgeable listeners and evaluators don't like (ignorant) EEs telling them what they can and cannot hear. Knowledgable testers don't think much of ignorant, sub-scientific, gibbersh, spouted by the untrained "anti-vaxers" and "climate deniers" who have conducted ZERO analysis and evaluations of the products in question, - yet still manage to subjectively attack the product, the designer, & the listener.
  8. It is with the piling up of evidence that those "biases" are mitigated. Plus, - the all important in-depth analysis of the products. For example: when you have heard Ed Meitner's DACs in hundreds of different systems (applications). This evidence and knowledge should be highly respected, - especially when it's corroborated amongst many people. At that point, - since it's proven to the satisfaction of many people, - the burden of proof needs to be shifted to the "climate denier" or "naysayer" to demonstrate otherwise. Remember, - the naysayer is also making a subjective claim as well, - just outside any sort of reason, or without any evidence.
  9. Thanks for commenting on my post. "That's not a NAS, that's a server." Yes, - thanks for clarifying this for others. "Spinning discs without sound proofing and anti-vibration mounting are noisy, without any fans needed. Good, big, slowly rotating fans are quieter than spinning"discs ever" Yes, - and many of the QNAP NAS devices have neither fans or spinning discs, - but SSD drives. Or, - no HDDs, and the user can purchase their own drives separately as I have done. Again, - I do appreciate your corrections/clarifications.
  10. Many people referred to them in the past as NAS Drives. Associating them as hard disc drives, built into a small computer that's more elegant solution to serve up files. Home NAS computers have developed into ways to deliver your media all around your home network to different devices in different rooms. Several of these have no fans and are very quiet. I've been using an iMAC as NAS to play back AIFF files since 2003, - along with (starting out with an ibook) a macbook & USB to SPDIF converter as a file player. Getting rid of those noisy, and cumbersome computers, (loading LMS and MiniMServer on my QNAP), - was one of my wisest moves.
  11. After that, - all of the trolls will lecture us on how the toilet paper is "poorly designed."
  12. specifically for the anti-audiophile trolls here...
  13. Insults not funny, not creative: and in order to be so, - has to have some element of truth. If there was an argument anywhere, - it would've been made. Or is it that certain troll's here are just not capable of presenting a good argument?, - that straw man, and (personal) appeals to authority will somehow sway audiophiles from the truth & knowledge that they experience. This is why I say that the 6 or 7 trolls here are just venting anger and their jealousy. Wouldn't one think at least some of them, - would actually have a goal at defining what they might mean by "well-designed" system. How are high performance audio components poorly designed? How are Vladimir Lamm's amps NOT well designed, while Sony receivers are? Because they utilize tubes? Or because they are more expensive? What about Solid State Pass Labs amps? How many houses have Lamm amps burned down? What is the total cost of the internal components of a LAMM amp as opposed to a Denon receiver? Does Vladimir Lamm not have an engineering degree? How has "basic physics" been violated in Lamm amps, and NOT in Sony's? Or is it because an item is more expensive, - it has to be poorly designed?, and also sounds the same? If it sounds the same, - how is it poorly designed? So many questions, - so few answers forthcoming.... If the only thing that is done is hurl un-funny sarcastic insults, - how does that sway folks from continuing to evaluate high performance gear? When these questions are asked, - crickets.....
×
×
  • Create New...