darrenyeats wrote:
Are you referring to my post here
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103842-Is-anybody-sick-of-the-recent-spate-of-threadsp=823638viewfull=1#post823638?
If so, I think what I wrote is very different to how you've understood
it.
You're right and I apologize - I
Julf wrote:
And then there are those of us who just enjoy great sound without
pretentious audiophile snake oil. I guess that makes us second class
citizens.
The phrase that comes to mind is: Music Lover.
arnyk's
SBGK wrote:
So these people have pretensions of being an audiophile and think they
are getting it from a $300 device.
And then there are those of us who just enjoy great sound without
pretentious audiophile snake oil. I guess that makes us second class
citizens.
It's also fun just to see
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi thousand $ systems because they've been told bits are
bits and abx is
incapable of discerning a difference and Archimago says they all
sound/measure the same.
So these people have
Julf wrote:
The best terms I can think of are astrotroll for those with a
commercial agenda, and cosmotroll for those with a purely ideological,
non-commercial agenda, but I would love to hear suggestions for terms
better describing these behaviours.
I think placebophile works.
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi thousand $ systems because they've been told bits are
bits and abx is
incapable of discerning a difference and Archimago says they all
sound/measure the same.
So these people have
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox
So you aren't using a squeezebox?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
bonze wrote:
So you don't think anyone should have a Touch in their system?
Well done, you've just proved his point.
The empty vessel makes the most noise.
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK wrote:
The empty vessel makes the most noise.
Noise without relevant content seems to describe most of your posts. Why
don't you take your own advice?
arnyk's Profile:
Julf wrote:
So you aren't using a squeezebox?
See, you've quoted it out of context, well done. Which no tactic is that
from the troll manual ?
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's Profile:
Archimago wrote:
Well Arny,
All I can say is, it looks like you dodged a bullet... Serinus didn't
call you a pathetic girly man. :-)
I have two sons that are probably about the same age as he, one with a
PhD in Cancer Research, and the other with a MBA and dual BS in
Environmental
SBGK wrote:
See, you've quoted it out of context, well done. Which no tactic is that
from the troll manual ?
That's called a deflection.
You've already ripped a few people new terminations for their digestive
systems for not having a SB, and now you've done a similar job on
everybody else
doctor_big wrote:
I've got nothing to say to you, troll. You don't own a Squeezebox and
have nothing constructive to add here. You're the first member of my
ignore list.
Jason
Ah, the Ostrich defense.
18377
I win!
+---+
But the original topic of the tread was not about garden variety
audiophiles ?
But the idea of a person always argue for misconceptions and popular
audiophile beliefs not only because ( or not at all ) personal beliefs ,
but to the prepare the ground .
Example if you sell expensive cables ,
Seems like some want to define audiophile stuff as everything that does
not work in audio .( like alternative medicine is all stuff that does
not really work in medicin ) .
What I would love is to see the debate go over to stuff that really
matters instead of wasting time at dead ends . And that
ralphpnj wrote:
Pray tell - what would any self respecting audiophile be doing on the
Slimdevices forum?
So again I ask: what would any self respecting audiophile be doing on
the Slimdevices forum?
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi
doctor_big wrote:
Philippe, you're a huge contributor to this ecosystem and for that you
have my utmost respect. And I think you definitely get what I'm trying
to say. I too am saddened by Jkeny's and Arny's relentless squabbles,
although I am rooting for JK to come out on top as at least
jkeny wrote:
I'll PM Archimago about the Regen test - it makes no sense for this to
be where the details of that test the results are published as it will
only attract more troll infestation shit - not worth bothering with or
taking up any time on.
Does that mean that you a) are backing
philippe_44 wrote:
Point taken, but although not being involved in these flame wars, I
recently had to see them through the invasion of the what's new
timeline that was eaten up by the audiophile sub-forum.
I think what is making the people with a scientific background (over)
reacting is
ralphpnj wrote:
Jason, I'm confused as to why you single me out. Many of my posts simply
try to point out how and why audiophiles are being duped, which I blame
on the experts - whether they be audiophile writers, editors or
manufacturers (and their marketing and advertising departments).
arnyk wrote:
The poor guy grew up (if you can call it that) an irrational
subjectivist who lives in a multidimensional logic-tight box, what can I
say?
I'll bet money JH you can't possibly see that, something about seeing
the forest for the trees...
I blame my parents.
If seeing the
Archimago wrote:
Yes good point.
*-SBGK: Do not disappear here like you have so many times before when
challenged. If you are willing to accuse me of somehow poisoning the
thoughts of other; duping them as you say. Then stand your ground and
reason with me. I'm sure there are many
jh901 wrote:
I blame my parents.
If seeing the forest for the trees by your account necessitates adhering
to Hydrogen Audio dogma, then I'll stick with the, er, sticks.
As far as I know Jason's career writing about music has turned out ok.
Presumably, he's very happy.
Not to knock
ralphpnj wrote:
Why is that in every field of science and technology objective research
is welcomed and given the utmost respect but in audio (by audio I am
referring to the use of technology to reproduce sound and music) the
objective approach is considered (at least by you) as irrational?
doctor_big wrote:
Further, you (and this could be the royal -you-) harp on about
established science, as if you're a -scientist!-
Because some of us are. Even more of us are engineers. Engineering is
applied science - that is what audio is.
But you take this one little corner - ABX etc -
SBGK wrote:
The empty vessel makes the most noise.
To your golden ears maybe.
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
bonze's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6150
View
SBGK wrote:
See, you've quoted it out of context, well done. Which no tactic is that
from the troll manual ?
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Are you currently using a squeezebox,
and if so, for what, and so you feel that the sound quality of the
squeezebox is inadequate?
To try to judge
arnyk wrote:
I've obviously, shall we say gently applied corporal punishment to
better men than he and that ain't just whistling Dixie!
I'm sure Jason's parents are pleased that you feel so strongly that your
adult children turned out to be better men than he. Perhaps you could
find out
ralphpnj wrote:
Why is that in every field of science and technology objective research
is welcomed and given the utmost respect but in audio (by audio I am
referring to the use of technology to reproduce sound and music) the
objective approach is considered (at least by you) as irrational?
Julf wrote:
Because some of us are. Even more of us are engineers. Engineering is
applied science - that is what audio is.
But that is exactly what subjectivists seem to miss - we have done
exactly that. There are pretty well understood and verified scientific
explanations as to why
Julf wrote:
So I guess that means b) want to restrict the distribution of the
results.
I guess your preference would be a certain obscure Irish hifi forum? :)
Don't be such an idiot - I want to restrict having to deal with the
idiocy that your post is a perfect example of rife on this
jkeny wrote:
Don't be such an idiot - I want to restrict having to deal with the
idiocy trolling that your post is a perfect example of rife on this
forum section.
Idiot calling count rises to 3 persons.
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer
ralphpnj wrote:
Why is that in every field of science and technology objective research
is welcomed and given the utmost respect but in audio (by audio I am
referring to the use of technology to reproduce sound and music) the
objective approach is considered (at least by you) as irrational?
jkeny wrote:
I'm still trying to organise the test but not on this forum - as this
section is unmoderated populated by trolls - an example being the
immediately posted bullshit from ralphpnj - complete waste of time
I don't get it. The test was never meant to be done on this forum.
Archimago
I see the race of the trolls has begun - ralphpjn was quick off the
blocks but seems to have faded as the race went on, Julf has put in a
strong performance shows stamina but Wombat is a late entry could
yet pass the finish line first. But wait what has happened to the the
champion troll,
doctor_big wrote:
For crying out loud, why is YOUR so-called objective approach the right
one? who made you the arbiter of science?
Nobody. Feel free to refute any of his claims based on factual evidence.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing
Julf wrote:
I don't think we have an issue with that - what we have an issue with is
someone who sells knives and his friend who has come up with a badly
working sharpening stone walking into a cooking forum claiming cutlery
makes a major difference to the taste of food, and how the usual
Julf wrote:
Does that mean that you a) are backing out of the test, or b) want to
restrict the distribution of the results?
I'm still trying to organise the test but not on this forum - as this
section is unmoderated populated by trolls - an example being the
immediately posted bullshit from
doctor_big wrote:
A point - I like nice, thick, well-made cables, ones that cost a lot of
money (which I can afford). I liken it to putting proper P0 tires on my
Maserati. Would General tires from Green and Ross do just as well for
way less money? Probably. Would I notice a difference?
doctor_big wrote:
In all honesty -
1) because you incessantly repeat the same diatribe about the audio
press. Ok. We get it. It's not that big a deal, and nobody else really
cares. Audio magazines are about advertising, and advertorials for the
most part. Same goes for auto mags.
jkeny wrote:
I'm still trying to organise the test but not on this forum - as this
section is unmoderated populated by trolls - an example being the
immediately posted bullshit from ralphpnj - complete waste of time
So I guess that means b) want to restrict the distribution of the
results.
doctor_big wrote:
A point - I like nice, thick, well-made cables, ones that cost a lot of
money (which I can afford). I liken it to putting proper P0 tires on my
Maserati. Would General tires from Green and Ross do just as well for
way less money? Probably. Would I notice a difference?
doctor_big wrote:
. I too am saddened by Jkeny's and Arny's relentless squabbles,
although I am rooting for JK to come out on top as at least he owns a SB
and is part of this community - kruger is here to fight only. He's the
master baiter.You may have noticed in the last week or more
jkeny wrote:
You may have noticed in the last week or more that I don't reply to Arny
- he is not worth the bother it keeps this forum's traffic down. But I
have an even better solution to cutting down the traffic - I'm outta
here. To be quiet honest, apart from the very few odd posters
doctor_big wrote:
To follow up with your analogy regarding food. Say you spend $500 on a
hand-made, forged Japanese chef's knife. You buy high-end waterstones
to polish and refine the edge, which you get down to one molecule and it
glows blue when Orcs are around. You make a meal with
jkeny wrote:
I'm outta here.
I guess that proved to be as true as all your other claims. And not for
the first time...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people
philippe_44 wrote:
I even admit that I'm jumping a bit when I see discussions like a file
transmitted by email sounded more echo-ish ... well no, this is the
same file and I can explain and demonstrate the theory of code
correction.
Are you referring to my post here
jkeny wrote:
I see the race of the trolls has begun - ralphpnj was quick off the
blocks but seems to have faded as the race went on, Julf has put in a
strong performance shows stamina but Wombat is a late entry could
yet pass the finish line first. But wait what has happened to the the
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi thousand $ systems because they've been told bits are
bits and abx is
incapable of discerning a difference and Archimago says they all
sound/measure the same.
So these people have
ralphpnj wrote:
The way I see it is that the high end audio world is fighting an uphill
battle and losing. Today's young people have grown up surrounded by all
things digital and their belief systems have not been unduly influenced
by the old analog beliefs. They know from first hand
Julf wrote:
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Are you currently using a squeezebox,
and if so, for what, and so you feel that the sound quality of the
squeezebox is inadequate?
If you read my posts, aka rants, you may have noticed that I usually
make reference to the fact that in the present
ralphpnj wrote:
One big factor in this evolution that has not been touched upon is
that the driving engine of high end audio is the sale of equipment and
in order to do that the manufacturers need to project onto the buying
public the idea that today's audio equipment is much, much better
Mnyb wrote:
I loved a brands such as QUAD before they where taken by Chinese
investors Peter Walker must be twitching in his grave , the fools
resurrected the QUAD 2 amp ?
They could go on producing the same model of amp for a decade or so and
then really just evolve the design when theres
jh901 wrote:
I'm sure Jason's parents are pleased that you feel so strongly that your
adult children turned out to be better men than he. Perhaps you could
find out where they went wrong and then let us know.
The poor guy grew up (if you can call it that) an irrational
subjectivist who
I loved a brands such as QUAD before they where taken by Chinese
investors Peter Walker must be twitching in his grave , the fools
resurrected the QUAD 2 amp ?
They could go on producing the same model of amp for a decade or so and
then really just evolve the design when theres been some tech
Archimago wrote:
Finger pointing and insinuations I'm afraid have little chance of
convincing anyone, especially around here.
Careful! Before you know it, SBGK will threaten not to post anything
more unless the sceptics are removed from the forum. No, wait...
To try to judge the real from
Julf wrote:
Careful! Before you know it, SBGK will threaten not to post anything
more unless the sceptics are removed from the forum. No, wait...
Yes good point.
*-SBGK: No not disappear here like you have so many times before when
challenged. If you are willing to accuse me of somehow
57 matches
Mail list logo
