 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.10.131.117
In Reply to: RE: Charles Hansen, Who Was in a Position to Know . . . posted by Mel on June 07, 2022 at 09:19:33
We thought he must know something, he wouldn't post without knowing something. We thought he was dead right on MQA, and thought his remarks on equipment sound. We attached weight to his posts, in a way we never would to some old guy on YouTube.But what in the end did he say? He said "I have no way to prove or disprove this story", but told the story anyway.
In one post Charles likened TAS to "corrupt thieves". I replied "You can't seriously be suggesting that writers like Alan Taffel, Neil Gader, Steven Stone, Peter Breuninger et al are corrupt thieves??? I don't believe that of Robert Harley either." Charles replied, "I don't have anything against any of the writers you named. As far as I know they are all honest men." That after he had tarred them all by association.
In the end, all Charles really seemed to have was the cable incident.
If Charles wasn't spreading innuendo, I don't know what innuendo is.
Daniel
Edits: 06/07/22Follow Ups:
"We thought he was dead right on MQA"Charles and I talked a LOT shortly before his death. He would phone and talk for several hours. Often about MQA. His thoughts were echoed here.
As a publisher, what will go down as a mystery is what happened with those writers and MQA. Charles *was* convinced there were writers being bought off. He named names privately to me. I don't know for sure -- but that's what he thought. Would be REALLY bad if true.
What I think happened is a lot were just duped. Yup, good ol' wool-over-the-eyes fooled. Embarrassingly bad with all the "time domain" talk. Like had they ever seen the impulse response of, say, a T+A or Meitner/EMM Labs DAC decades ago? It's like they thought this was all new.
In either case, it looks really bad for those who weren't just fooled -- but basically became shills for it.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 06/07/22
Would SoundStage have benefitted financially had it had gone all in on the MQA bandwagon?
Daniel
Hi,
I can truthfully say that no one ever approached us with money to do so. And I wouldn't have taken any money if someone did. I could see right through the charade at the beginning when all the listening tests and basis for comparison were suspect.
But I will say that MQA didn't seem pleased when I published the article linked below. I had a long talk with Bob Stuart before it went live and nothing he said convinced me I shouldn't publish it.
BTW, I was the first press person I know of to look at the format critically -- and when I did, I had a bunch of the shill writers on the bandwagon trying to discredit what I was saying. Most of these changed their tunes a few years ago, like they weren't shilling it in the first place.
Doug
Is your sense that the window for MQA has largely passed? Apart from Tidal, I don't know of any other streaming service that has come on board. Apple has lossless ALAC. Amazon has lossless FLAC. Without the giants, it's hard for me to see a future for MQA. Even Tidal appears to be backing away from MQA, with a lower priced tier for lossless/CD-quality.Around 2017, Stereophile rediscovered the "con". When before reviews of digital processors had no cons, now digital processors that did not support MQA had one con. But in a 2022 review of streaming services, cnet had Tidal high res requiring an MQA decoder as a con.
Daniel
Edits: 06/08/22 06/08/22 06/08/22 06/08/22
What was interesting about the MQA debacle, was that a couple years in -- 2017, say, like you point out -- some of those same reviewers who championed it tried to do an about-face, or tried to pretend like they weren't ever part of it. Sorry, didn't work...
As far as the window for MQA goes -- in my opinion, it passed a long time ago. Yes, Tidal still streams it -- but does it matter? They bought in early, stuck with it, but is a small player in the streaming world. No one else bought in.
MQA CD came about -- but is that really a thing? Let's face it -- people hardly buy CDs anymore, let alone MQA CDs.
So it's basically this weird blip on the hi-fi radar, championed by those reviewers mainly in the print press, that's with us in a small way, like a scar that never quite healed.
Doug Schneider
Question, how was it determined that MQA didn't work, I'm assuming you guys determined that it didn't work, I've never heard MQA and don't know all the gory details surrounding it. People do about face on a lot of things, doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or another.
Hi,Here's the thing -- they started off on a bad foot, with claims that weren't true. For example, it was first promoted as "lossless," which many of those shill reviewers repeated. But you could look at the patent applications online -- or just do a little thinking if you have a coding background (I do) -- and realize that it's not lossless at all.
When that came to light, the story turned to "perceptually lossless." But here's the point about that -- it's not good to make a claim, hijack a well-known term, and then try to change the meaning of the term when it's found that your claim is not true.
Then there were other things, such as the the supposed correcting of A-to-D errors in recordings. But anyone who knows even the remotest thing about how recordings get made realize that's pretty much impossible to do. And on and on.
So, in a nutshell, claims the company made were blown through quite quickly. Further, the listening tests that the shilling reviewers did were hardly critical at all. Those are just a few of the things -- but it really makes you wonder why all those reviewers bought in so hard at the beginning when there were obvious questions that needed to be asked.
Doug Schneider
Edits: 06/11/22
One need look no further than reviewers reactions to high end cables, high end power cords, Cones, cable lifters, blue markers, green markers, magic____(fill in the blank) to see the pattern.
"Buy in so hard" is what they do.
It's hard to see how the audio magazines could be the one and only media form to be immune from that pressure.I'm sure a lot of content producers (including reviewers) don't like that either. It would be great if content producers could produce content that their readers, and only their readers, paid for. Leave the magazines, and the business side of the equation, behind. It's a model that's worked for some writers in other fields, in photography, for example.
Daniel
Edits: 06/14/22 06/14/22 06/14/22
"But you could look at the patent applications online -- or just do a little thinking if you have a coding background (I do) -- and realize that it's not lossless at all."> > > > > Do you mean they used lossy data compression? Not too many people have a coding background, but having one in itself doesn't mean you automatically win the argument.
"Then there were other things, such as the the supposed correcting of A-to-D errors in recordings. But anyone who knows even the remotest thing about how recordings get made realize that's pretty much impossible to do."
> > > > > Depends on what you mean by correcting A to D errors in the recording. When you say pretty much impossible to do do you mean it's absolutely impossible or just very difficult?
"And on and on."
> > > > What do you mean by "and on and on?" What other claims are you referring to that you object to?
Edits: 06/12/22 06/12/22
"What other claims are you referring to that you object to?"
Well, there were the claims about timbral improvements, soundstaging, supposed "white glove" treatments for all these recordings, etc.
Doug
Indeed.
I don't recall many listening tests that went, I compared these 24/88 and 24/192 recordings with MQA versions sourced from the same master tape, and I preferred the sound quality of the MQA versions for these reasons ... You can compare these selections too, and see what you think.
More common were statements like, I loved how MQA sounds
Hi,
You have to make sure you're comparing different file types from the same master file -- that's one of the problems with a lot of these listening tests. Otherwise, it's not apples-to-apples -- it's a comparison of mastering.
That said, McGill University tested MQA files, but using their own music sources. I believe the comparison was 24/192 WAV to the same files converted to MQA. At the end of the day, the researchers concluded that although their goal was to find out if people could hear the improvements MQA was purported to make, what they found was that they were unsure their listeners could discern any differences between the types.
See this: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/ebriefs/?ID=685
On the one hand, that's a loss for MQA -- where did all the purported benefits go? On the other, people couldn't tell any difference, so even though it's lossy, maybe that's not a problem.
Doug Schneider
But isn't that kind of how it goes in audio, some people swear it works and some people swear it doesn't? This actually happens all the time. With cables, with fuses, wire and fuse directionality, with Mpingo discs, tube dampers, Tice Clock, Belt foils, intelligent chip, cd treatments, crystals, tiny bowl acoustic resonators. Polar opposite results and heavy duty debate kind of comes with the territory, doesn't it?
Edits: 06/12/22
Not really.It's one thing for people to go crazy wild with a sighted, non-controlled listening test -- "oh, wow, I heard such amazing things!" But then you proper level match, you put controls in (like McGill did), and all those differences miraculously disappear.
A little while ago I did an experiment -- I sent a group of audiophiles two sets of music files that I insinuated were different. I wanted them to THINK that. But they were exactly the same.
70% of them were pretty sure they heard differences -- and some of them thought they heard huge differences. About 30% were unsure if they could hear differences, but thought they might've -- though one person said: "If you told me there the same, I'd believe you."
And they were the same. As for those MQA claims -- I've noticed at times where people were listening to two different masterings of recordings, so that's what they were really hearing and/or the tests themselves weren't properly set up and they likely had their imaginations running wildly.
Doug
Edits: 06/12/22
But, as you know, most audiophiles embrace the other side
All of those points support by proposition that this sort of thing happens all the time, it's very difficult, not very easy, to get to the bottom of things. I don't happen to think a single test, even if it's a controlled blind test, means anything. I say that as someone with a lot of heavy duty testing in my background.
And what do they mean by saying MQA works?Can you give an example of a claim that when comparing a specific recording in 24/88 or 24/192 FLAC against MQA, both based on the same master tape, that MQA sounds better, in some sense? Maybe if we see a specific claim, it's easier to discuss this.
I think it's fair to say that the audio press, whether print or online, with some qualifications, is largely promotional in tone about audio equipment. Nothing nefarious about that, it's in the nature of the business. I imagine it started that way with MQA. And the editors backed off a little when they saw the resistance from their readers and commentators.
Daniel
Edits: 06/12/22
I'm not going to disagree with you about a lot of that.
Regarding the editors who let it fly -- they should've known better, however. At least IMO.
Doug
Nt
So provide some examples where they say that, so we can understand what they mean. If they're just saying "I love MQA", they're playing silly buggers, and there's nothing to discuss.
I'm just assuming someone said it, after all it was a long intense debate, right? If no one ever said it works, then what's the argument? I was not involved in the MQA debate, as I mentioned, I'm just making general points about audio debates. Lots of people change their minds about a lot of things, they want to be on the side that's winning, they don't want to appear stupid, they don't trust their own memory or hearing, etc.Are you implying or claiming that MQA has been shown to not work definitely?
Edits: 06/12/22 06/12/22 06/12/22 06/12/22
Go look at the McGill study and decide for yourself. It's one study -- but it's also the only case I know where proper listening-test methodology was performed.
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/ebriefs/?ID=685
Doug
Define proper listening test methodology.More to the point, can any (rpt any) test methodology avoid the pitfalls that all audio listening tests are subject to? Gee, did I just answer my own question?
Edits: 06/12/22 06/12/22
Well, it's been done many times at McGill, NRC, other places. Level matching, eliminating biases, on and on.
Random audiophile comments from quick listening has none of that.
That's why when someone says, "Well, I heard this...," my first response is, "Maybe, but maybe not. What we should first determine is IF you heard it, then take it from there."
Doug
Ah, the old our tests are better than your tests argument. Well played. Have you been whisked away to AES never-never land? I can't think of a more anti audiophile pseudo-skeptical organization outside of The Amazing Randi Educational Foundation and the Skeptics Society. I wonder if AES would sponsor blind testing of PWB Rainbow Foil, Mpingo discs, The Intelligent Chip, Schumann Frequency Generator, crystals, SteinMusic Harmonizer, the Tice Clock, wire directionality.
Edits: 06/12/22 06/12/22 06/12/22 06/12/22 06/12/22
"Ah, the old our tests are better than your tests argument."
Ok, I can see where you're coming from. There are better and worse ways to do testing -- but we'll just leave it at that.
Doug
What I meant by that comment was there is no superior test methodology, one that is infallible, even with best intentions and care. Unless the item or items under test have been tested by different people in different systems. Then the evidence of the truth starts to emerge. A test methodology must be repeatable and transferrable. If the McGill study methodology was repeatable and transferrable that would certainly be for the better. I did not read the study because it required me to subscribe to the site to read the entire article. The summary of the McGill test you linked to was strangely empty of any real info and what was there was repetitive. There were no conclusions, test methodology or anything. I.e., a very pedestrian summary.People are under the incorrect impression that a carefully controlled blind test is the end all do all methodology for getting to the bottom of things in audio. But any test is subject to many things that can and do go wrong. The best laid plans of mice and men off go awry.
What would be nice are test procedure and description of and check-list for the test system.
Edits: 06/13/22 06/13/22 06/13/22 06/13/22
The test instruments ultimately always end up being the limitation. :8^)
Why would they go after MQA in the first place? What an odd choice to make such a big deal of, Gee whiz, a university study and AES support and everything. It appears to be a fait accompli or self fulfilling prophecy. The high tribunal of audio skeptics has spoken.
Edits: 06/13/22 06/13/22 06/13/22
Why would you say someone "went after" MQA? As far as I know, MQA approached McGill to have involvement. The school there is well known and influential.
Doug Schneider
I am not privy to all the details but why would McGill U., known for medical controlled blind tests, agree to do one for some audio thing? Doesn't make sense. It's very similar to what The Amazing Randi did, actually, after years of going after dowsers, spoon benders, ghost whisperers he decided to go after audiophiles - The Intelligent Chip and high end cables. Audio testing bears very little resemblance to medical testing, there are way too many things that can go wrong with audio tests. Also strange is why MQA would ask anyone to do a controlled blind test? If they thought it would help their marketing it backfired. Rule no. 1, never ask someone to test your product is there is a risk it will fail.I shudder to think what kind of audio system McGill U. Was able to put together for this controlled blind test. And the checklist they used to ensure it was in perfect working condition. Lol
Edits: 06/14/22 06/14/22 06/14/22
Huh? You really need to do a little research. You're sounding very ill-informed.
McGill is known for their music-technology program, which awards degrees up to the PhD level. Geoff Martin, who heads up product development for Bang & Olufsen, for example, graduated from there. McGill has always done investigated research on music and music recording. They invested standard vs. high-resolution. MQA was just another thing.
With your posts, I can't tell, however, if you're trolling or simply not informed. Maybe you can clear that up. But if you're not informed, please click on the link below.
https://www.mcgill.ca/music/about-us/music-technology
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
I already asked, what were the results of the controlled blind test? Let me guess, they results showed that the informal listening test results were bogus. Am I right? Why don't you just tell us what the results were?Up to the the PhD level? Is that supposed to impress me? That's the oldest logical fallacy going. Ye olde Appeal to Authority. Give me a break.
Edits: 06/14/22 06/14/22 06/14/22
"There was a review of Intelligent Chip by 2 PhDs at 6 Moons in Jan 07 ..."-- Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica False claims about electronic enhancement products Falls Church Maryland
Edits: 06/15/22 06/15/22
The ironic twist is the Intelligent Chip wasn't even my product. :-(
Edits: 06/15/22 06/15/22
The difference here is I was not using their technical credentials in an argument. Unless you believe PhDs have superior hearing. They were always referred to as the two PhDs from Netherlands, husband and wife.You may not know but the two PhDs didn't have any luck with the Chip originally. It wasn't until they accidentally came across my comments regarding putting the Chip inside the player instead of on top of the player. So, I have to plead innocent on this charge of appeal to authority. Follow?
The good thing about having two PhDs review the Intelligent Chip is they were able to quickly understand what the blazes I was talking about, you know, photon cannons and quantum entanglement and getting the Chip INSIDE the player!
Edits: 06/15/22 06/15/22 06/15/22 06/15/22 06/15/22
Yeah, I bet. Having a PhD in whatever qualifies you for pretty much anything. But honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about with whatever PhDs.
Obviously, you're very insecure about your claims or you wouldn't be trying to justify yourself over and over. And I can see why you're so insecure. After all, anyone who's discovered what you've discovered should have awards all over the place from the most prestigious scientific institutions. Except, no -- quackery doesn't count, does it?
Like I said, be proud -- be very proud of all you've contributed.
Doug
More bitterness and confusion, this is getting to be a habit with you. I suggest you work on your stand up, it isn't very funny.
Affiliations for the study include McGill University as well as The Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology which is located at the Schulich School of Music of McGill University.
the following per https://navigator.innovation.ca/en/facility/mcgill-university/centre-interdisciplinary-research-music-media-and-technology-cirmmt
"Areas of expertise
The Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology (CIRMMT) is a multi-disciplinary research group that seeks to develop innovative approaches to the scientific study of music media and technology, to promote the application of newer technologies in science and in the creative arts, and to provide an advanced research training environment. Its research focus spans a wide range of topics from the creation of music in the composer's or performer's mind, the performance of music, its recording and/or transmission, and the reception of music by the listener. The Centre has six central laboratories, plus a new and unique music multimedia room and a performance research lab, all designed with specific acoustic characteristics in order to maximize the variety of functionalities of the available research spaces. Researchers at CIRMMT are involved in the analysis, modelling, and synthesis of sounds, modelling of the acoustic properties of musical instruments and rooms, and creating tools and instruments for musical performance. They also develop techniques for information retrieval and multimedia analysis, including immersive systems — the ability to create sound, images and touch in virtual reality — and virtual acoustics. Finally, CIRMMT researches perception and cognition of sounds and music and the application of these research areas to music-performance practice.
Research services
Information and telecommunication technologies,acoustics modelling, electronic instrumentation-sensor actuators and haptics, cognition and perception, digital audio-signal processing, information retrieval, digital libraries, motion capture, biometric measurements, sound spatialization, soundscape, expanded musical practice, immersive systems, prototyping, 3D printing, modelling, simulation and hearing-care prevention."
Additionally, per McGill ( https://www.mcgill.ca/music/about-us/sound-recording ), "The McGill Graduate Program in Sound Recording is the only program in North America to offer both a Master's and PhD degree."
Interesting exchange with Mr. Machina Dynamica...
Careful with stepping into the deep BS here boys with someone supposedly versed in equal proportions classic sci-fi and quantum this and that based on the content of the web page.
As for the McGill study, it's quite well done (I have the paper in front of me):
- listening tests done in ITU-R BS. 775-1 standard room
- B&W Nautilus 802D or Sennheiser HD800 headphones
- Mytek Brooklyn MQA-capable DACs
- pop, jazz, classical orchestral tracks 24/96 vs. MQA encoded 24/48.
- 3 groups of listeners Expert Listeners (sound recording grad program), Musicians, and Casual Listeners - 10 in each category for total 30 listeners
- 5-way ANOVA analysis did not show any difference of standard PCM vs. MQA with the main dependent variable being a slider-based "clarity rating".
- Figure 5 in the paper is the summary for the data - I included this in my blog post in the link below; data split between listener group and headphone vs. speakers.
- Summary paragraph in discussions:
"Based on the results above, subjects did not make
consistent ratings of the clarity attribute when
comparing a 96-kHz WAV file and its 48-kHz MQA
encoded "twin". This might be interpreted in two
ways: firstly, that the "de-blurring" processing in
MQA encoding does not necessarily provide
additional clarity over the original, and secondly, that
MQA is successful in providing a smaller, more
easily "streamable" copy of the source WAV file,
while maintaining a very similar level of clarity."
No surprise here guys and gals. Reverse engineering of the MQA renderer basically tells us that they're just using low quality filters which along with the lossy algorithm for the ultrasonic spectrum embedded in the lowest bits of each 24-bit sample form the heart of this technique.
MQA filters shown here:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/07/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black.html
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Archimago wrote,
"- 3 groups of listeners Expert Listeners (sound recording grad program), Musicians, and Casual Listeners - 10 in each category for total 30 listeners"
> > > > Let's examine these 3 groups more carefully
1. Musicians are noted for playing skill, not listening skill.
2. Casual Listeners are not known for their listening skill at all, that's why they are called "casual listeners."
3. Sound recording grad program (Expert Listeners) are known for their sound recording skill, not sound listening skill.
So we have Total 30 listeners. Big deal. That's supposed to be convincing but it's not It's a logical fallacy.
nt
nothing more to say here
Get a hairlip.
Nt
Nt
Who do you think has the appropriate listening skills to evaluate an audio format?
What are some possible answers?1. High end Electronics designers
2. High end Speaker designers
3. High end cable designers
4. Audiophiles with big expensive systems > $100,000
5. Audiophiles who claim they have excellent hearing
6. People who test very well on hearing tests 20 to 20k Hz
7. High end magazine reviewers
8. Wives of audiophilesI'm not (rpt not) saying any of those would be my choice(s)
Edits: 06/20/22 06/20/22 06/20/22
So who would you pick as expert listeners? Because when you objected to the three groups of listeners in the McGill study you doom a format like MQA. It can't survive in a market as small as high end audio.
Didn't I just answer your question?Dr. Doom
Edits: 06/20/22
No and I quote "I'm not (rpt not) saying any of those would be my choice(s)"
I would like to hear your choices.
Uh, I thought my list was fairly complete, did I miss anybody?
Thanks, very interesting. So it sounds like informal listening tests revealed differences between WAV and MQA but it's unclear when or if formal (controlled blind tests) tests have been performed. Is there an update to this info from last year?
Did you download the paper? Something submitted by a university to the AES as a paper *isn't* some informal listening sessions. As far as I know, it was the most formal set of listening tests on MQA vs. other. Like I said above, you're either trolling or not very knowledgeable about these sorts of things.Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 06/14/22
clearly you believe in science. Geoff sells snake oil audio tweeks. Some of the most absurd kinds which is saying a lot.
Hi,
I don't know who Geoff actually is - but thanks for pointing that out.
Doug Schneider
So I feel a little foolish for actually taking part in a discussion with someone like that. To think, there are people who make products that actually work - and there are people who make products intended to take people's money and provide nothing else. It all makes sense.
At the end of the day, however, I feel sorry for people who make products that simply do nothing - because that's how their careers and businesses are remembered.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
The review is listed in the "Reviews and Awards" page of the Machina Dynamica web site,machinadynamica.com/machina7.htm
While the link is a dead link, I found this quote from the article online:
"After unwrapping the nondescript plastic timepiece and placing it on a side table, I noticed that the system's midrange performance had become more emphatic. It was as if the Cyber-800 had sprouted a brace of 845 triode tubes in place of its little 6CA7 power tubes. I was so impressed with the Clever Little Clock (CLC) that I ordered another one, which yielded additional midrange power and realism. (Recent photos of my room reveal a third clock, but it's there for overkill purposes only.)" "A Tweak Too Far" by James Saxon - Soundstage A/V
soundstage has another review that is less positive,
https://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm
This one concludes:
"I was disappointed that the Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock didn't work for Jeff and me. But why didn't it work? We discussed this at length, and came up with the following. First, from a reasonable thinker's standpoint, is the question most readers of this review will ask themselves: Why would stickers on a pair of batteries, a preset Future Time, and a couple of rare-earth magnets on a $20 digital clock, make your audio system sound better?"
Edits: 06/15/22
Hi,
I don't know where that James Saxon quote came from, but he was never a "reviewer" for us. James wrote a column that often involved shows and other things, so maybe somewhere in there.
The review linked is a review and it says pretty clearly that the thing didn't do anything.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
I was set up by the two nitwits from Soundstage, two giggling teenage girls. Of many hundreds sold that was the only case where the clock didn't work. Draw your own conclusions. Soundstage is as far as I can tell very mediocre and it looks like you deserve each other. You don't know anything about me or the clock and yet you don't mind spreading this gossip, like little old ladies. You better read the headline of the OP again and take it to heart, dude.
Edits: 06/16/22 06/16/22 06/16/22 06/16/22 06/16/22
Hi,
You're a real "keyboard warrior," aren't you?
Well, it's OK that you think about us like that. Admittedly, with many magazines it's quite easy to get a great or "rave" review. Too easy. We just tell our writers to tell the truth.
Thanks,
Doug
You and your stumblebum magazine wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and peed on your legs. Re-read the title of this thread, "professional audio journalism is an oxymoron." Thanks for helping prove Scott's point.
Edits: 06/17/22 06/17/22 06/17/22 06/17/22
...-
Exceptionally keen thinking on the Soundstage reviewers' parts.
"But why didn't it work? We discussed this at length, and came up with the following. First, from a reasonable thinker's standpoint, is the question most readers of this review will ask themselves: Why would stickers on a pair of batteries, a preset Future Time, and a couple of rare-earth magnets on a $20 digital clock, make your audio system sound better?"
You've obviously been at Soundstage too long. Talk about a bogus operation. This is what happens when you listen to Scott, our resident audiophile hater and conspiracy theorist.
Edits: 06/14/22
Thanks. I've been there too long, I guess, because I founded it.
And we do things like measurements on top of our listening, which I suspect is bogus to you too.
Let's agree to part ways.
Doug Schneider
Keep swinging, eventually you'll hit something.
Part ways? Not now that you are on his radar as a threat to his scams. Sorry about that. He will slander you, troll you and stalk you on Audio Asylum. It sucks that the forum moderators allow it. I suspect he donates money to the forum and they don't want to lose that.
Although even as a scammer he is second rate. His business looks like a back yard/garage operation. Not in the same league as Ted and Synergistic "research." Have to use quotes on the research part. No way they reseach anything other than marketing strategies and eye appeal design for his snake oil.
But anyway....
Cleanup on aisle 3.
Edits: 06/14/22
His negative posts about JA's/S'phile's MQA raves displayed integrity and balls IMO. AFAIK there aren't many manufacturers willing to call out reviewers/editors who in the past lauded their products.
Re: the cable incident - the best you could say is that Valin showed amazingly bad judgment and deserved to be chastised. Considering the vehemence of Charles' posts about TAS either he went unjustifiably overboard or he knew things he wasn't willing to post publicly. Dunno, but I wouldn't discount either possibility as outta the question.
Flaws and all, I still miss Charles' posts. He had quite a few posts that helped inmates about technical issues.
Yup, that's a pretty big problem.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
