I think he’s talking more along the lines of a foundation of bullshit, and how they have the best bullshit.
I can do the last bit.
I dont know what ‘analytical’ means in terms of sound signature and nosing around other forums in search of a simple definition is giving me agita
Typically I see it as something brighter, more detail focused, something that might sound less organic in favor of more information thats easily accessible
There is a wiki Plugin for Discourse (the software this forum runs), that would be useful for it.
True, but there really isn’t a universal definition so that would be a bit difficult to include most peoples definition. That would be helpful for more objective aspects like electronics or technical definitions
Thank you. It’s like one post inread a couple days ago was just talking about detail retrieval in a really round about way
Even then, giving multiple sort-of definitions is more than “word”
“The PerfectWave AC12 is the best sounding power cable …”
Well, you never know. Until I hold it up to my ear and hear what it sounds like in person I’ll hold my opinions.
I guess bold phrases like the best sounding, highest preforming, engineering excellence, breakthrough, or other marketing words can be irritating
Best sounding power cable…
…yeah, and I got the best toslink cable for 120V power
The clarity I get from my hard drive is also unprecedented.
Especially with my audiophile underwear.
Now now. It is claimed that “audiophile hard drives” truly make differences.
Saw a “gold plated” and “Dual shielded” optical cable in store the other day.
Thanks for sharing this, @Ohmboy. I think Currawong did a good job pointing out that the issues he sees within audiophilia are issues that are prevalent in most human endeavors. Just about all hobbies/institutions have their crusaders, aggressive self-promoters, single-issue cliques, toxic personalities, etc.
I’m of two minds in how Currawong handled the naming/not-naming of those who do the things he complains about, though. He does mention MQA/Bob Stuart by name (and he name drops someone toward the end too, although I don’t remember who it is offhand), but especially in regard to the all-measurement and misleading measurements brigades, I was very distracted by the question “who’s he talking about? ASR? Crinnacle? Someone I don’t know?” I get that he doesn’t want to point fingers and create the possibility of singling out a person or particular group and potentially creating a problem by so doing. However, saying that measurements have been reported dishonestly or that measurement tests have been rigged to portray certain companies in either an unfavorably good or bad light, is a pretty serious allegation. That kind of allegation feels like a definite “citation needed” kind of thing. Who did that? How did they do it? Where is the evidence they did it? I wonder if it’s not potentially more destructive to be so vague about the subjects/targets of his grievances.
Do the words “Insufficient funds” qualify?
I think it was nwavguy that he mentioned in regards to the ODAC.
But yeah I’m not sure against whom or what the misleading measurement comments were about. I’m guessing it was about the whole compression shenanigans going on, I think there was a thread about it here on the forums. About manufacturers making them look more favourable than they are. I can’t think of a reason he’d go about any of the reviewers. Either way I don’t know nearly enough to comment with any certainty.
do i even have to mention PRAT
Isn’t that just an insult lol
Edit: ok it’s also an audio term it seems lol, but I think of the insult first