I bet @Sal1950 has underpants that have seen him through all his wife's ha ha
I bet he has. He strikes me as a man wise enough to know that good underpants are hard to find.
I bet @Sal1950 has underpants that have seen him through all his wife's ha ha
Wife's / girlfriends throw them away , they always say they didn't but we know the truth.No, but I did manage to loose some of them on some weird occasions. That though happened when I was young. Now I take care of my underpants much better.
Wife's / girlfriends throw them away , they always say they didn't but we know the truth.
It's related to the test-taking technique, wherein one does not really know the material, yet still manages to receive an A. This doesn't work with multiple choice or true/false, of course. So-called "essay" questions or "short* answer" format are the key. Write volumes, with beautiful and elegant phrasing and perfect grammar, lots of detail (that at most dances peripherally around the question), and the final key is gorgeous penmanship! An A every time, guaranteed! When you know the material inside and out, a brief and to-the-point answer always suffices.Very well put. There are a lot of 'reviewers' online that are really marketing reps.
And do they get paid by the word? Their writing and speaking is so overly flowery and takes 100 words to say what 10 would say.
A guy at work wanted to start doing reviews on youtube and my first question to him was 'how are you going to kill more than 2 minutes talking about each item?
For me it is definitely the subjective reviewing “industry”.Are they really the ones to blame when in fact they would cease to exist very quickly if there wouldn't be enough "followers" to watch them?
Just look at the information and knowledge accumulated here on ASR. The only thing you have to do is to reach to it via the search field and yet not many people does that. So who is really to blame, "online reviewers" or their ignorant "flock of followers"?
I did go soft with using 'a lot' as I can't think of any that aren't.
Someone scribbling on paper for $10 is overpriced; someone scribbling on paper for 1.5 million is art.
A DAC for $200 is overpriced junk, a DAC for $15,000 is a work of art.
I bet @Sal1950 has underpants that have seen him through all his wife's ha ha
It's related to the test-taking technique, wherein one does not really know the material, yet still manages to receive an A. This doesn't work with multiple choice or true/false, of course. So-called "essay" questions or "short* answer" format are the key. Write volumes, with beautiful and elegant phrasing and perfect grammar, lots of detail (that at most dances peripherally around the question), and the final key is gorgeous penmanship! An A every time, guaranteed! When you know the material inside and out, a brief and to-the-point answer always suffices.
Now, my school days are long behind me, so this may no longer work. Or, possibly, it might be easier now that so few can write cursive at all, let alone beautifully, so bloviating in elegant script might be even more appreciated by instructors now that it ever was!
*I never had an instructor that objected to my blatant mockery of the "short answer" where I'd write in tiny-but-still-beautiful cursive, and squeeze in "continued on reverse" and write an entire paragraph on the back of the sheet. Depending on the subject matter, it didn't hurt to throw in a phrase or word in Greek or Latin or French, so long as it was used correctly (the instructor was more apt to verify the foreign phrase than bother to see if any of this actually answered the test question!).
Part of the success of this technique in an educational setting could simply have been from inducing boredom in the reader through sheer length, so they slog through a little, then just assume the answer is in there somewhere and move on to the next student's test. As you can see from this and other posts I've made, long-windedness is ingrained in me to this day. haha!
Your tag line may be OK for single simple physical concepts but is complete bollox for real engineering problems which take a lot of explaining and often are not understood, even by people who should be using them IME.You pack a lot into your 'presumed' long-windedness - unlike others.
See my tag-line and take that as a complement.
Your tag line may be OK for single simple physical concepts but is complete bollox for real engineering problems which take a lot of explaining and often are not understood, even by people who should be using them IME.
In F1 motor racing the two most important parameters to get right are extremely complex to explain. Writing what they are is easy, explaining why they are important is easy, coming up with a good solution is very complex and IME very few people “get it” even in the industry. I even know several (from teams at the back of the grid) who would even contest these two.
That is why there is a gulf between winning cars and the others.
My hope is that it's the people new to the hobby who see this site early on, that get the seed of truth planted and even if they succumb to the other sites they will have the knowledge there is another way.If you are new to the hobby it must seem an eccentric outlier since the vast majority of the Hi-Fi websites are subjective dross.
Maybe but I find people on forums often ask questions their education and experience means they can not understand the answer to.I'm focussed on forum communications for all, not expert dissertations for the few. Experts could learn to be concise, though.
Maybe but I find people on forums often ask questions their education and experience means they can not understand the answer to.
Then one has the choice of trying a simple explanation for the layman or a parable.
One of my colleagues used to have to make presentations to the government and said by the time it was simple enough for them to understand all the important points had been removed. All they really wanted to know is “will it make more money”, if it did all other issues were ignored.
Interesting, when I read some of the more technical F1 stories it's clear to me the journalists don't understand the aero aspects any more than I do, which seems reasonable, but you are saying that very few of those paid to understand and design them properly understand it to. A view echoed in the following article.In F1 motor racing the two most important parameters to get right are extremely complex to explain. Writing what they are is easy, explaining why they are important is easy, coming up with a good solution is very complex and IME very few people “get it” even in the industry. I even know several (from teams at the back of the grid) who would even contest these two.
That is why there is a gulf between winning cars and the others.
This is classic misuse of statistics - because you don't give context. You are comparing apples and oranges.Indeed, just did a quick comparison on SimilarWeb ...
The Avg. Visit Duration & Page per Visit explain a lot abt. the differences in the page quality content in comparison to ASR.
Although a little bit better, Darko Audio loses within the same performances.
View attachment 31112
View attachment 31111
Totally typical of the reviews all the TD products get in the audio press. Never any measurements, though.Whoever wrote that - I didn't bother to read their name - isn't a reviewer, but more of a marketeer. I have to admire their product photography, though...
Totally typical of the reviews all the TD products get in the audio press. Never any measurements, though.
You are right about that, there's no Totaldac in any studio. However some of the pro audio sites and publications have been taken over by subjectivists banging on about how "warm" analogue consoles are, or how "warm" some vintage mic is etc. The real professionals know it's rubbish but there are many inexperienced and younger professionals who are still impressionable enough to be affected by such nonsense.Which is why I pay little attention to most audiophile media. The pro audio side tends to be more objective, though. However, they won't be utilizing Totaldac equipment...