Blaspheme
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2021
- Messages
- 461
- Likes
- 516
Depends on the button.Anyone who reviews a component and declares that it is "as cute as a button", as Mr. Doug did, isn't a very capable reviewer.
Depends on the button.Anyone who reviews a component and declares that it is "as cute as a button", as Mr. Doug did, isn't a very capable reviewer.
Right on point Amir, I got a real kick out of reading the article since he see's the issue exactly as it is, but all the while he is right near the top of the tree in sinners.Doug is part of the problem he is talking about. He also has good bit of mistrust in measurements. He used to be here but asked me to delete his account when we had an argument over this.
But yes what he says is true.
But watches are jewelry and thus serve for many as status emblems so there is a degree of public ostentation involved. But a beautifully crafted watch is a wonderful remnant of past handmade quality items that are for the most part gone. I don't get as much pleasure using my Casio running watch as I do my Blancpain, and winding the smooth mechanism of a Vacheron Constantin or Patek Philippe is an experience to be savored.
The reviewer who wrote this article is very much part of the problem he discusses. I had a battle with him over his advocacy of Exogal, a totally failed product that was supposed to be run via apps. The apps disappeared necessitating the use of a cheap, plastic remote. Then Schroeder wrote a review of the remote recently on Dagogo. Who reviews remotes for an obsolete product that was never intended to have one? None of his reviews have any scientific data which he disparages. I had no idea of his history with this site and recommended that he read ASR in order to learn how to write a review. Needless to say, that didn’t go over well. But sometimes he is worth reading.
FWIW, I stopped caring about Luxury watches when I became an objectivist audiophile. There are differences however: No watch aficionados will ever claim their favorite (expensive) watches to be better at keeping time than any Casio … on the High end audio side however …A better comparison I think is the watch industry. Sure, there are some luxury watches that have fantastic automatic movements in them arguably offer some of the value of the price tag. But really, what does it offer as a timekeeping piece versus a Casio G-Shock?
Thanks to digital, we've now seen the same thing happen when it comes to DACs and amps.
Would you like to name high end audio companies whose innovations have trickled down to consumer audio? Wilson? Audioquest? Wavac? Koetsu?Quality hi-fi is cheaper and more affordable now than ever. You can get a quality DAC for $300 from the likes of Topping (build in China) if you wish to rely on cheap labor and other unethical factors of Chinese production. Or such DACs are available from U.S. or free world companies, such as Schiit Audio. For $500 you can land some really good speakers, such as ELAC. For $300 you can get a decent amp. You can slap Volumio for free onto a Pi or TinkerBoard and for $60 have an instant bit-perfect streamer that runs off an app on your phone. Little or none of this would happen if high end companies or high-end research areas of Fortune 500 companies had not first jumped into the fray to develop the technologies.
Yes but it is only really a status symbol if it is a Rolex since everybody has been informed how desirable and expensive they are whereas almost nobody has heard of the othersBut watches are jewelry and thus serve for many as status emblems so there is a degree of public ostentation involved. But a beautifully crafted watch is a wonderful remnant of past handmade quality items that are for the most part gone. I don't get as much pleasure using my Casio running watch as I do my Blancpain, and winding the smooth mechanism of a Vacheron Constantin or Patek Philippe is an experience to be savored.
Yes but you don't wear them in the street.And to many "rich guy" audiophiles, their audio equipment also serves as a status emblem. Beautiful speaker cabinets have their own aesthetic appreciation, just like watches.
His schtick was that none of us are qualified to read frequency response measurements so we better not bother. I had not seen this side of him and as you, I thought I highly of him over the years. I had mistakenly assumed he was making those measurements. Turns out he just pays for that service for NRC to test so he doesn't have personal experience or involvement with those measurements which is part of the problem.That's too bad. I always liked Doug's speaker reviews (as subjective reviews go). I'm surprised he's so skeptical of measurements given SoundStage's relationship with NRC.
That might explain the rising price of headphones. Much more practical.Yes but you don't wear them in the street.
But watches are jewelry and thus serve for many as status emblems so there is a degree of public ostentation involved...
I used to be crazy about the idea of owning exotic sports cars, but I've come to appreciate how much of public roads are speed-bumped, potholed and in general, unkind to low-slung automobiles with big overhanging "beaks". Give me a Suzuki Jimny?
Their innovations are commercial, not technical.Would you like to name high end audio companies whose innovations have trickled down to consumer audio? Wilson? Audioquest? Wavac? Koetsu?
The reviewer who wrote this article is very much part of the problem he discusses. I had a battle with him over his advocacy of Exogal, a totally failed product that was supposed to be run via apps. The apps disappeared necessitating the use of a cheap, plastic remote. Then Schroeder wrote a review of the remote recently on Dagogo. Who reviews remotes for an obsolete product that was never intended to have one? None of his reviews have any scientific data which he disparages. I had no idea of his history with this site and recommended that he read ASR in order to learn how to write a review. Needless to say, that didn’t go over well. But sometimes he is worth reading.
The reviewer who wrote this article is very much part of the problem he discusses. I had a battle with him over his advocacy of Exogal, a totally failed product that was supposed to be run via apps. The apps disappeared necessitating the use of a cheap, plastic remote. Then Schroeder wrote a review of the remote recently on Dagogo. Who reviews remotes for an obsolete product that was never intended to have one? None of his reviews have any scientific data which he disparages. I had no idea of his history with this site and recommended that he read ASR in order to learn how to write a review. Needless to say, that didn’t go over well. But sometimes he is worth reading.
I am looking at the review and it is very certainly by Douglas Schroeder. I had a big argument with him about it on Audiogon. He is quite pompous.This article is by Schneider not Schroeder. Not the same person.
You can’t parade those speakers around the street or show them off under your French cuffs.And to many "rich guy" audiophiles, their audio equipment also serves as a status emblem. Beautiful speaker cabinets have their own aesthetic appreciation, just like watches.
Actually watch savants get a kick out of the fact that their Patek Calatravas are indistinguishable from a Timex, at least to the uninitiated. Rolex is nothing compared to the elite companies though their classics like the Explorer I are very fine and actually work. For the most part Rolex is bling.Yes but it is only really a status symbol if it is a Rolex since everybody has been informed how desirable and expensive they are whereas almost nobody has heard of the others
He very likely has no idea how to interpret those measurements.His schtick was that none of us are qualified to read frequency response measurements so we better not bother. I had not seen this side of him and as you, I thought I highly of him over the years. I had mistakenly assumed he was making those measurements. Turns out he just pays for that service for NRC to test so he doesn't have personal experience or involvement with those measurements which is part of the problem.