CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
- Feb 13, 2016
- Seattle Area
I could. Here is the thing though: science doesn't have its own voice to defend itself when its being trumped upon with dirty shoes. It is up to us, certainly me, to stand up for it.Why so aggressive? At the end of the day, I think his initial thoughts regarding the DCA Stealth have been positive. Cringe? You could say that you don't agree.
Here we have a headphone that for the first time has nailed two things: comply with the research into what is the best sound, and do so with superb engineering to produce essentially zero distortion. Heck, there are a ton of amplifiers with more distortion than this headphone!
Andrew takes this and generates these remarks:
"Very EARLY Subjective thoughts:
Detail - good but not like… Abyss or Susvara level. "
First subjective remark is damning it with faint praise. "Good detail but not like Abyss level?" How on earth did he determine that and can prove the correctness of? Nothing. Just an appeal to himself as authority. He thought it, so it must be true, forget that the Abyss has boatload of distortion so can't possibly be faithful on its own let alone against the Stealth.
He goes on:
"Microdynamics - no issues of bluntedness whatsoever. Excellent, ‘resolving’ trailing ends of tones, but once again not quite as clear as the other top tier flagships. "
Bluntedness? What on earth is that? And I am putting aside the garbage adjective of "microdynamics." It is excellent in tailing ends of tones but not as clear as other flagships? You tell me how he arrived at that. Was it an AB test with levels matched and blind? Heck was it any of that? Or did he take that out of his hat based on some old memory of those headphones?
Next he says, "Soundstage - shockingly open sounding for a closed-back. Not the widest but like… damn good again for a closed-back. I was initially quite surprised by this quality. "
So it can't do anything right without qualification. Even if it is "shockingly open sounding" it must be only in the context of closed backs.
And then: "Macrodynamics - Same as Noire and other DCAs typically. "
The heck does this mean? That they are all bad and this is just as bad? Or just as good? Or just as mediocre? Clearly not great, right?
See where I am going? It is like critiquing of a sprinter at the last Olympic who finished first by saying, "he was fast but I don't think he was that fast. I have seen faster runners. Trust me. I have."
To me it appears that he wanted to manufacture faults and he did. There is no indication that he had identified any of these characteristics correctly. I am not going to sit here and just nod in disagreement as you ask. I am here to say hey, in this forum where we go by what we can prove, this type of subjectivism is totally nonsense. If you find that aggressive, my question to you is why are you so laid back about it?