When people have to put up strawmen to shoot at, the argument is weak and a fallacy. Who said the above?
Pedantics won't save you here. I can't strawman you, your reply was a few posts above, everyone can see if I was strawmanning, I'm just trying to keep the points brief, and everyone understand what I am replying to. That being this statement you in the first section of the post I was replying to.
You should stop paraphrasing and use actual quotes so as not to put up strawmen to shoot at.
The point was that people won’t care about some spec improvement unless the effect of that improvement aurally is as obvious as that of using a room correction. Find anyone here that will say improving the spec from the bottom of the SINAD table to the top will have an obvious aural improvement to the consumer.
Take the actual thing you said, and my reply in this portion still stands. Cry strawman all you want, I do not recind the message of that portion. Makes no difference if I quoted in full or not. I quoted the whole post so anyone can see it regardless. I paraphrase to make the message digestable, but if you want to go down the semantics route, my PM box is always open to spare others such nonsense.
Ironic, you call massive number of people deluded and ignorant with respect to basic logic fundamentals using more fallacious logic than I haver seen in a single post. In addition to strawman arguments above that are fallacious, the argument above is illogical.
First, it makes a case that measurements are important that no one argued against (strawman). Second, it uses a non sequitor argument. Dirac is possible only with measurement and therefore any measurement is useful. Not sure you should be calling large groups illogical. That is just self-unaware arrogance.
You argued it by implication(of which I will direct quote to spare me of your strawman cries). The portion that insinuated such by saying:
1) "NAD cannot compete with Yamahas"
2) "It is a bit presumptuous to think these measurements are going to influence the market beyond a niche segment "
Now if you want to backpeddle and go on the typical pedantic route you've done in this post by saying "oh but I don't actually mean to imply such a thing" then go on ahead, you won't get any resistence from me, but as laymen - everyone else would have come to this conclusion about your stance. By you saying that I said "measurements are imporatntl, and no one is arguing against this" you now stand as hypocrisy personified with your strawman you just made. You seriously want to make a talking about about the general understanding measurements have some importance? Give me a break.
Second, I am not concerned with what you think I should be calling large groups. I'll call them illogical now, as I did back then, as I call you the same as them now as well by stating some of the things you've stated. Seeing as you're the pedantic type, next time preface your statements as blatant opinion because they clearly don't coincide with any other events in reality where you can draw parable from. Certainly not from any other industry.
I think you meant to say, “not because they are unable” which no one claimed to be so technically. Note that the point is whether there is more than diminishing returns on doing so in that investment. So the rest of the argument is moot as well.
Strawman shield up again:
"NAD cannot compete with Yamahas, D&Ms and Sony’s for shelf space regardless of how clean they make their DACs."
You're right, you "technically" said nothing resembling of the sort. Your whole post only argued for such reasoning, but never directly said the exact words. You must be joking?
Less bile on manufacturers and their customer base and a more logical argument would be more persuasive.
The logic was presented. Only in audio do these tired old voodoo nonsense machinations, and beliefs about what would work on the market for eletronics could ever suffice. This is only made possible due fossils still roaming about polluting any sort of newcomer's idea of what HiFi could be with their science denialist nonsense. And with great supplementation from folks such as yourself saying mainstay long time companies can't match performance metrics of companies from places like China and such, and worse - they perhaps shouldn't even bother. Instead focus on nearly everything else in order to make the sale... As if people are doomed to your defeatist fallacy outlook of people as some sort of dumb/deaf/blind sheep ready for the slaughter, incapable of being taught on how to read basic labels and tech specs on a website about the general performance of their electronic devices.
And please don't reply to me asking for the "Find
anyone here that will say improving the spec from the bottom of the SINAD table to the top will have an obvious aural improvement to the consumer" nonsense. Why would I do that? What do you take me for, some sort of errand boy? Take some of that logic you proclaim to posses adequate enough to trample mine, and think about what you insinuate and if such a stance was applied in the past. ANYONE could have said what you just said now but substitute SINAD with any other metric ever used. Why would progress ever need to happen in any realm? Some people want engineering excellence, even if we get 130db SINAD devices, it doesn't matter if audibility is concerned. But you specifically said we're niche, and you imply in multiple instances why measurements need not be chased in some instances.
