• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

The post in which Darko basically tells anyone who isn't a rich rube to ignore him and audiophilia in general

BillG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 12, 2018
Messages
1,645
Likes
2,041
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
While Darko's "short films" are well produced, when it comes to an objective review of audio equipment he's not someone I'd ever follow advice from.

I lost all confidence in him (not that I had much to begin with) when he stated that a Chromecast Audio's digital output sounded "thin" in comparison to that of many other streamers digital outputs when connected to the same DAC.

Unless the CCA's digital implementation is in error (it's not) or his other network players were (possible but unlikely) then his expectations took over - Many audiophiles probably wouldn't believe that a cheap looking, plastic puck would sound good compared to a blinged out, shiny, metal box with nice knobs and a colorful display. However, if he's not wise enough to put his subjective biases aside, then I've no time for him.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
59
Location
Netherlands
I recently saw an Andrew Robinson item in which he stated that it was not a review but that the manufacturer send him the product to make a short video over the product. It's honest to say that but the problem is that after that statement the video was exact the same as his other reviews so it gave me the feeling that none of his reviews are sincere. Just marketing to get as much viewers as possible.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
59
Location
Netherlands
Unless the CCA's digital implementation is in error (it's not) or his other network players were (possible but unlikely) then his expectations took over - Many audiophiles probably wouldn't believe that a cheap looking, plastic puck would sound good compared to a blinged out, shiny, metal box with nice knobs and a colorful display. However, if he's not wise enough to put his subjective biases aside, then I've no time for him.
Don't forget the one inch thick power cable needed to feed the streamer/dac :facepalm:
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
5,157
Likes
11,328
Location
Oxfordshire
Basically outside of this forum, 90% of audio "reviewers" have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Back when it first dawned on me that now I had left home I needed something to play my records on, and it was not simple if I wanted something good, ALL the magazines were technical (it was 1968 and in the UK).
Every review was done by somebody who understood reasonably well how it worked and had the knowledge and equipment to test it up to contemporary standards.
The "subjective" bit was largely confined to speakers and comments on noise (hiss and hum) or audible wow and flutter on record players and tape recorders.
In the late 1970s Jean Hiraga kicked off the subjective reviewing phase in "l'Audiophile" in France and it was downhill from there on.
Absolute bollox based on zero knowledge or understanding slowly crept in and became almost all pervasive worldwide.
Personally I am not interested in any review which does not have measurements to back it up, unless it usefully summarises functionality.
Speaker listening impressions from experienced listeners I find informative but only with some measurements to go with it.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
59
Location
Netherlands
I love the doorstop that he uses to keep his DAC or smaller equipment in place :rolleyes:, or is it some magical 'sound improver' that I'm not aware off??

Knipsel.JPG
 

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
2,379
Likes
5,107
Back when it first dawned on me that now I had left home I needed something to play my records on, and it was not simple if I wanted something good, ALL the magazines were technical (it was 1968 and in the UK).
Every review was done by somebody who understood reasonably well how it worked and had the knowledge and equipment to test it up to contemporary standards.
The "subjective" bit was largely confined to speakers and comments on noise (hiss and hum) or audible wow and flutter on record players and tape recorders.
In the late 1970s Jean Hiraga kicked off the subjective reviewing phase in "l'Audiophile" in France and it was downhill from there on.
Absolute bollox based on zero knowledge or understanding slowly crept in and became almost all pervasive worldwide.
Personally I am not interested in any review which does not have measurements to back it up, unless it usefully summarises functionality.
Speaker listening impressions from experienced listeners I find informative but only with some measurements to go with it.
Same in Germany, till the end of the 70s the biggest audio magazines were tech and science driven with extremely detailed measurements, analysis, theory articles and even blinded loudspeaker comparisons but in the 80s audiophoolery journalism and products started getting more and more popular so the good old tech magazines either adopted to that style too or were shut down due to falling popularity.
 

SIY

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
5,703
Likes
11,992
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Validating my rule of thumb: if you trace any goofy or bizarre audiophile belief back far enough, you always end up at Jean Hiraga. He has done more to enstupidate audio than any ten other people put together. Absolutely pernicious influence.
 

Katji

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
736
Likes
449
Location
Mzansi
Same in Germany, till the end of the 70s the biggest audio magazines were tech and science driven with extremely detailed measurements, analysis, theory articles and even blinded loudspeaker comparisons but in the 80s audiophoolery journalism and products started getting more and more popular so the good old tech magazines either adopted to that style too or were shut down due to falling popularity.
^^ You confirmed something I was thinking of, the last couple days. That this cable shit didn't exist in the 1970s, it must've begun in the 80s.
 

Robin L

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
2,334
Likes
2,747
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
^^ You confirmed something I was thinking of, the last couple days. That this cable shit didn't exist in the 1970s, it must've begun in the 80s.
The first I heard of was Fulton Gold. Memory is probably faulty, but as I recall it was in Fanfare magazine, so it must have been the early 1980's, possibly 1979, as that's when I first encountered Fanfare magazine.
 

HiFidFan

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
395
Likes
443
Location
U.S.A
Here's an interesting article including musings by John Dunlavy RE: "Cable Nonsense". Circa 1996. . .

Cable Nonsense
 
OP
Jimbob54

Jimbob54

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
5,340
Likes
5,656
Thread Starter #675
The first I heard of was Fulton Gold. Memory is probably faulty, but as I recall it was in Fanfare magazine, so it must have been the early 1980's, possibly 1979, as that's when I first encountered Fanfare magazine.
Sounds like a poor man's Penthouse.
 

Robin L

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
2,334
Likes
2,747
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
^^ You confirmed something I was thinking of, the last couple days. That this cable shit didn't exist in the 1970s, it must've begun in the 80s.
I got my first real audiophile-grade equipment in 1973: Acoustic Research everything save the cartridge, AR-3s, AR turntable, amp. Shure m91-e cartridge. Back then cable was standard-grade zip cord unless you had long runs, then you'd use a heavier gauge. But, as of 1973, to the best of my knowledge, that was it. And that's what I recall from the magazines and handbooks for gear back in the 1970's.
 

Robin L

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
2,334
Likes
2,747
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Sounds like a poor man's Penthouse.
Their audio reporter was about as subjective as it ever gets. Neil Levenson, unless I'm mistaken. That Fulton company was all about their [massive, as I recall] speakers, but the cables got more than a little mention. Fanfare was based on the principle of "buy an ad, we'll review your record". Also "If you don't have something nice to say . . ." Still going on far as I can tell. They had a few old-timers among the writers, Roger Dettmar [?] waxing rhapsodic over the Reiner/Chicago recordings of the 1950's/1960's, among other old hands.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
33
Likes
29
The grass is the same. An interesting social “fact” is that people always want more. Some are willing to go all in for it, Bill Gates, Olympic athletes and Navy Seals come to mind. Others, maybe most, try for a more balanced approach. In the end only wisdom earned hard through experience allows us to be truly satisfied. I am not there yet!
 

Katji

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
736
Likes
449
Location
Mzansi
I got my first real audiophile-grade equipment in 1973: Acoustic Research everything save the cartridge, AR-3s, AR turntable, amp. Shure m91-e cartridge. Back then cable was standard-grade zip cord unless you had long runs, then you'd use a heavier gauge. But, as of 1973, to the best of my knowledge, that was it. And that's what I recall from the magazines and handbooks for gear back in the 1970's.
Yes. In my draft box:

We just used what came with the hi-fi, or bought some decent twinflex at the radio/hobby shop. Of course we knew about resistance and length, but most speaker cables are less than 5m anyway.
 
Top Bottom