Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › O2 vs TOTL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

O2 vs TOTL - Page 22

post #316 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post


Wow....and people listen to this guy!? What a stupid, confused moron! rolleyes.gif

 

I mean that in the best way possible - especially considering he is a "journalist" or "writer". It sounds like he is confusing "compression" terms. The compression added in the studio by a compressor vs the compression done by FLAC. Not the same.....

 

I read the article. I didn't see any confusion of the two uses of 'compression'. He unfortunately uses the quoted term "expanded" to mean data decompression, where it might be better understood as an inverse to dynamic-range compression (as in a compander). His basic argument in that section, that recordings are so mangled by the time they are released that lossless formats cannot help them (when compared to mp3), seems perfectly valid.

 

However, the argument that flac or apple-lossless sounds inferior to wav on his systems is more difficult. It would suggest cpu/dac power-supply crosstalk and induced jitter differences. (This one is hard to swallow.)

post #317 of 582
It's part of a literary trick, a faux-Hegelian dialectic. He starts talking about his displeasure with dynamic compression, contrasts that with his displeasure at lossy compression, mentions that lossless is also a type of compression and finishes up by synthesizing the non-sequitur that lossless is a type of compression must therefore sound bad. I'd be damned if he wasn't conscious of this and of the crapstorm of argument that such a blog post would incite. Again, if you want to be a good journalist you need to learn to dance before you pull the trigger.
post #318 of 582

I think you are giving him too much credit.

post #319 of 582
I know Steve personally, and he's a genuinely good guy, but like all of us, isn't always perfect. I agree that Cnet might do a better job of vetting articles before posting.
post #320 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20029913-47.html
Every journalist knows never to let facts stand in the way of a good story.

 

Well it's good to know someone with such a big name is perpetuating such idiotic myths.

post #321 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post

I know Steve personally, and he's a genuinely good guy, but like all of us, isn't always perfect. I agree that Cnet might do a better job of vetting articles before posting.


I'm sure he is nice guy...a genuinely good guy. However, when you take on certain jobs, you should have a higher standard and should be held accountable for certain mistakes. If Joe Noname writes a blog article that riddled with mistakes, I'd give Joe some slack. However, when a supposed "journalist" with a following makes such gross errors, you really have to question both the publishers, editors and actual author.

 

In this case...I know I'm not alone in believing this. This isn't a personal attack, it's an attack on credibility and the actual knowledge and quality standards possessed by Steve. He does look like a nice guy.

post #322 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post

It's part of a literary trick, a faux-Hegelian dialectic. He starts talking about his displeasure with dynamic compression, contrasts that with his displeasure at lossy compression, mentions that lossless is also a type of compression and finishes up by synthesizing the non-sequitur that lossless is a type of compression must therefore sound bad. I'd be damned if he wasn't conscious of this and of the crapstorm of argument that such a blog post would incite. Again, if you want to be a good journalist you need to learn to dance before you pull the trigger.

 

This

 

740de2d3_equivocation.png

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

I think you are giving him too much credit.

 

Or this?

 

98f736b1_11656368336371.jpeg

post #323 of 582

^ LOL!

 

As for Guttenberg, I don't think people give enough of a crap about audio for anyone to actually vet him. 

post #324 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post


Note that you are speaking about one of the most widely published and highly respected headphone reviewers on the web triportsad.gif

 

Widely published, yes.  But that is because he is a sycophant.  

 

Highly respected?  Give me a break, Guttenberg is a tool. The sheer amount of logical fallacies that comprise his non-arguments is staggering. He must either be incredibly stupid or incredibly deceitful to publicly post such drivel.

post #325 of 582

Ouch!

post #326 of 582

Looks like I left the thread too soon.  Btw, where does one buy a dvd rewinder and has anybody heard one?

post #327 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

Looks like I left the thread too soon.  Btw, where does one buy a dvd rewinder and has anybody heard one?

http://indie-music-cafe.amazonwebstore.com/DVD-Rewinder/M/B007ZBUEN0.htm. I hear it has great synergy with the O2.
post #328 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post


http://indie-music-cafe.amazonwebstore.com/DVD-Rewinder/M/B007ZBUEN0.htm. I hear it has great synergy with the O2.

 

Oh, I don't do refurbs.  Seems reasonably priced though.  

post #329 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

Btw, where does one buy a dvd rewinder and has anybody heard one?

 

Probably the same places that sell CD demagnetizers.

 


 

Also, I have an O2 vs TOTL moment to share.

 

Recently I got a chance to compare my O2 and ODAC to an Eddie Current Balancing Act's singled ended output fed by this with some HD800s and preferred them on my O2 and ODAC.  The BA added a little sweetness to the treble and gave it a little less edge  It also had some reverb like effect going on that seemed to make the soundstage a little bigger.  On the O2 the bass was tighter, imaging was sharper, and kept better separation during during busy passages.  The treble was a little sharper but I think creatology would probably fix it.

 

I've heard that the tubes the BA had weren't a good match for the HD800, some questioned the idea of adding a tube output stage to a player that's already pretty good by itself, YMMV and all that...

post #330 of 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

Probably the same places that sell CD demagnetizers.

 


 

Also, I have an O2 vs TOTL moment to share.

 

Recently I got a chance to compare my O2 and ODAC to an Eddie Current Balancing Act's singled ended output fed by this with some HD800s and preferred them on my O2 and ODAC.  The BA added a little sweetness to the treble and gave it a little less edge  It also had some reverb like effect going on that seemed to make the soundstage a little bigger.  On the O2 the bass was tighter, imaging was sharper, and kept better separation during during busy passages.  The treble was a little sharper but I think creatology would probably fix it.

 

I've heard that the tubes the BA had weren't a good match for the HD800, some questioned the idea of adding a tube output stage to a player that's already pretty good by itself, YMMV and all that...

HOLY ****, SOMEONE ACTUALLY SAID SOMETHING RELATED TO THE TOPIC!!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › O2 vs TOTL