mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 16:45 |
Jesus, Jon - do you spend all your time reading and believing webpages?
|
Well I'm talking about their webpage, no I don't spend much time reading it... I read what they put up in some detail back when you started raving about it, and I looked at it briefly (there's much less to see) when a link was posted earlier in this thread.
As for believing their webpage, I spend no time at all believing it.
Quote: |
My guess is you spend none at all.
|
Not quite sure what you're saying there
Quote: |
I am neither an insider nor an outsider on this one, but trust me or don't, on this one you are very much an outsider.
|
In my circle of people who actually understand the subject that Nova Physics choose to make claims about, I'm very much an insider
Quote: |
I don't care how many millienia you have on the topic. First, use your ears. If they tell you this thing is exactly the same as some off-the-shelf computer running iTunes, then we have nothing to discuss.
|
IRRELEVANT to my position.
Which part of "I BELIEVE YOU" (about the sound) did you not understand?
zmix asked a specific question about a specific technical claim, which I answered. It could be the most miraculously great sounding unit in the history of the universe and that claim would still be bullshit.
Quote: |
One of us is living off-planet. If they tell you that you are experiencing something you haven't before, which so far everyone on this forum who has heard it has experienced, then you might have an obligation to yourself, not to me or to the people selling this thing, to try to understand what is afoot.
|
I am trying to understand, I would be delighted to get my hands on a unit and investigate what is actually happening. What I do know is that someone who can't get the basics of red book and reed solomon right (the stuff they used to have on their page was so riddled with errors it was ridiculous) has not pushed that aspect any further
Quote: |
I don't look at the site that has you guys so freaked out any more than I look at ads in magazines, but I'm pretty sure it exists for one reason - to get the people who are the audience for it, people willing to spend serious cash to have a great time listening to music at home, interested enough to seek it out. I.E. not you.
|
So, what you're saying, is that it is ok for a company to publish any claim they like, no matter how dishonest or incorrect it may be, just to get people to try their device?
Sorry, but I expect more integrity from people in general, and my fellow engineers in particular.
Quote: |
But notice that every time I mention the thing Chuck jumps in here with some critique of the advertising, yet even though he lives in the biggest city in the world where he could almost certainly find one to hear, he has made no effort to do it. So what should I conclude - we have a small group of people who simply know better, even though the world keeps changing. It must feel great.
|
So if someone points out that an advert for a unicorn sandwich (which is of course hugely expensive because unicorns are so rare) is dishonest because there are no unicorns, your response is "that doesn't matter, what matters is it's a delicious sandwich, taste it"
Quote: |
Jon, you imply a position that all that can be known is known (and by you), therefor there is nothing new. Fine, you are an insider.
|
No I don't imply that, I don't even say it.
What I say is that the SPECIFIC claims made BY NOVA PHYSICS are incorrect.. never mind the things they claim to have improved, they can't evem get the current state of the science right.
I haven't said they haven't made a great unit, nor have I said they haven't done SOMETHING new or unusual that has benefited the sound, just that it's not what they choose to claim it is.
Quote: |
You do understand this is not my loss, right? I have the thing and am enjoying it every day.
|
Great, and if it was worth whatever money to you to get that sound then that's wonderful.
What is not wonderful is misinformation being spread, whether through ignorance or willfull dishonesty to make a sale, about what they've done and why it sounds so good to you.
Quote: |
I don't sweat hi-res downloads like all the audiophiles do. I get that experience now from standard red-book. The world of digital has changed, I listen to it every day, I'm reporting it to you for your benefit, and you and Chuck and now Andy insist that it can't be true. Dan Farris, Ross, and David have heard it, said it, but no, you guys say it can't be. You haven't heard it and say it simply can't be anything other than iTunes. OK. For you, the thing doesn't exist. You know better.
|
Well it's obviously not iTunes, I've seen the screen shots... there's something very familiar about that supposedly amazing CD writing software though.
Quote: |
I give up. I'm going to listen to some music on my non-existent magic box on my magic speakers. I'm listening to some of Ryan Moore's Twilight Circus mp3s right now - but if you guys tell me this is what iTunes sounds like on a computer, I guess you must be right. (I do have iTunes on it, btw).
I'll re-iterate: anyone on this forum - with one exception - is welcome here to prove to themselves how run-of-the-mill this thing is.
I will say, I've always been surprised how little professionals care about this sort of thing. Its all of a piece to me. I love playing music, recording music and listening to music, and want every part of that to be as deep an experience as I can make it. If I can listen to McCartney or Casady with a similar sense of proximity that I get with my own work, or by sitting next to my own amp, I'm happy. Its been my best teacher.
|
But wouldn't the whole world of audio be better served if we knew WHY it sounds so good, rather than whatever the sales guys can think of to get you to listen?
Perhaps to you the only question that matters is whether or not it sounds good to you.
For me an equally important question is "Why does it sound so good?", and much worse than no answer is a wrong or dishonest one, because that moves understanding backwards.