SBGK wrote:
> Always interesting to hear what the holy monks of objectivism are
> currently paranoid about. You forgot to mention glossy magazines full of
> advertorials giving everything 8 gold stars or more.
>
> The only bullies I've come across are objectivists who just can't
> tolerate anybo
SBGK wrote:
> The only bullies I've come across are objectivists who just can't
> tolerate anybody reporting differences in digital playback.
18859
+---+
|Filename: keep-an-open-mind-but-not-so-open-that-your-brain-falls-out.png|
SBGK wrote:
> You forgot to mention glossy magazines full of advertorials giving
> everything 8 gold stars or more.
Thanks I couldn't have said it better myself except that you left out
how those glossy magazines are staffed by self proclaimed experts for
hire.
SBGK wrote:
> The only bullies I
arnyk wrote:
> Key to the audiophile credibility for such weirdness is the fact that
> audiophiles in general rarely hear live music, they avoid good listening
> tests, and that they can never properly audition the live feed from a
> good microphone or the console at a live performance.
That is p
SBGK wrote:
> Always interesting to hear what the holy monks of objectivism are
> currently paranoid about. You forgot to mention glossy magazines full of
> advertorials giving everything 8 gold stars or more.
>
> The only bullies I've come across are objectivists who just can't
> tolerate anybo
arnyk wrote:
> Because they are bullied into such wasteful purchases by unscrupulous
> audio manufacturers, dealers and other audiophiles.
>
> The audiophile culture has created a population of people who crave
> influence and make up imaginary and often technically impossible
> so-called proble
