The problem with Noobs on the Internet

The problem with Noobs on the Internet and why we have so many unhappy audiophiles [Ha! Thought I was going to talk about Noobs and politics didn’t you ­čÖé Or reviewers. Or colleagues at work. Or your kids. Or… yep, this is pretty universal human behavior].

I guess there should be a follow up with how mass populations believe everything they hear in a new ┬átechnological medium when it is new, but slowly get ‘inoculated’ against all the same-old dirty tricks and misinformation and become immune there, just like they are in the old mediums. I mean, who believes TV commercials anymore, or You Have Won $1000000! letters in the mail [where is Ed McMahon when you need him ­čÖé Maybe that is him at the door right now!!! Got to go!].

[Nope. Wasn’t┬áhim].

Maybe, just maybe, those new amps didn’t blow ANYONE away – maybe someone just wants to get your attention because they are lonely. Or they just want to think ‘made you look’.

What a world ­čÖé

Found the chart above in a course on Machine Learning.┬áNeli and I are at the part of the graph where we think we know about 50% of what there is to know. ­čÖé [Hey, it is a VERY┬ánew science. Not much to it ;-)]



The MQA Controversy


The MQA controversy is bound to create some winners and losers in both manufacturing and for us audiophiles.

For example, LINN has a very strongly argued case against it:

MQA is Bad For Music

The Computer Audiophile has details about how MQA advances the state-of-the-art in some respects:

MQA (for civilians)

And over at HiFi+ they report that MQA might not even be lossless:

And small manufacturers agonize over what THEY should do, and must pick sides:


MQA has funding and is making a bold move, but… I have a feeling things are moving so fast, that just about the time that MQA might start making an impact on the regular listening public, something new will already be replacing it.

What wins these days seem to be those things that go viral, not needing a heavy hand like the old format wars of days-gone-by.

But, who knows… not me. This one I am sitting out and taking a wait-and-see wake-me-when-its-all-over approach ­čÖé

How sound at sea-level is different than sound at elevation


How is sound at sea-level different than sound a mile or more above sea-level?

I’ve spent 50 years at least a mile (5280 feet) high [so many jokes, so little time]. We’ve both spent the last 25 at 7200 feet or so.

Funny, but going to shows at sea level during those years did not highlight these differences, so they are obviously more subtle than the impact of individual room acoustics and setup on the sound.

But, both when hearing things while outside and when listening to stereo systems, there are differences that helps me understand how people at sea level are hearing things differently than the people at higher elevations [few of us there are at altitude].

The short and sweet is that sound works better here at 13 feet above sea level. It travels farther, it is more solid and substantive, more dense. Sound at elevation is thinner sounding, like ‘thin sounding’ cables.

Have to say that even though I may still prefer the lighter, more airy sound┬áthat I ‘grew up’ with [Perhaps because┬áis just feels ‘cleaner’], I am enjoying the easy gains system setup down here provides us in ‘the soup’ compared to the more laborious┬ásetup in ‘the clouds’

An unfortunate side-effect, however, is┬áthe background city noise here, which at sea level also seems to travel farther, be stronger, and permeate ev-e-ry-thing. ­čśë