sunbeamgls posted:Keler Pierre posted:
I am promoting nothing. I doubt all magazines and audio sites have financial interests in giving positive review of a product or technology. It may and even is the case for some, like What hifi or stereo magazine....But when you have unanimity from all serious magazines, as absolute sound, stereophile, hificritic, audiostream, computer audiophile, hifi news, it is rather difficult to not believe in this unanimity. But if you reject magazines and audio sites reviews, and prefer to believe 2 or 3 forum members,
it is your right and choice. I think you would be a good candidate for a sect community...
You're still missing the point. I am not commenting on the functionality nor the sound quality like the magazines have done. The business model is the real issue, the technology is a very distant second on the list, to the point where the technical issues are not worth discussing until the business model has been understood and accepted. If you consider being driven to pay a fee to a third party intent on driving proprietary solutions, imposing a levy at every stage of production and with the possibility of applying DRM so that you can't play that content unless you play it on one of their proprietary licenced systems, THEN you can discuss the technology. I just really don't understand why anyone would accept this business model which brings no benefit over what is possible today using existing and open systems.
I do belong to a sect, one that isn't published very much and doesn't really organise itsself - its members don't like to be brainwashed by marketing hype.
ok, ok, stay with your beliefs...For me my ears don't trump me: i have listened to mqa tidal files and 16/44 same tidal files, and for me, as for the majority of people who have made this comparison, mqa sound better. You can think or demonstrate what you want, the ears are the only truth.