Jakob1863
Addicted to Fun and Learning
It does. You have to show transparency in conversations and also show that your opinion is not polluted in the interest of your commercial enterprise. Best way to do that is to present independent research to back what you say. In the course of all of this, there should have been occasions for you to disclose this type of interest.
1.) I thought the right place to mention what i´m doing is the profile
2.) If people are strongly biased there is no way i could "show" that my opinion is not polluted in the interest of some commercial enterprises
3.) If you ever found any advertising in my posts please show me and i will immediately correct it
4.) To assume that imagined commercial interests could be more dangerous than stubborness, religious like beliefs or the superegos that often post in forums, is a bit challenging
5.) wrt independent research for backup- you shouldn´t ask more from me than you do yourself. You´re using often your own listening test results and quite often there is no independent research to back it up. Don´t get me wrong, i trust in every poster that he reports truthfully until there is evidence for doubts.
<snip>
So what is wrong is not with him. It is with people such who steal that one line from him with no proper attribution that he even said that ever and in what context as to distort his views and position him as an expert witness for sighted subjective evaluation of audio trumping measurements. It shows that the people doing that don't even know the man. The one liner was all that they needed to mis-position someone of such distinguished career.
I haven´t seen this sort of abuse of the Recklinghausen quote.
And now things get creepy.In a less informed place you might get away with such a stunt but please don't do that here.
Please don´t put words in my ...err... posts; the "stunt" that you mentioned was made up by you, it only exists in your imagination.
I cited the quote - attributed to him according to the AES website, which i mentioned- and neither he nor i wrote something about "sighted listening".
And according to your linked article authored by von Recklinghausen about the new IHF standard, the quote - as i said in my last post - fits imo perfectly to his description of the two amplifiers test the same (under the old standard) but "sound radically different" .
Expect your statements to be analyzed deeply with much more context and knowledge than you see in typical audiophile forums where folks may accept these one-liners as gospel.
I did not expect these "tales of mystery and imagination" that only a nearly overwhelming bias can base on a one-liner .....
What talk? Give me a link to an article or paper he wrote saying that.
Sorry, my bad, i misunderstood.
Last edited: