Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: In digital, no hardware is future-proof. (NT) posted by Kal Rubinson on March 18, 2017 at 13:37:40
JA: "the Mojo is fundamentally future-proof." Dec 2016
JA: "The Rossini Player and Clock are ... future-proof" Nov 2016
Michael Lavorgna: "The nano iDSD ... is ... future-proof." Sep 2015
Michael Fremer: The Playback Designs MPS-5 SACD/CD player is a "future-proof design" Feb 2010
Jon Iverson: The Schiit BiFrost DAC is a "virtually future-proof DAC" Apr 2013
Kalman Rubinson: "the excellent and future-proof Mark Levinson No.360" Dec 1999
> JA: "The Rossini Player and Clock are ... future-proof" Nov 2016
As the Rossini uses an FPGA for its DSP and is constructed with a
mother/daughter board topology, it should be capable of being upgraded
for future digital audio formats (if any), not just MQA. That's what I
meant by "future-proof."
As you explain it, it would seem that the proofness of the future would be at the whim of dCS. I do not think that owners of earlier generation dCS Ring dacs, including myself, have found them to be future proof over a period of ten years. There were two major product revampings over that period, and the newer technologies went into the later products. I would not expect that to be different in the future.
The term "future-proof" has a marketing connotation, that an investment in a very expensive dac is made worthwhile, even for those who are not super well-heeled, because they will be happy with it forever. But I don't think that's true in the same sense that buying a very expensive amplifier might keep you happy for a very long time. In the current market, with some truly excellent less expensive dacs available, I think a less well-heeled consumer would be better served by buying one of them and putting some money aside for an eventual replacement.
That's why I think the term "future-proof" belongs in marketing literature, and not in reviews.
Thanks for reading,
I saw no reason to jump into this conversation until now -- to back up what you say about it having no place in reviews. And in marketing literature, it should be ignored.
I began working in the computer industry in 1985. I was also into audio in that time. There has been no piece of computer-type electronics that should EVER have the term "future proof" attached to it. This extends beyond computers into DACs, CD players, etc.
As you correctly point out, new technologies surpass old. Simply as that.
That's not to say that I didn't fall into that nonsense. In the early 90s, I bought a Theta DAC. I don't think they used the term "future proof," but they called it fully upgradeable or something close. Well, in two years they had a new version out and the "upgrade" was to swap all the guts out and replace it with "close" to the current version -- you didn't get everything. What a load. Cost me more to do that upgrade than just buy a new one at the dealer and get a small discount.
In hi-fi, there isn't a piece of hardware that ever has or ever will qualify as future proof, unless future proofing is simply swapping for what's new.
.. shows the phrase used in reviews of digital equipment across your various sites.
ps. As an example to prove the rule, I bought a Wadia 830 in 2000 and it came with 24/96 inputs. I didn't want that option but that's all my local dealer had. I used them for the first time recently (after 17 years lying fallow) and now I'm glad I did pay the extra!
> I saw no reason to jump into this conversation until now -- to back up what
> you say about it having no place in reviews.
Hi Doug, as one of the reviewers quoted in the postings to which you are
responding, I must admit I am surprised to see your comments.
I did offer an explanation why I used that phrase, an explanation that I
feel both accurate and relevant. But it is the fact you are the editor of
a competing publication that surprised me. I routinely see word usages and
text in reviews in other publications, even yours, that raise my eyebrows.
But I don't regard it as my role to publicly point them out or criticize
them. All us editors believe in what we we do, believe that we do what we
do better than our competition. How could it be otherwise. But is for our
readers to decide whether or not what we say bears up, makes sense, or is
flawed, not competing editors.
I hold you in great respect, Doug. But not on this subject.
Surely it's okay if two editors exchange different views about review terminology, in a forum called "Critics Corner", as long as everyone is a good sport.
From a reader,
With all due respect -- give me a break. This is a public forum and I'm a registered user. Besides, I don't see you haven't trouble posting wherever you like. Technically, I'm not the editor, Jeff Fritz is, but I don't see what that matters. This is a forum, not on your publication's board, for example -- we are users here like everyone else.
On this topic, I clearly pointed out that I didn't feel the need to add anything, but on this topic, I did, because I feel using the term is wrong.
I did do a Google search on our own sites and, indeed, I have found instances where some of our writers have used the word "future proof" with regards to digital products. Ken Kessler just did talking about a Chord DAC. I looked for my own usage, mind you, and I found one time I did use the term "future-proof" -- in regards to moving away from optical-disc-based systems to computer-based ones. It wasn't in regards to a specific piece of hardware -- because, as I'll say time and again, no piece is. If one of our writers wishes to think something's future-proof -- like Ken did -- well, he can say that even though I feel it's wrong. I might point out my thought to someone, but I'm not going to change his words.
As for you disagreeing with me on this -- well, sorry to tell you, know computer-based piece of hardware should be called future-proof ... because nothing is. Now, I also want to add that if there was an instance in the past where I did use the term "future proof" (I don't think so, but you never know), I was wrong to.
> With all due respect -- give me a break. This is a public forum and I'm a
> registered user. Besides, I don't see you haven't trouble posting wherever
> you like.
Of course. But if you examine my postings, I respond to comments and questions
posted about things Stereophile's writers or I have written, not other
writers or publications.
That's your choice. But I don't see this as a forum just for that. I'm into audio like the other guys here are -- I live this stuff 24/7, as do you likely -- and this is a place for exchange information.
In the school yard, if you called somebody a dick, it wasn't really about the name, but the implied threat that lay behind it. About whether the caller could beat the callee, or vice versa. If the caller was stronger and meaner, there wasn't much the callee could do other than recite the "sticks and stones" rhymes.
But on the internet, somebody calls somebody a dick, and then, what? What can anybody do? We're left with the abstraction, the name, instead of the sticks and stones. The name kind of hangs there, perhaps evocative of a more manly era, and then goes like the mist. Somebody shouts LOL!, and it's gone.
I try not to get swept away. My long commitment to Meridian hinged, in part, on that outdated hope but it has ended and confirmed my current position. Now I try to do as much as possible in software...........:-)
John Atkinson - really? REALLY?
How rude of you! Certainly an embarrassing set of responses from you. In your position you should be far more civil.
Your comments and retorts in this thread makes me wonder if someone pissed in your cornflakes this morning.
> How rude of you! Certainly an embarrassing set of responses from you. In
> your position you should be far more civil.
First, the original poster wrote comments that had he done the slightest
amount of research, he would have known were either incorrect or more
nuanced than he was representing.
Second he infringed our copyright in a blatant manner. I have lost all
patience with people who do that. Instead of asking The Bored to delete
the offending material, which I do on a regular basis with other forums,
because it was indeed relevant to his argument, I thought instead I would
make fun of him. So, embarrassing? Hardly.
Your outrage over "copyright infringement"is really moving...
Again, I remind you, of fair use:
#Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses#
#Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment#
The only thing I forgot to do was provide a link. Which I then did at your request.
No, you were looking to get the thread deep sixed with name calling. You have done this numerous times before.
Again, Andreas Koch, and the growing momentum that exposes MQA is bad for consumers and technically a farce, that solves problems that don't exist is topic at hand. Your lack of any critical reporting is another. Own it.
> Again, I remind you, of fair use:
> #Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses#
#Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a
> review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment#
Please note that under US copyright law, Fair Use is not a right but a
defense in a potential suit over infringement. Whether that defense would
be successful depends on how much of the original copyrighted work has
been quoted. If someone quotes 30 words of a 3000-word article, a Fair Use
defense would certainly succeed. If someone quotes all 3000 words, a Fair
Use defense would certainly fail. The question of where the dividing line
lies tends to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but generally favoring
the copyright owner, as far as I am aware.
In your case, while you didn't republish the entire work, you did quote
a relatively large proportion of the work, without either permission,
attribution, or a link to the original.
> The only thing I forgot to do was provide a link. Which I then did at
> your request.
And the attribution, which you also "forgot." It would have cost you
nothing either to ask for permission (which I would have given) or to
add attribution and link, yet you did neither.
> No, you were looking to get the thread deep sixed with name calling. You
> have done this numerous times before.
Really? Could you provide links to the "numerous" examples, please, Dick.
Provide links? Disingenuous. Provide links to threads you sabotaged that have been taken down? Right.
I can understand your being flustered. Luminaries with far more credibility and brain power than you and your crew are exposing MQA for what it is, and you don't like it. You would rather hitch your horse to a charlatan like Stuart.
This is the third time you resorted to name calling in this thread.
> Provide links? Disingenuous. Provide links to threads you sabotaged that
> have been taken down? Right.
There are no threads that I forced to be taken down, Dick.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: