#1 Dcstep states: "So, your unequivical agreement with Newly must have indeed been baseless."
In the first item of my 8-31-08 posting I clarified very specifically the extent to which I agreed with Newly. What about the phrase, "nothing more, nothing less" continues to elude you?
#2 To Dcstep: Your own statement, "This is not a magazine where we're "paid" for our opinions and there's a code of ethics, but generally when we say something like, "this is better than that" then we will have some basis for making a statement like that.", is all you should need to understand the last paragraph of my last posting. I hope (but will not assume, in this instance) that you know that the paragraph I appended to my "baseless claim" earlier today was copied from the initial response posted to this thread. Oops, my bad - I substituted "dCS Scarlatti DAC" for "MPS-5".
We both claim a product "might be on another level compared with ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE" (my emphasis). Of course we both added that, in fact, we haven't actually heard everything in our systems. Oh, (and this will be of particular interest to you, I'm sure) I deliberately kept the word "might" rather than substituting "is", to further render my claim immune to debunking. Note: ONLY I acted deliberately here.
Neither I nor the first respondent has written a bold faced lie; yet, are our claims any LESS subjective than would be Newly's even if he's done the comparisons you're so fixated on?
And since you (not me) chose to bring ethics into the discussion, one final question, Dcstep: If I told you I also deliberately worded my claim to maximize it's potential boost to Scarlatti sales because I've gotten to know a few people at Audiophile Systems Ltd and want to help them sell more of these expensive units in a difficult economy, would I be in violation of the "code of ethics" to which you refer?
In the first item of my 8-31-08 posting I clarified very specifically the extent to which I agreed with Newly. What about the phrase, "nothing more, nothing less" continues to elude you?
#2 To Dcstep: Your own statement, "This is not a magazine where we're "paid" for our opinions and there's a code of ethics, but generally when we say something like, "this is better than that" then we will have some basis for making a statement like that.", is all you should need to understand the last paragraph of my last posting. I hope (but will not assume, in this instance) that you know that the paragraph I appended to my "baseless claim" earlier today was copied from the initial response posted to this thread. Oops, my bad - I substituted "dCS Scarlatti DAC" for "MPS-5".
We both claim a product "might be on another level compared with ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE" (my emphasis). Of course we both added that, in fact, we haven't actually heard everything in our systems. Oh, (and this will be of particular interest to you, I'm sure) I deliberately kept the word "might" rather than substituting "is", to further render my claim immune to debunking. Note: ONLY I acted deliberately here.
Neither I nor the first respondent has written a bold faced lie; yet, are our claims any LESS subjective than would be Newly's even if he's done the comparisons you're so fixated on?
And since you (not me) chose to bring ethics into the discussion, one final question, Dcstep: If I told you I also deliberately worded my claim to maximize it's potential boost to Scarlatti sales because I've gotten to know a few people at Audiophile Systems Ltd and want to help them sell more of these expensive units in a difficult economy, would I be in violation of the "code of ethics" to which you refer?