Credibility doesn't come from saying you have a lot of experience in audio or from claiming other people agree with you -- it comes
from the quality of your claims. When you claim that SACD is
the equivilent of adding music hall echo, you show a basic ignorance of the format about which you are attempting to debate.
If a high school drop-out tells me SACD means a higher sample
rate and more information on the disc, he/she, by nature, will have
more credibility. Further, on the internet, anyone can claim anything. I once debated a guy who claimed expertise in politics because he claimed he teaches history at his local University. Later, in the same debate, the guy claimed he understood science because he works in a government laboratory. Busy guy, huh? My experience is that people who make credible comments don't usually have to shore them up with these types of claims. So, I will say that I have no idea what is your experience and it doesn't really matter. The credibility of your comments has been undermined by these errors you've littered throughout this debate.
They were undermined further when you failed to acknowledge
these errors. What is needed now is not your credentials -- these
citations only beg the question -- how can someone work in high
end audio and have such erroneous information? The answer is --either you are fibbing about your audio experience -- highly possible since many people use the internet to try to carve out
alternate personalities -- or you were just another mis-informed
salesman. My experience is that I usually know a lot more about
any piece of gear I am auditioning than the salesman at the store,
no matter how high end, but especially at places like Tweeter.
These guys are usually better at sales than they are at audio --
talkers. So, these types of credentials wouldn't help you even if
you weren't making all these erroneous claims. Any way you look at it, you are better off getting better informed than you are trying
to rehabilitate yourself in this manner. That's just my opinion.
from the quality of your claims. When you claim that SACD is
the equivilent of adding music hall echo, you show a basic ignorance of the format about which you are attempting to debate.
If a high school drop-out tells me SACD means a higher sample
rate and more information on the disc, he/she, by nature, will have
more credibility. Further, on the internet, anyone can claim anything. I once debated a guy who claimed expertise in politics because he claimed he teaches history at his local University. Later, in the same debate, the guy claimed he understood science because he works in a government laboratory. Busy guy, huh? My experience is that people who make credible comments don't usually have to shore them up with these types of claims. So, I will say that I have no idea what is your experience and it doesn't really matter. The credibility of your comments has been undermined by these errors you've littered throughout this debate.
They were undermined further when you failed to acknowledge
these errors. What is needed now is not your credentials -- these
citations only beg the question -- how can someone work in high
end audio and have such erroneous information? The answer is --either you are fibbing about your audio experience -- highly possible since many people use the internet to try to carve out
alternate personalities -- or you were just another mis-informed
salesman. My experience is that I usually know a lot more about
any piece of gear I am auditioning than the salesman at the store,
no matter how high end, but especially at places like Tweeter.
These guys are usually better at sales than they are at audio --
talkers. So, these types of credentials wouldn't help you even if
you weren't making all these erroneous claims. Any way you look at it, you are better off getting better informed than you are trying
to rehabilitate yourself in this manner. That's just my opinion.