They are engineered to provoke the target into response.
They are designed for the benefit of the troll, or followers who find trolling entertaining.
And finally, they usually but not necessarily have negative consequences for the people and firms involvedā¦
ā¦For trolling to occur, three actorsā¦ First, there have to be motivated trolls. Second, there have to be reactive online users, responding to trolls. Third, capable human and nonhuman guardians who could deter trolling have to be absent."
ā from an article in The Journal of Marketing Management . Online trolls: Understanding and managing their mischief . October 30th, 2017
Yes, odd isnāt it? Still we donāt know what he usually listens to or what his subjective criteria are. I have heard some very strange systems in my time that the owner swore were close to perfection .
The strange thing is that you he heard and compared many dacs and supposedly he should have a well-founded judgment.
I have not heard Rossini or Vivaldi but the Bartok has a very solid, precise and dynamic sound. I guess thatās the sound of dCS. therefore, I do not understand the review.
I have had a Bartok here for a couple weeks and it was nothing like the reviewer is describing. To the point that it convinced me to go for the Rossini Player + Clock.
But after all, why should I waste my time trying to figure what went wrong or what are the reasons behind that review? Back to the music, and it does sound pretty good!
For me all this trash talk is just that.
Much better to
A, if in the market for a new dac and your budget goes this far try it and others.
B, make sure when listening to said dacs that the system is up to it all.
C, make sure the units are run in and not new out the box.
Using the bartock on a system that just canāt show what it can do is pointless obviously.
Measurements that are in a range that is so far away from what humans can hear is pointless.
Best just to go listen to one and like many others I am sure most will be very happy with what they hear, just like I was when I first experienced what dCS was all about, put this in the right system and just enjoy the music for years to come, safe in the knowledge that dCS will support the unit for years to come and that you own a sensational built, designed and truly British product to be proud off
So, Iām not one to be upset by reviewers who offer opinions which differ from my own. I read a wide range of reviews and look for a consensus of opinion. Once a product produces some common reactions among reviewers and users, I will set about finding a way to hear the product for myself. This particular review certainly represents an outlier position in that the reviewer identifies a very specific quality that disturbs him. He focuses on a perceived shortcoming that has, as far as I know, not been mentioned in other published reviews of the Bartok (though I would eagerly read a concurring review if one does exist).
That doesnāt mean GoldenSound is wrong. But itās fair to note that his opinion and description of this singular sonic quality are at odds with nearly a dozen articles written by other professional reviewers. Iāve always been curious why GoldenSound prefers to work anonymously compared to other professional reviewers who put their credibility on the line by using their legal names.
Perhaps Iām old school, but knowing exactly whose opinion Iām reading has some impact on how seriously I take a particular opinion about a productās qualities. I donāt know who GoldenSound is. I raise this point because his decision to use a pseudonym has already made it difficult for readers of his widely forwarded essays about MQA to assess his credibility and credentials. Does it matter WHO a person is when they write a review? It does when they present their technical evaluations as being more correct or somehow more credible than the views of those with whom they are disagreeing and whose livelihood their opinions may adversely effect. If it were YOUR product or YOUR work being reviewed, I think most of us would appreciate some way to evaluate the source of criticism. Knowing who someone actually is is helpful when evaluating whether an individual has an agenda or is qualified to make accurate technical assertions, etc.
Everyoneās entitled to an opinion. But Iām always put off when someone presents their subjective opinions as facts. For example, itās perfectly reasonable to say, āI donāt like this DAC because it sounds soft to my ears.ā Itās also utterly fair game to say, āI donāt think itās worth the money.ā That said, Iām uncomfortable when someone who presents himself as a highly objective and even-handed reviewer says, āThis DAC utterly fails to convey X,Y and Z sounds accurately,ā and asserts that the method used to establish this āfactā was so rigorous that it simply must be correct. GoldenSound implies to the listener that because he listened to the Bartok in so many contexts and with so much equipment that his subjective opinion is NOT just an opinion. Heās implying that itās an irresistible fact. In other words, how can anyone doubt such an objective evaluation? I bent over backwards. Thatās not a rhetorical technique the reviewers I admire tend to use.
And by the way, this assessment of GoldenSoundās critical approach is not full of objective facts: itās merely my own dumbass opinion.
āI do Science, not opinions, and since Science knows the Truth, Mine is the Truthā.
An interesting opinion about science, particularly loved by those who do not do science and have no clue about it.
A good approach at creating your own church, nothing more. Midtown Manhattan was full of those in the eighties.
BTW, I think that MQA doesnāt sound right at all, and downgraded Tidal to get rid of it. My ears tell me that, no need for an Internet evangelist (who also messed up with the experimental setup in that attempt)
I stand corrected.
.