Unpopular opinions

Miura knives
Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Lars said:
Digital audio is flawless. Your turntable is not.
Click to expand...
Turntables are certainly flawed, but digital audio as used in CDs is inherently and unfixably flawed; the level of resolution it achieves is an approximation. By analogy with the more generally recognizable terminology of video, all music on all CDs is subtly "audio-pixelated".

I don't say turntables are better, because that depends on too many things and they're actually often worse. I just say digital is flawed too.

In the 80s and 90s, many CDs had a symbol "DDD" to indicate "pure digital", which was almost false advertising - they conveniently forgot to mention that music is inherently analog and so are ears. "ADDDA" is less pure than "AAAAA", not more. (Unless the conversions to and from digital are performed at an infinite level of resolution, of course - but they're not.)

Knife related content: Purely analog equipment is like a full set of sharpening stones from coarse to extremely fine, but all of the stones are somewhat imperfect. Digital equipment is a sharpening stone that's microscopically absolutely perfect in every way, but by design it's only available in 600 grit.
 
DavidPF said:
Turntables are certainly flawed, but digital audio as used in CDs is inherently and unfixably flawed; the level of resolution it achieves is an approximation. By analogy with the more generally recognizable terminology of video, all music on all CDs is subtly "audio-pixelated".

I don't say turntables are better, because that depends on too many things and they're actually often worse. I just say digital is flawed too.

In the 80s and 90s, many CDs had a symbol "DDD" to indicate "pure digital", which was almost false advertising - they conveniently forgot to mention that music is inherently analog and so are ears. "ADDDA" is less pure than "AAAAA", not more. (Unless the conversions to and from digital are performed at an infinite level of resolution, of course - but they're not.)

Knife related content: Purely analog equipment is like a full set of sharpening stones from coarse to extremely fine, but all of the stones are somewhat imperfect. Digital equipment is a sharpening stone that's microscopically absolutely perfect in every way, but by design it's only available in 600 grit.
Click to expand...
That is an impressive amount of audiophile clichés in a single post, well done..!
 
DavidPF said:
Turntables are certainly flawed, but digital audio as used in CDs is inherently and unfixably flawed; the level of resolution it achieves is an approximation. By analogy with the more generally recognizable terminology of video, all music on all CDs is subtly "audio-pixelated".

I don't say turntables are better, because that depends on too many things and they're actually often worse. I just say digital is flawed too.

In the 80s and 90s, many CDs had a symbol "DDD" to indicate "pure digital", which was almost false advertising - they conveniently forgot to mention that music is inherently analog and so are ears. "ADDDA" is less pure than "AAAAA", not more. (Unless the conversions to and from digital are performed at an infinite level of resolution, of course - but they're not.)

Knife related content: Purely analog equipment is like a full set of sharpening stones from coarse to extremely fine, but all of the stones are somewhat imperfect. Digital equipment is a sharpening stone that's microscopically absolutely perfect in every way, but by design it's only available in 600 grit.
Click to expand...

I’m glad I’m not an audiophile. If I were, I would not be able to spend all my money on knives.
 
The audiophile world is even worse than the knife world. It's basically drowning in snake oil. But at this point I think even most (professional) audiophiles would admit that they have no way of distinguishing a theoretical 'inferior' digital quality from analog. The sample size and resolution is just too good. It's like argueing that analog cameras are better for pictures than 100 MP cameras.

As for my own controversial opinions. I think it's not so controversial that fillet / tenderloin is overrated... but I actually think that ribeye is overrated as well. The meat parts are great but I don't think they're really better than many other cuts, and the amount of thicker pieces of fat and other crap on them means you're either trimming a decent amount (lowering yield), or pushing up the temperature (just to get all the fat rendered). Personally I can think of several cuts I'd rather have that are usually cheaper. Hanger steak, blade steak, shoulder tender. If it has to be a cut with some fat on it be just as happy with picanha at half the price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ian
hmm I mean audiophile is filled with snake oil and floor standers are the single most overpriced items in existence, but redbook is one of the great scientific accomplishments of the 20th century IMO.
 
Jovidah said:
The audiophile world is even worse than the knife world. It's basically drowning in snake oil. But at this point I think even most (professional) audiophiles would admit that they have no way of distinguishing a theoretical 'inferior' digital quality from analog. The sample size and resolution is just too good. It's like argueing that analog cameras are better for pictures than 100 MP cameras.
Click to expand...
This, totally. The BS in audio leaves knives for dead.
 
captaincaed said:
On now I'm curious. What the hell is so sketchy about the audio world?
Click to expand...

An entire hobby devoted to extreme subtleties that many people can’t hear at all, and where it’s probably to your emotional advantage to think that your $50,000 speakers sound better than your $1000 ones? Beats me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top