kennyb123

Only PGGB-generated WAV files on my SD cards. I will try to remember to load some other WAV files onto one so I can try with Poly. I also suspect size may have something to do with it.

I just attempted this myself. I don't get an error thrown, but I found it not possible to try to skip to a different time point when playing PGGB/WAV files.

I hadn’t experienced this, but my use case rarely, if ever, had me seek forward into a track. I will give it a try.

(deleted)

DXD is what I’d pick in that case.

Some of HDTT’s pure DSD releases are exceptional, like this one: https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca/products/somethin-else-cannonball-adderley-pure-dsd See a few of the posts that follow mine here for some more recommendations.

It seems we do. I specifically said that a fair person “will be seen as careful to avoid bearing false witness”. I did exactly that in the statements you quoted. The first two of my sentences that you quoted represents an opinion that bears no witness against anyone. The second two sentences suggest a possible motivation of some. It declares no one guilty and it makes no statement of fact. Very different, for example, claiming that dCS is an “unethical corporate bully”. A person who isn’t irked by that accusation most likely doesn’t value fairness. I find it fascinating though that you actually helped to validate the opinion I expressed in the first two sentences that you quoted. It wasn’t fair to cite these as examples of bearing false witness, so if you valued fairness you wouldn’t have chosen these examples. You would have also been more careful to make sure that your criticism aligned with what I actually said.

I think most of us are dumbfounded over what transpired. The main difference is that some think that both sides have some culpability while others (the same people who rushed to judgment) are steadfastly seeing only dCS as culpable. I belong amongst the former and have been primarily challenged the latter in my posts in this thread. I’m certainly at this point that the differences on this are irreconcilable. One either values fairness or they don’t. If one values fairness, they will be seen as careful to avoid bearing false witness against another. If they’re aren’t seen as being careful to avoid this, then they fairness is likely something they value so appeals to fairness will fall flat.

I prefaced my statement with "If he was truly worried" because my point was that his actions suggest that he wasn't that worried. And if he wasn't that worried, then dCS wasn't as threatening as you guys are trying to make it sound. I suspect it's all mock outrage for affect. Emboldened by the fall of MQA, some are hoping to bring about the fall of dCS to earn another imagined feather in their caps

If he was truly worried, all he had to was remove the video and the entire thing goes away. I think it’s wrong to assume that without any evidence of other similar misdeeds. That “rogue” employee had appeared to earn his employers trust prior to this incident. Given the irrational anger that this employee directed at CS, I’m wondering if he had become a troubled employee. Mental health or substance abuse issues can go unnoticed for a long time. If the individual doesn’t get the help they need, eventually things can badly blow up leading to employee getting canned. Like you said, we don’t know and probably won’t ever know all the details. With so many rushing to find dCS guilty of more than the wrongdoing they’ve copped to, I felt compelled to offer a more charitable possible explanation.

I couldn't agree with you more, but I don't think those word will register. I hope the lesson taken away from this for everyone here is that there's always room for each of us to do better. But that requires humility, but unfortunately, not everyone is capable of feeling that. I'm not sure anyone was well-served by the intransigence. I think too many are leaping to the conclusion that dCS was the only one in the wrong because dCS accepted all the blame. They might have done this just to de-escalate things. Maybe they legitimately had gripes with the GS' behavior but decided they were harming themselves more by doing something about it. Honorable parties tend to shoulder some or all the blame when things like this go awry regardless of whether they are deserving of that blame. When an individual shows no willingness to do this, I think it's very likely that they were part of the problem. My reaction to hearing it repeatedly mentioned that "dCS has threatened to sue over a negative review" was that it would likely end up costing GS. That seemed to me to be proof that GS was intentionally trying to harm dCS' reputation, as dCS claimed. I think had maybe dCS actually aimed to sue, a jury would have seen it that way too. Just because dCS took all the blame doesn't mean that GS wasn't actually aiming to harm dCS' reputation when he chose those words.

It likely means there’s a bug that ZB needs to fix.

I disagreed with your hyperventilating in the following. No need to repeat myself. You are trying to make dCS’ behavior sound worse than it was. The facts were damning enough. If you respond to this, I won’t see it. I will be ignoring you.

It was said to be an “escalation of mammoth proportions”. It disagreed that, which should have been obvious.

Legally speaking, this is true if certain conditions are met, which seem to have been in this case. But when ascribing blame outside of the courts, it is fair to say that this one individual is to blame - because it’s true. A consumer is under no compunction to have to see it the way the courts do. Only a fool would do so in this case.