Some very "interesting" comments were just posted in the Quad Traders forum on Facebook. A gentleman, named John Ford, totally dissed the SM, claiming it isn't an accurate decoder for either QS, and especially SQ. I'd be curious to see your responses to his allegations.
I can only imagine he has mental and male hypogonadism issuesSome very "interesting" comments were just posted in the Quad Traders forum on Facebook. A gentleman, named John Ford, totally dissed the SM, claiming it isn't an accurate decoder for either QS, and especially SQ. I'd be curious to see your responses to his allegations.
Say hi to OxFORD Dickie!Some very "interesting" comments were just posted in the Quad Traders forum on Facebook. A gentleman, named John Ford, totally dissed the SM, claiming it isn't an accurate decoder for either QS, and especially SQ. I'd be curious to see your responses to his allegations.
Some very "interesting" comments were just posted in the Quad Traders forum on Facebook. A gentleman, named John Ford, totally dissed the SM, claiming it isn't an accurate decoder for either QS, and especially SQ. I'd be curious to see your responses to his allegations.
Yeah, i am not much of a facebook person, really don't care for the trivia. The surround forums there are just boringGood. Yet another reason for me to avoid Facebook. I much prefer our friendly QQ mob.
You called him a gentleman?Some very "interesting" comments were just posted in the Quad Traders forum on Facebook. A gentleman, named John Ford, totally dissed the SM, claiming it isn't an accurate decoder for either QS, and especially SQ. I'd be curious to see your responses to his allegations.
I expect it would mostly be self interest from that individual. Just as well I dropped out of there some time backSome very "interesting" comments were just posted in the Quad Traders forum on Facebook. A gentleman, named John Ford, totally dissed the SM, claiming it isn't an accurate decoder for either QS, and especially SQ. I'd be curious to see your responses to his allegations.
I used the term loosely... very loosely.You called him a gentleman?
I don't do facebook either. But some is public for non members. I'll have to look for this Quad Traders thing.
So he's Oxford Dickie? Is "Oxford" another way of saying "itsy bitsy, teeny tiny"?Say hi to OxFORD Dickie!
If it is Oxford Dickie then I know nothing about it, and he ought to know better by now. It's also not good for his blood pressure.Ford you say? hmm.. now where have we heard that name regarding matrix Quad before..
That is a blast from the pastSay hi to OxFORD Dickie!
His report is seriously flawed. He created his own test signals, rather than using test tones provided by test records that are properly encoded. Doing it as he did, he could skew the results however he wants. Talk about arrogant!Things got interesting on the "old school" group.
View attachment 78799
Interesting watching an argument between possibly 2 controversial quadraphonic fanatics.
Not sure who John Ford is - seems like he has a wordpress site where he goes by "The Matrix" - the test is also posted there. Involve Surround Master v2 Test Report
Seriously does any body actually understand this "test report". Zero documentation of frequencies used, test criterion, equipment. It a total joke.His report is seriously flawed. He created his own test signals, rather than using test tones provided by test records that are properly encoded. Doing it as he did, he could skew the results however he wants. Talk about arrogant!
I didn't understand one page....so I went and tested the SMv3 with my ears again....and it passed with exceptional results....again.Seriously does any body actually understand this "test report"
Seriously does any body actually understand this "test report". Zero documentation of frequencies used, test criterion, equipment. It a total joke.
Yes, apparently Owen Smith understands it...Seriously does any body actually understand this "test report".
That's how I test all things musical. If it sounds great to my ears, as far as I am concerned it's great. I consider the SM2 to be great.I didn't understand one page....so I went and tested the SMv3 with my ears again....and it passed with exceptional results....again.
Enter your email address to join: