MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

6 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Total guess on my part, but the fact TEN was so willing to dump these properties may indicate they were not exactly over performing. I could be wrong. If Miller got a great deal, he may be able to make something of it after trimming the fat.

 

They are out of the TEN demo. In general you leave stuff alone if it performing but everything else TEN does can be tired together except home tech. 

[Brinkman Ship]

12 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

They are out of the TEN demo. In general you leave stuff alone if it performing but everything else TEN does can be tired together except home tech. 

..well then maybe the MQA play was a desperate attempt to pad revenue prior to the acquisition...again. disclaimer, just a guess on my part.

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..well then maybe the MQA play was a desperate attempt to pad revenue prior to the acquisition...again. disclaimer, just a guess on my part.

 

Or an attempt to drive up views and be controversial to keep from being sold off. 

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Or an attempt to drive up views and be controversial to keep from being sold off. 

Could be..but that would assume that Atkinson did not want the sale...maybe he did, seeing Miller's group as more desirable owners.

 

I wonder how long the deal was in the works..

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Could be..but that would assume that Atkinson did not want the sale...maybe he did, seeing Miller's group as more desirable owners.

 

I wonder how long the deal was in the works..

 

I would think TEN was looking to get rid of the audio and camera  stuff since they signed the joint venture with Discovery.  I don't know about what John Atkinson is thinking but now he is second fiddle to Paul Miller. 

[Brinkman Ship]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I would think TEN was looking to get rid of the audio and camera  stuff since they signed the joint venture with Discovery.  I don't know about what John Atkinson is thinking but now he is second fiddle to Paul Miller. 

Well that won't be any thing new..he has been second fiddle to his publisher and owners all this time anyway. The only way he would be head honcho is if he acquired the properties himself.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Well that won't be any thing new..he has been second fiddle to his publisher and owners all this time anyway. The only way he would be head honcho is if he acquired the properties himself.

 

A little easier under TEN when you are part of a larger company. Paul Miller owns just under 25% of AVTech Media a small company.

[Sal1950]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:59 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for bringing this up. @rwdvis was after me in another thread and I clicked on his user profile and saw his post here. I mistakenly figured it was more recent. My fault.

On 3/22/2018 at 6:16 PM, Ralf11 said:

what sanctions will you apply to yourself?

I would suggest a good hard spanking.

But I'm afraid he'd enjoy it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

I would suggest a good hard spanking.

But I'm afraid he'd enjoy it. 

 

 

[Hugo9000]

The acquisition probably explains the (partial) shift on MQA coverage at S-phile.  Hasn't Paul Miller been critical of MQA's claims for quite a while now?

[Kal Rubinson]

5 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

The acquisition probably explains the (partial) shift on MQA coverage at S-phile.  Hasn't Paul Miller been critical of MQA's claims for quite a while now?

I was not going to respond to all these speculations about the the recent sale and MQA but this one is easy.  The writers were informed about this sale only hours before it was announced in public.  It is illogical to think that it could have influenced statements already in print.  

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I was not going to respond to all these speculations about the the recent sale and MQA but this one is easy.  The writers were informed about this sale only hours before it was announced in public.  It is illogical to think that it could have influenced statements already in print.  

That is tough. I have been in a similar situation. No one should have to go through it.

[Hugo9000]

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I was not going to respond to all these speculations about the the recent sale and MQA but this one is easy.  The writers were informed about this sale only hours before it was announced in public.  It is illogical to think that it could have influenced statements already in print.  

Choosing that recent "As We See It" was an editorial decision, you commented that the writers were informed only hours before the public announcement.  

 

As far as illogical thinking goes, there is nothing in my brief post to suggest the possibility of influence on things that have already occurred.  lol

 

The only shift was in choosing that last piece, and publishing the accompanying letters, as far as I'm aware.  No writers at S-phile have changed positions on MQA, have they?

 

I would say that It's illogical to think that the EDITOR of a publication would find out with no notice.  Unless he is not respected at all by any of the responsible parties to the sale.

[Kal Rubinson]

34 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Choosing that recent "As We See It" was an editorial decision, you commented that the writers were informed only hours before the public announcement.  

Sheesh!  AWSI was written by Jon Iverson and, while I do not know with certainty that he was completely unaware of the impending sale, the editor's decision to publish it is not germane since he has always encouraged individual and, even, controversial contributions.

38 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

The only shift was in choosing that last piece, and publishing the accompanying letters, as far as I'm aware.  No writers at S-phile have changed positions on MQA, have they?

Yes, I have.

39 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

I would say that It's illogical to think that the EDITOR of a publication would find out with no notice. 

It is possible.  Stereophile has been sold by one publisher to another several times over the decades and I suspect that some have been without prior editorial notice. 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, Hugo9000 said:

Choosing that recent "As We See It" was an editorial decision, you commented that the writers were informed only hours before the public announcement.  

 

As far as illogical thinking goes, there is nothing in my brief post to suggest the possibility of influence on things that have already occurred.  lol

 

The only shift was in choosing that last piece, and publishing the accompanying letters, as far as I'm aware.  No writers at S-phile have changed positions on MQA, have they?

 

I would say that It's illogical to think that the EDITOR of a publication would find out with no notice.  Unless he is not respected at all by any of the responsible parties to the sale.

Agree. It would be impossible to believe the editor did not have  a good amount of advance notice...

[Hugo9000]

37 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Sheesh!  AWSI was written by Jon Iverson and, while I do not know with certainty that he was completely unaware of the impending sale, the editor's decision to publish it is not germane since he has always encouraged individual and, even, controversial contributions.

Yes, I have.

It is possible.  Stereophile has been sold by one publisher to another several times over the decades and I suspect that some have been without prior editorial notice. 

 

I wasn't suggesting anything nefarious.  I don't necesarily agree with JA on much (other than his positive comments through the years about some KEF loudspeakers haha!--my favorite speaker company along with the defunct Apogee), but I don't have any reason to question his professional integrity.  I don't think that suggesting that an editor might broaden an issue by publishing a divergent opinion, either because it will serve the readers of that publication, or to serve a publisher's or prospective new publisher's wish for a broader viewpoint, is any sort of indictment of the editor.  Isn't that part of an editor's job?  Now, if JA himself had penned an editorial that was a sudden and unexplained about-face, that might be a bit different, but that's not what has happened.  He published a "guest" editorial with a different viewpoint. 

 

 

Edited to add:  In that first post that you replied to, I should have said "possibly," instead of "probably," however, as it's certainly possible that the timing is merely coincidental.  Or, if there was any sort of "cause and effect," it could have been the reverse:  that the new buyer chose to make the purchase partly because of the recent broadening of coverage on a contentious topic.

 

Also to add:  I was under the impression that you personally had never cared for MQA, so I wasn't aware that you had changed your views on it.  You certainly have never beat the drum for MQA, unless I'm very much mistaken!

[Kal Rubinson]

Understood.  

21 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Also to add:  I was under the impression that you personally had never cared for MQA, so I wasn't aware that you had changed your views on it.  You certainly have never beat the drum for MQA, unless I'm very much mistaken!

I must admit that I was (1) intrigued and interested in MQA from the initial (controlled) demonstrations and (2) later fascinated by my first home demonstrations in multichannel but (3), finally disturbed by its compromises and my evolving realization of its negative impact on future program availability.

[firedog]

27 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Agree. It would be impossible to believe the editor did not have  a good amount of advance notice...

Don't agree. Similar things have happened in other company takeovers.

[beetlemania]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

Don't agree. Similar things have happened in other company takeovers.

 

Right. It would be as simple as TEN not telling JA anything. Seems the opposite of impossible.

[kumakuma]

46 minutes ago, firedog said:

Don't agree. Similar things have happened in other company takeovers.

 

30 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Right. It would be as simple as TEN not telling JA anything. Seems the opposite of impossible.

 

I've been involved in several of these transactions over the years and the rule of thumb is to limit the folks involved to those who need to know to make the deal happen. I can't imagine JA being on that list. 

[Brinkman Ship]

When and if the Editor knew about the deal is takes a back seat to the fact he must have known TEN was not thrilled with the performance of these properties.  My theory is the MQA play was a desperate strategy to improve the outcome of what ever TEN decided.

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

theory

 

perhaps you meant "wild-ass guess"?  

[skikirkwood]

This is kind of funny.  The press release on Audiostream for the acquisition has two links - neither of which work.  Wonder if this was broken intentionally or this represents the technical competence of the parties involved.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

perhaps you meant "wild-ass guess"?  

 

TEN was not thrilled with audio and camera group. John Atkinson mentioned he was temporarily fired on Audio Asylum. His view of journalism is inconsistent with TEN and Discovery views. And Brinks may not be right about this current stream of MQA articles in Stereophile being an attempt to improve the outcome of TEN shedding them. But creating controversy helps get views so his theory is not that far fetched if John knew about TEN shedding them. 

 

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

His view of journalism is inconsistent with TEN and Discovery views

 

What is this view?

 

Please excuse me, but I'm more inclined to see Brink's post as part of  habitual suspicion and exaggeration. And I also understand that you have your own intentions in this narrative that can't help but color your lens.

 

Btw, I'm hoping that the time is ripe for you to offer substantial post on availability cascade, information asymmetry and S curve of innovation, and how these apply to MQA. Please don't underestimate your audience here. This would, imo, be much more engaging and potentially elucidating than this shadowing of every potential crumb on the trail.