Ishmael Slapowitz Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jud said: My point about "Really? Photos?" is that I'm much less concerned about appearance than about reviewers having some minimal amount of technical chops, or the writing undergoing a technical review before publication. There's a dearth, at least in what I've seen on newsstands, of any discussion of MQA at the technical level on occasion seen in this forum, and that's a pity. And that's of course what I (agreeing with @John Dyson and others) think is where this thread and others do their best work, when we're given technical info lacking in the magazines. Sniping I can find anywhere; I'm here to learn. Agree completely. Debating about gear and room photos is too much of a tangent.😎 Link to comment
Hugo9000 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 @ARQuint Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I see some of the covers online, and occasionally I spot one in the magazine rack at a bookstore. Way back, didn't TAS have non-audio-related photos taken by HP on the back or inside-back cover as well? It's been a while, so I may be wrong. Front cover photos are generally original with most of the magazines, although I think a few of the odd ones used to do a collage of stock photos of gear that was featured. I'm thinking of a magazine with 'choice' or 'plus' or something like that in the title? Not one I subscribed to, so I can't recall after all these years. I did enjoy my subscriptions to your magazine and Stereophile back in my Navy days, when out to sea with no access to a decent system, so the magazines were good fantasy material haha! I'm glad that you see the value in adding original photos and make that effort for the readers who care about such things. Jud 1 请教别人一次是5分钟的傻子,从不请教别人是一辈子的傻子 Link to comment
Jud Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Hugo9000 said: Way back, didn't TAS have non-audio-related photos taken by HP on the back or inside-back cover as well? I "liked" your post (and liked your memories of looking at photos when far away from audio), but couldn't resist excerpting this, because I have a feeling the reason for those back cover photos was to be able to claim his Leica as a business expense for tax purposes. 😄 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
sandyk Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 hour ago, John Dyson said: Ask sandyk how well I passed his evil test :-). It was tricky, but apparently I did pretty well. (The difference was something like what I deal with on the DA decoder, so I just happened to be tuned to the sort of difference that was in the test.) John Thanks for chiming in , but I wouldn't have named you. Admin's jibe was uncalled for . Kind Regards Alex Ralf11 and Ishmael Slapowitz 2 How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 You'd think a professional magazine would use a Hasselblad at least, instead of a miniature format... Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted April 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2019 2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: Stereophile writers have to satisfy me that their finding are repeatable and transportable: See my "As We See It" in the forthcoming May issue of Stereophile. And regarding your more general point, see Martin Colloms' text that I quoted at https://www.stereophile.com/content/book-review-high-performance-loudspeakers-seventh-edition "There is no examination or qualification for audio critics. The bar frequently is set by the editors of audio magazines who may be still less qualified for this task than the intending critic. Regarding web publications, it is perhaps unfortunate that almost anyone can set themselves up as an expert reviewer, this including the audio field." John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile LOL. So the litmus test is "satisfying" you... No surprise I guess. As for web publications, clearly as we've seen by many contributors to this site and elsewhere, the fund of knowledge and experience, while variable doesn't seem any worse than what's on offer with most print magazines. if anything, much of the time, contributors appear much more thorough in their evaluation IMO. What is "unfortunate" as per Collom's quote is actually NOT that web publications are more open, hence standardization more difficult. But that the "official", "professional" mainstream press with wider reach, influence, and one would hope higher journalistic standards itself doesn't have clear accreditation demands! And this shows as we talk about MQA... Les Habitants, Currawong, Shadders and 1 other 1 1 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
beetlemania Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 @Rt66indierock Good comment at Stereophile regarding the Pro-Ject review. You would think that a comment about MQA sounding louder would set off alarm bells. I can’t say I’m impressed with any of the newer writers, and JA should have caught that one. I suspect the slide will accelerate under Jim Austin. I intend to watch that unfold as a former subscriber. MikeyFresh 1 Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > Ayre AX-5 Twenty > Thiel CS2.4SE (crossovers rebuilt with Clarity CSA and Multicap RTX caps, Mills MRA-12 resistors; ERSE and Jantzen coils; Cardas binding posts and hookup wire); Cardas and OEM power cables, interconnects, and speaker cables Link to comment
shtf Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Archimago said: 🤣 Somewhat off topic from MQA of course, but important to discuss. "Listening skills" is a tough one to determine isn't it? And yet for purely subjective reviewers the idea that one possesses "Golden Ears" is the basis of presumably why one's opinion has value... As far as I am aware, there is no formal "Minimum Audio Reviewer Test" (MART?) for listening acuity. At least back in 2014, Philips had their Golden Ears Challenge which I did attain the "Golden Ears" level: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/02/musings-golden-earism-philips-golden.html @John_Atkinson , is there some level of minimum listening/hearing competence that must be achieved to be an audio reviewer for Stereophile? Or say regular hearing test results at the very least submitted as "accreditation"? The truth is that one could have been a jack hammer operator for years, can hear up to 5kHz at best, have severe inter-aural imbalance and still talk about the "air around instruments", "natural tonality of the singer", how "fast and jitter-free", and the greatness of the "soundstage" while showing beautiful pictures of the US$15,000 dCS Bartok. At least that's one thought that runs through my mind when I see pictures of aging audiophile reviewers... You're right, Archimago. Listening skills are important to discuss. And yet, for the last few decades it's the one thing most taken for granted in this audio-only industry. In fact, I've little doubt it's the number 1 reason why not a single industry controversy can ever be put to rest because everybody is all over the map. Hence, whenever a new thread pops up comparing formats or analog vs digital or tube vs SS, etc it's just deja vu all over again without a consensus ever being reached. 1. It seems these days many/most believe that listening skills are inherited at birth rather than a skill that develops over time. But that would be like saying we're all born to be connoisseurs of fine art because most of us were born to see and we've all visited an art gallery or two. I don't get out much these days but even when I did, I can only think of a handful of professionals and enthusiastics who possesed well-enough trained ears. 2. That said, and to be consistant, most likely any Golden Ears type of event would follow suit as IMO it has a far greater probability of the blind leading the blind rather than led or oganized by those who really possess some reasonable level of listening skills. The odds just don't support another conclusion. 3. IMO, reaching out to Stereophile to discuss listening skills and litmus tests is not unike reaching out to Al Capone about tax laws. 4. I can tell you what Atkinson's litmus is as he already answered this for us in another forum when pressed several years ago. He assured us that all of Stereophile's reviewing staff were trained listeners because every last one of them either sang in a choir or played a musical instrument at some point in their lives. Some of us couldn't help but snicker (Charles Hansen was there too) as that made it quite clear to some of us that Atkinson didn't have a clue what it takes to develop listening skills. 5. Yes, one's hearing can be impaired but still be able to discern / interpret what they hear. But again, it's a developed skill. Anyway, I made the statement earlier that your technical expertise seemed invaluable but that you were not necessarily known for your keen listening skills or at least I was not aware that you are known for that. So I'll just ask you point blank. What are your thoughts on component performance differences before and after full burn-in? And can you provide an example or two? crenca 1 The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait. It's all just variations of managing electrical energy. -Me Link to comment
MikeyFresh Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 26 minutes ago, beetlemania said: I suspect the slide will accelerate under Jim Austin. I intend to watch that unfold as a former subscriber. I would hope (but not necessarily expect) the opposite, this is a chance at a clean slate of sorts, perhaps Paul Miller recognizes that despite JA's claims of more business as usual. Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post fung0 Posted April 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2019 On 3/29/2019 at 2:19 AM, The Computer Audiophile said: The writers are too too distributed and independent to be herded into a product placement campaign. Most are contractors writing for many other outlets (not a bad thing). Just think of the juicy article that could be published if emails demanding such a campaign could be produced on AudiophileLeaks.com. If they existed, they’d be leaked. People can’t keep secrets and privacy is dead. On this rare occasion, I must disagree. Perhaps you've never worked as a freelance writer? Or maybe it's been too long?. Personally, I'm always painfully aware of the 'editorial stance' of publications I work for. Being a pig-headed cuss, I often try to push that boundary. But I know from experience that if I push it too hard, I increase the likelihood of my next story pitch being rejected, and my emails going unanswered. You say writers are "distributed and independent," which is obviously true. But it is also demonstrably true that writers who are outspoken in their dislike of MQA are not likely to get a lot of work from the big audiophile publications. There are no emails to leak, just rejection slips. crenca, Les Habitants and Hugo9000 2 1 Link to comment
beetlemania Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said: I would hope (but not necessarily expect) the opposite, this is a chance at a clean slate of sorts, perhaps Paul Miller recognizes that despite JA's claims of more business as usual. I hope I am wrong. Stereophile has been head and shoulders above the other print mags for many years and that’s before considering the measurements. But Jim Austin was a dubious choice, IMO. In the context of this thread, look no further than his MQA series. And his inability to sonically distinguish DACs from different manufacturers, using different toplogies, should be disqualifying for the Editor of Stereophile. Les Habitants 1 Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > Ayre AX-5 Twenty > Thiel CS2.4SE (crossovers rebuilt with Clarity CSA and Multicap RTX caps, Mills MRA-12 resistors; ERSE and Jantzen coils; Cardas binding posts and hookup wire); Cardas and OEM power cables, interconnects, and speaker cables Link to comment
shtf Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, fung0 said: On this rare occasion, I must disagree. Perhaps you've never worked as a freelance writer? Or maybe it's been too long?. Personally, I'm always painfully aware of the 'editorial stance' of publications I work for. Being a pig-headed cuss, I often try to push that boundary. But I know from experience that if I push it too hard, I increase the likelihood of my next story pitch being rejected, and my emails going unanswered. You say writers are "distributed and independent," which is obviously true. But it is also demonstrably true that writers who are outspoken in their dislike of MQA are not likely to get a lot of work from the big audiophile publications. There are no emails to leak, just rejection slips. Absolutely. Conspiracies abound and are everywhere. For example. Operation Mockingbird was started in the 1950's and last time I checked it's stronger than ever consuming every last one of us. The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait. It's all just variations of managing electrical energy. -Me Link to comment
Don Hills Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 17 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: More misstatements. No-one at Stereophile is paid by the word. (... ) Whoosh. I thought I'd made that clear in the sentence after the one you quoted. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted April 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2019 6 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: Regarding web publications, it is perhaps unfortunate that almost anyone can set themselves up as an expert reviewer, this including the audio field." John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Unfortunate for who, the old guard, MQA, etc...? Sure there are always frauds but at least the web frauds don’t charge people to read their publications. Without web publications like this one, MQA would’ve skated by / received a free pass from all the “real” experts who appear in print. Instead, all the no names and pseudonym using hacks have the education and experience and have done all the hard work to expose MQA. Print is no longer the ministers of information. 2 hours ago, fung0 said: On this rare occasion, I must disagree. Perhaps you've never worked as a freelance writer? Or maybe it's been too long?. Personally, I'm always painfully aware of the 'editorial stance' of publications I work for. Being a pig-headed cuss, I often try to push that boundary. But I know from experience that if I push it too hard, I increase the likelihood of my next story pitch being rejected, and my emails going unanswered. You say writers are "distributed and independent," which is obviously true. But it is also demonstrably true that writers who are outspoken in their dislike of MQA are not likely to get a lot of work from the big audiophile publications. There are no emails to leak, just rejection slips. That’s really a bummer to read. I only know how I operate with a team of independent writers. I ask for them to write whatever they want about any subject they want. If one of our writers wishes to publish a pro-MQA piece, I’ll publish it as long as it’s credible. On any side of an issue or product review our writers know the comment section will be wide open. There’s no pulling a fast one on this group of readers and members of this community. crenca, Currawong, MikeyFresh and 5 others 4 2 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Paul R Posted April 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2019 7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Come on archimago, sandyk admits to major hearing damage yet still hears differences between bit perfect MD5 identical rips 😄 I get the humor but come on... Listening Skills and hearing loss/acuity are two very different things. Skills you can learn, and someone with annoying tinnitus can, potentially, extract more information from a listening session than some smart alec 22 year old with ears a bat would be envious of, but no listening skills what so ever. Alex, regardless of whatever else, has really good listening skills. -Paul daverich4 and mav52 1 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Paul R Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: That’s really a bummer to read. I only know how I operate with a team of independent writers. I ask for them to write whatever they want about any subject they want. If one of our writers wishes to publish a pro-MQA piece, I’ll publish it as long as it’s credible. Are you sure you would? The hate and attacks here against anyone who breathes a word complimentary of MQA can be brutal. That isn't a healthy environment. Why stir it up more? Not that the issue is likely to come up soon - there doesn't appear to me much good about MQA for audiophiles. Other populations, yes, but not audiophiles. Saying "I liked this track better in the MQA version " is like opening a key to WWIII- Les Habitants 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Popular Post Currawong Posted April 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2019 7 hours ago, Jud said: I didn't mock, I disagreed. And it was in fact the types of photos you mention that I wouldn't want to see in glossy mags. I think very few of them are good. You might disagree, which is fine. Given how good smart phones are nowadays at taking photos, it isn't actually that hard to get a couple of bright lights, (or just a very bright room light) point them in the general direction of the products and take something half-decent. It just takes practice. 7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: I would offer the observation that this is not the thread to bas reviewers here in general. They should be raked over the coals for their MQA Marketing, but if folks just want to crucify them, it is a bit gratuitous. Just my two shekels. Since I'm currently of the opinion that, whenever I see a reviewer say that they heard more detail from something like a NOS DAC that they are actually hearing more distortion they are mistaking for detail, that the real problem is likely that they really don't know what they are hearing. Their impressions of MQA likely falls under this problem. And in case the above is misunderstood, I have both a NOS DAC and an MQA DAC here and I have been enjoying listening with both. I just don't feel I'm under any illusions about what is causing my enjoyment. I just don't think that anyone else who has the title of "reviewer" anywhere should be either. Hugo9000 and Jud 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post John Dyson Posted April 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2019 4 hours ago, shtf said: You're right, Archimago. Listening skills are important to discuss. And yet, for the last few decades it's the one thing most taken for granted in this audio-only industry. In fact, I've little doubt it's the number 1 reason why not a single industry controversy can ever be put to rest because everybody is all over the map. Hence, whenever a new thread pops up comparing formats or analog vs digital or tube vs SS, etc it's just deja vu all over again without a consensus ever being reached. 1. It seems these days many/most believe that listening skills are inherited at birth rather than a skill that develops over time. But that would be like saying we're all born to be connoisseurs of fine art because most of us were born to see and we've all visited an art gallery or two. I don't get out much these days but even when I did, I can only think of a handful of professionals and enthusiastics who possesed well-enough trained ears. Training is SOOO important. Just as an example -- 3yrs ago, I could barely detect many kinds of distortion, barely detect the sound of compressiion (the AGC style) & expansion, and probably needed much more than 1dB frequency response variation to detect a difference in frequency balance. I wasn't deaf, but close to it :-). Because of raw motivation, I had to learn to listen -- even 1yr ago, I was too insensitive to cr*p in the audio. Does this ability take away some joy in listening? YES. IMO, it is best to be blissfully ignorant, and enjoy the music. Being very picky and knowing the 'bad sound' does'nt create happiness. Think about the garden of Eden... My guess it that even though training is important to actually detect defects, there is an element of natural talent (I used to have REALLY perfect pitch, could name notes from just the sound, but I was never into playing instruments or singing really. The ability to detect pitch was a natural gift.) I lost that after high school -- apparently I had the 'equipment', but fell into disuse Some people MIGHT not have the abliity, but maybe it IS all training. All I know is that training made a huge difference for me. John Currawong, Hugo9000 and Jud 3 Link to comment
mansr Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 11 hours ago, John Dyson said: Ask sandyk how well I passed his evil test :-). It was tricky, but apparently I did pretty well. (The difference was something like what I deal with on the DA decoder, so I just happened to be tuned to the sort of difference that was in the test.) What test are you referring to? Link to comment
John Dyson Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 1 hour ago, mansr said: What test are you referring to? There was a test with a contrived checksum. It was meant to confound. 1 hour ago, mansr said: What test are you referring to? No test -- I was fooled. This is exactly one of the problems with comparisons -- even someone who can hear differences will sometimes hear differences when they do not exist. I admit a screwup!!! :-). John crenca 1 Link to comment
Shadders Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 10 hours ago, Archimago said: LOL. So the litmus test is "satisfying" you... No surprise I guess. As for web publications, clearly as we've seen by many contributors to this site and elsewhere, the fund of knowledge and experience, while variable doesn't seem any worse than what's on offer with most print magazines. if anything, much of the time, contributors appear much more thorough in their evaluation IMO. What is "unfortunate" as per Collom's quote is actually NOT that web publications are more open, hence standardization more difficult. But that the "official", "professional" mainstream press with wider reach, influence, and one would hope higher journalistic standards itself doesn't have clear accreditation demands! And this shows as we talk about MQA... Hi, I find it very funny that given the amount of noise on the output of a class-D amplifier, which is an approximation of analogue signal, that they get fantastic reviews, yet the bona fide audio reviewer somehow, cannot hear it, or the impact of it. Yet, they will review a cable having an affect on the sound, when electrically, the changes caused by the cable are of the order of 0.02dB worst case at high frequencies. When you challenge people who can hear changes with cables, you get the usual, your system is not resolving enough, you did it wrong, you are purposefully not hearing the change, or you system is not costly, or the system has been set up wrong, the cable is not expensive enough etc., etc., etc. Maybe the audio magazine reviewers have some sort of God complex. Maybe this is why they have lauded MQA, as they believe themselves to be "better" than everyone else, and they are there to tell the plebeians what they should hear and the best equipment to hear it on. Going back to the beginning - they laud class-D amplifiers with all that noise and approximation, which they cannot hear. We as consumers should not listen to the views and reviews of the self proclaimed bona fide reviewers, as they clearly are not the golden ears that they proclaim to be. If they cannot hear the rubbish output from a class-D amplifier, they certainly cannot hear the high frequency, high resolution information - and given MQA poor audio engineering, they certainly cannot hear that it is the "new world order". Far from it. Regards, Shadders. [p.s. I do feel a lot better now, i got that off my chest]. Link to comment
mansr Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 17 minutes ago, John Dyson said: There was a test with a contrived checksum. It was meant to confound. Differing files crafted to have an md5 collision, or identical files with headers/padding altered to produce different checksums? Link to comment
John Dyson Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, mansr said: Differing files crafted to have an md5 collision, or identical files with headers/padding altered to produce different checksums? I was wrong -- I was told something and believed it (after thinking that I heard something different -- I fooled myself there, and do it all of the time, must be very careful.) I ran a complete check of the file, and both versions were 150% identical. Mark one up for my own lack of being careful. John Link to comment
mav52 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 11 hours ago, Ralf11 said: You'd think a professional magazine would use a Hasselblad at least, instead of a miniature format... How do you know they are using a miniature format ? you have a link The Truth Is Out There Link to comment
mav52 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 7 hours ago, Paul R said: Are you sure you would? The hate and attacks here against anyone who breathes a word complimentary of MQA can be brutal. That isn't a healthy environment. Why stir it up more? Not that the issue is likely to come up soon - there doesn't appear to me much good about MQA for audiophiles. Other populations, yes, but not audiophiles. Saying "I liked this track better in the MQA version " is like opening a key to WWIII- I would hope free press is still active in the United States., which it is if you view the local news and national stations and papers. There are AS readers who like and there are AS readers who don't like. You can't please all 100% of them all the time, its like that on any product that has ever been released. . The Truth Is Out There Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now