Kal Rubinson Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 2 hours ago, mansr said: Again, you're missing the point, which is that MQA gives writers something new to write about and get paid for. Like the current measles outbreak? There is really no shortage of topics to write about. Ishmael Slapowitz 1 Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted June 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said: Like the current measles outbreak? There is really no shortage of topics to write about. I agree. Stereophile's coverage of this issue has been quite spotty. crenca, MikeyFresh, Shadders and 3 others 1 5 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Paul R Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 46 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said: Like the current measles outbreak? There is really no shortage of topics to write about. Might as well give up Kal - MQA has entered the same non-rational realm as religion, anti-vaxxers, American Politics, Brexit, and climate change. Or perhaps more like Amway... askat1988, Ishmael Slapowitz, tmtomh and 1 other 1 1 2 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 3 hours ago, mansr said: Again, you're missing the point, which is that MQA gives writers something new to write about and get paid for. I disagree with you. There is always something "new" to write about with the endless product churn, non stop hifi shows, price escalation, and heaven help us, cables. No, MQA does not fall into the paradigm you describe..there was special attention and interest paid to it. Clearly Atkinson and his cabal thought it was their gift from the gods that would help create a frenzy, and more ad revenue would follow. Shadders 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Sal1950 Posted June 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 13 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said: Almost none the reviewers, including the current target, are employees. Try a rifle, not a shotgun. Kal, My comments were in no way intended as a shot at you or any of the other writers. I'm sorry you felt like a target, I never personally mentioned you. I do take pains to avoid letting my personal feelings toward your employer spill into a attack on you here and at the other sites we share. Don't take it personally. 1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: Clearly Atkinson and his cabal thought it was their gift from the gods that would help create a frenzy, and more ad revenue would follow. Exactly! 5 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said: He is paid the same regardless of what he says about MQA and that applies to other writers who have not been supportive of it. Not the point at all. In the big picture if addition of MQA sells a bunch of new DAC's or other gear capable of decoding it. the manufacturer is making a bunch of money selling the new components. You can extend that on to the rest of the profit paths I mentioned in my post. These manufacturers then have a bunch of new money to spend on the promotion of these new products. It all goes into the kitty from which your paycheck is cut. If these people don't have advertising money, in the end you don't have a job. That's just the facts of it. But all a bit beside the point really. I and a number of others here feel that MQA is simply another con hosted on the public to make profits from a product without value. IMO if Stereophile was interested in taking a pro-consumer position on MQA their editorial position would be strongly anti-MQA.. I can't state off my head which writers at Stereophile "have not been supportive of it" but I can't think of more than one or two. JA and JA, the past and current editors have been very pro-MQA so that sets the tone for the entire publication. There have been thousands of words written in support such as Jim Austin's multi issue articles on the goodness's of MQA. I won't go on, nothing more to be gained here. I just hope to remain on good terms with you. I highly value and respect the work you do on multich gear. I do hope now the Atkinson has more time you might be able to talk him into doing his measurements on the components you review. There is a great void out there for that kind of coverage. Cent' Anni Sal Kal Rubinson, crenca, John Dyson and 2 others 4 1 "The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?" Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
mansr Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 9 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said: Like the current measles outbreak? There is really no shortage of topics to write about. Unless I misremember, you have written at least one article about MQA. Sure, you could have written about something else. But you didn't. Please don't take this the wrong way. I am not criticising you personally. Indeed, I consider you one of the more sensible audio writers. Case in point, in your MQA coverage, you took the time to form your own opinion rather than simply regurgitating ad copy like so many others. It is those others the criticism here is aimed at, not you. Link to comment
Popular Post Kal Rubinson Posted June 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 3 hours ago, mansr said: Unless I misremember, you have written at least one article about MQA. Sure, you could have written about something else. But you didn't. I had a bagel for breakfast this morning. Sure, I could have had a croissant but I didn't. Is there an underlying meaning here? I understand the desire to find a "smoking gun" that will link writings about MQA to an ill motive but I cannot see any such link. There are many people who hold opinions I find baffling and/or infuriating but who hold them without any corrupt relationship. John_Atkinson, christopher3393, tmtomh and 3 others 4 1 1 Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
mansr Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 30 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said: I had a bagel for breakfast this morning. Sure, I could have had a croissant but I didn't. Is there an underlying meaning here? I understand the desire to find a "smoking gun" that will link writings about MQA to an ill motive but I cannot see any such link. There are many people who hold opinions I find baffling and/or infuriating but who hold them without any corrupt relationship. For those in the audio press (NOT YOU) who are willing to uncritically parrot marketing material, MQA has effectively been free money. Of course they (AGAIN, NOT YOU) are going to love it. When people criticise the audio press as a whole, it is generally with the understanding that some individual writers are not personally guilty. If you feel the need to take personally any and all criticism of general trends in the press, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you. troubleahead 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Kal Rubinson Posted June 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 2 hours ago, mansr said: When people criticise the audio press as a whole, it is generally with the understanding that some individual writers are not personally guilty. If you feel the need to take personally any and all criticism of general trends in the press, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you. I am not defending the audio press as a whole. I am not defending what my Stereophile colleagues are writing. I am defending their right to say it. I do not accept the accusations of bias due to financial considerations based, as they are, on tenuous inferences. I think that says it all and I will try to stay out of this issue going forward. daverich4, christopher3393, sandyk and 4 others 5 1 1 Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 On 6/2/2019 at 6:10 AM, Kal Rubinson said: Almost none the reviewers, including the current target, are employees. Try a rifle, not a shotgun. I use a blue laser pointer. You just go after peoples opinions that way. troubleahead 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted June 3, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 16 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said: Like the current measles outbreak? There is really no shortage of topics to write about. And in your case I hope one of the topics is the Okto Research DAC8 and its eight channels. esldude and Ralf11 2 Link to comment
Sonicularity Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said: I am not defending the audio press as a whole. I am not defending what my Stereophile colleagues are writing. I am defending their right to say it. I do not accept the accusations of bias due to financial considerations based, as they are, on tenuous inferences. I think that says it all and I will try to stay out of this issue going forward. There certainly appears to be a bias. This bias would seem irrational without any type of reason behind it. Even if the perspective were solely opinion, it would seem likely that there would be some justification to improve the business, which would indirectly mean that the bias in the articles is partly about financial gains. crenca 1 Link to comment
Thuaveta Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 23 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said: I do not accept the accusations of bias due to financial considerations based, as they are, on tenuous inferences. There probably simply isn't enough money in reviewing products for magazines to buy the writers, no matter how low their moral standards. Access / buddy politics with "famous" HiFi types (that no one cares about or has heard of outside the microcosm), "rebates" on super expensive gear, OTOH... crenca 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted June 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 29 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said: I am not defending the audio press as a whole. I am not defending what my Stereophile colleagues are writing. I am defending their right to say it. I am not questioning their rights, only their motivations. John Dyson, crenca and Thuaveta 3 Link to comment
Thuaveta Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Just now, mansr said: I am not questioning their rights, only their motivations. I'll buy pay-to-play for the editors (Fanfare Magazine, whom @ARQuint proudly works for is an example of that), but it doesn't necessarily trickle down. Totally agree that MQA absolutely isn't a 1st amendement issue: to me, it's more a bunch of losers wanting belly-rubs from some non-entity than anything else. crenca 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted June 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said: I am not defending the audio press as a whole. I am not defending what my Stereophile colleagues are writing. I am defending their right to say it. I do not accept the accusations of bias due to financial considerations based, as they are, on tenuous inferences. I think that says it all and I will try to stay out of this issue going forward. Hi, If you examine this thread, then those proponents of MQA never answered those questions whose answer would prove MQA is a scam. Due to this, people will draw conclusions as to why. Regards, Shadders. troubleahead, MikeyFresh and crenca 2 1 Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 18 hours ago, Paul R said: Might as well give up Kal - MQA has entered the same non-rational realm as religion, anti-vaxxers, American Politics, Brexit, and climate change. Or perhaps more like Amway... Maybe a lot like Amway. Consider Amway a streaming company and their competitors like Avon and Mary Kay other streaming companies. Paul R 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 I'd like to hear more about that bagel. (I'm on the W. Coast where people often get bagels from Dough-ah's...) sandyk 1 Link to comment
Kal Rubinson Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said: And in your case I hope one of the topics is the Okto Research DAC8 and its eight channels. Me, too. I have been promised one. Hugo9000 1 Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: I'd like to hear more about that bagel. (I'm on the W. Coast where people often get bagels from Dough-ah's...) Bubie, nothing beats an everything bagel with a shmear, and of course, grav lox. Oh my.😍 sandyk 1 Link to comment
Kal Rubinson Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: I'd like to hear more about that bagel. Pumpernickel from H&H this morning. Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said: Pumpernickel from H&H this morning. Oh man....I need a bib.... Link to comment
Kal Rubinson Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 4 hours ago, Thuaveta said: I'll buy pay-to-play for the editors (Fanfare Magazine, whom @ARQuint proudly works for is an example of that), but it doesn't necessarily trickle down. AFAIK, he has not worked for Fanfare in quite a while. Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Popular Post Thuaveta Posted June 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 3, 2019 23 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said: AFAIK, he has not worked for Fanfare in quite a while. The reporting on Fanfare's practices are about a decade old by now, and he lists both Fanfare and TAS as current gigs on LinkedIn... I kinda find the full-on bribery of individual writers that's being theorised here a hard sale, in part because (please correct me if I'm wrong), I'd be surprised if, at this point, anyone but the editors was actually making a living from working for the HiFi publications, let alone a living where they'd be able to afford anything like the gear they review. Access, chuminness, incompetent or yellow editors, a way to make a hobby cheaper through long-term-loans-or-rebates, permeability between being in sales for company x and writing for magazine y (which happened at Stereophile not that long ago), all of which aren't exactly known to conform to the kinds of ethical norms one would expect of people not in the job of cheerleading an industry, sure, and these all, especially in combination, explain the MQA debacle better than cash for exposure would. Currawong, crenca and MikeyFresh 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Currawong Posted June 4, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 4, 2019 What Thuaveta said. I look at it as more "I want to believe" with MQA instead of the UFO. If a person has any genuine intellect, they would, upon learning the truth of something, re-evaluate what they have previously learned or believed, and express themselves based upon that from then on. What we have instead, with some people, is not just people who don't want to accept the truth (in this case about MQA), but actually make fanatical efforts to argue against it. More usefully, reviewers could learn more about digital audio, as I have from reading the MQA threads, and expand their knowledge, making them better and more useful in their job, and improving the quality of the magazines or sites they write for. Ralf11, Thuaveta, mansr and 4 others 6 1 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