MQA is Vaporware

[esldude]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

And in your case I hope one of the topics is the Okto Research DAC8 and its eight channels. 

It sure turned in some really good measurements. 

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-okto-dac8-8ch-dac-amp.7064/

[John_Atkinson]

14 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

permeability between being in sales for company x and writing for magazine y (which happened at Stereophile not that long ago)...

 

Who are  you talking about? Yes, Bill Leebens of PS Audio contributed an "As We See It" essay in May 2018 - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/smart-devices-stupid-people

- but that was not a review, which is the context for this discussion.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[tmtomh]

On 6/2/2019 at 9:08 PM, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

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.

 

I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed that people still are banging on with talk of cabals and claims of narrowly instrumental coverage motivated by ad sales. This is just silly IMHO - and I don't understand how folks don't see (or care) that this kind of talk just drives the conversation into the same old dead end over and over and over again.

 

Yes, the audiophile press has a fundamental problem in that most audiophile publications operate as an ill-defined hybrid of trade publication and consumer/hobbyist/prosumer publication. Because they don't always make the boundaries clear, they are liable to the critique that they blur the line between independent assessment on the one hand, and manufacturer cheerleading and press-release stenography on the other.

 

@John_Atkinson's "Measurements" page of Stereophile reviews is a good example of content in the audiophile press that does not fall into this trap: it clearly is an independent analysis with virtually no editorializing. At the other end of the spectrum, magazines' show roundups and upcoming-product previews and announcements clearly are trade-publication boosterism, which also is totally fine since it's clearly and transparently presented as such.

 

It's in the qualitative equipment reviews and the allegedly "in-depth" looks at new tech where the audiophile press gets into trouble, often regurgitating questionable scientific claims and dressing up evidence-free marketing-speak as if it were true (or at least, as if there were evidence to back it up). Too often these articles are written in a way that makes them sound like they're saying, "here is an explanation of how this new product's design features improve the sound" - when in fact all they're really saying is, "here is an explanation of how the company claims the product's design features improve the sound."

 

This is a major problem, because you don't have to look hard to find clear evidence that some significant fraction of audiophile spending is spurred by these authoritative-sounding but baseless technical explanations, and the listening impressions that come right after them in the articles.

 

But by the same token, those of us who are critical of this must be more discriminating than the publications we are criticizing. So just because someone writes about MQA does not make them part of a cabal or a hype machine. MQA is something new - we might hate it, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. There has never been a lossy, high-res audio compression algorithm used to create standalone digital audio content before. (Yes, HDCD was similar, but that was in the age of physical media. And yes, non-HD DTS can be both lossy and high-res - but it's an AV audio codec, not the basis for standalone music releases). So of course the audiophile press has to cover it. If they cover it poorly - as most of them have - then by all means go at them with both barrels, as many of us here have done and continue to do. But suggesting that they didn't need to cover it at all and should have ignored it - that's an unfair criticism IMHO - and more importantly, it's a pointless criticism because we can see over and over and over again in this thread what kind of discussion that criticism creates.

 

[John_Atkinson]

37 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

@John_Atkinson's "Measurements" page of Stereophile reviews is a good example of content in the audiophile press that does not fall into this trap: it clearly is an independent analysis with virtually no editorializing. At the other end of the spectrum, magazines' show roundups and upcoming-product previews and announcements clearly are trade-publication boosterism, which also is totally fine since it's clearly and transparently presented as such.

 

 I wrote about the difference between "accountability journalism" - your first category - and "access journalism" - your second category - in May 2015: https://www.stereophile.com/content/access-journalism-vs-accountability-journalism

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[STC]

Their listening tests were, in my opinion, incompetently designed, using naïve listeners, and the results didn't support the conclusions drawn.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/access-journalism-vs-accountability-journalism#KyAxZzwT65lKdH38.99

 

In short, when you don’t agree you are naive  listener. 

[Thuaveta]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Who are  you talking about? Yes, Bill Leebens of PS Audio contributed an "As We See It" essay in May 2018 - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/smart-devices-stupid-people

- but that was not a review, which is the context for this discussion.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

There you go - would you happen to know who wrote this on their Facebook page, @John_Atkinson ? Or should I just have framed things differently, and talked about "writing for magazine y and working for company z" ?

 

"Yesterday was Stephen Mejias's last day as Stereophile's Assistant Editor. Stephen, shown in the photo helping me wrangle speakers in March 2001, joined the magazine in August 2000 and grew into one of Stereophile's most popular writers. His final "Entry Level" column will be in our June issue. Stephen has joined cable manufacturer AudioQuest but remains part of the extended Stereophile family."

[John_Atkinson]

Just now, Thuaveta said:

There you go - would you happen to know who wrote this on their Facebook page, @John_Atkinson ?

 

"Yesterday was Stephen Mejias's last day as Stereophile's Assistant Editor. Stephen, shown in the photo helping me wrangle speakers in March 2001, joined the magazine in August 2000 and grew into one of Stereophile's most popular writers. His final "Entry Level" column will be in our June issue. Stephen has joined cable manufacturer AudioQuest but remains part of the extended Stereophile family."

 

Yes, but Stephen didn't work for AudioQuest until after he left Stereophile. He has not written about audio products for Stereophile since then, though he has contributed the occasional record review. There is thus no connection between his prior activities as an audio reviewer and the subsequent needs of an audio manufacturer, which is what can be inferred from this subthread.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

[Thuaveta]

5 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

He has not written about audio products for Stereophile since then

 

Should I infer the NAD D 3020 is not an audio product ?

 

5 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

There is thus no connection between his prior activities as an audio reviewer and the subsequent needs of an audio manufacturer, which is what can be inferred from this subthread.

 

As everyone who knows anything about advertising, being director of communications for a company has nothing at all to do with writing.

 

As for what can be inferred from what I'm saying, maybe you should blame the idiot who referred to the director of communication for a company whose products a magazine covers as being part of said magazine's "extended family" for the misunderstanding... then again, you're probably too busy lecturing about journalism ethics for that.

 

[John_Atkinson]

12 minutes ago, STC said:

 

In short, when you don’t agree you are naive  listener. 

 

If you read the articles describing the listening tests I criticize, you will see that they didn't use trained listeners. As Michael Lavorgna wrote, "people who aren't all that interested in the sound quality of the music they listen to are not all that interested in the sound quality of the music they listen to."

 

Anyone who has organized such listening tests knows that listener training is essential if the results are not to be randomized. See the writings on the subject of Sean Olive and Floyd Toole.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

Just now, Thuaveta said:

4 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

He has not written about audio products for Stereophile since then

 

Should I infer the NAD D 3020 is not an audio product ?

 

That review was written and prepared for print before he left Stereophile, as a look at the publication date and the knowledge that print magazine's work 2 months in advance of the publication date will reveal.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[Thuaveta]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

That review was written and prepared for print before he left Stereophile, as a look at the publication date and the knowledge that print magazine's work 2 months in advance of the publication date will reveal.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

You mean the two months between March 2014 and April 2015, @John_Atkinson ?

[STC]

17 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

See the writings on the subject of Sean Olive and Floyd Toole.

 

Pono wasn’t made for trained listeners. And Olive & Toole confirmed that there wasn’t a difference for general preference between trained and casual listeners. If casual listeners, like most us, judged one to be better than the other, then it doesn’t matter whether they are naive or trained listeners. 

 

Maybe, the naive listeners were right. Pono closed shop in 2017. 

[Thuaveta]

34 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

You mean the two months between March 2014 and April 2015, @John_Atkinson ?

 

Mea maxima culpa: the April 2015 and December 2013 reviews are identical.

 

The rest of the points - first and foremost that when you call an industry flak a member of your magazine's family, you have no place lecturing on ethics, and that there's a degree of permeability between the roles that is problematic (to atone, and lay off Stereophile a bit and snipe one at the competition, Srajan Ebaen's pre-6moons overlap between Soliloquy and Soundstage! comes to mind here) within the industry.

[shadowlight]

Most likely off topic question -

 

Do the reviewers get option to purchase the reviewed equipment at discounted rate?  If yes, in my opinion they are getting paid by the manufactures.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

But by the same token, those of us who are critical of this must be more discriminating than the publications we are criticizing. So just because someone writes about MQA does not make them part of a cabal or a hype machine. MQA is something new - we might hate it, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. There has never been a lossy, high-res audio compression algorithm used to create standalone digital audio content before. (Yes, HDCD was similar, but that was in the age of physical media. And yes, non-HD DTS can be both lossy and high-res - but it's an AV audio codec, not the basis for standalone music releases). So of course the audiophile press has to cover it. If they cover it poorly - as most of them have - then by all means go at them with both barrels, as many of us here have done and continue to do. But suggesting that they didn't need to cover it at all and should have ignored it - that's an unfair criticism IMHO - and more importantly, it's a pointless criticism because we can see over and over and over again in this thread what kind of discussion that criticism creates.

 

Audiophilia is a sub-category of consumerism.  I occasionally read some of the music sub-forum over at Hoffman and never cease to be shocked by how utterly emotionally devoted some people are to their musical idols.  To the point where any kind of self-awareness or objectivity is completely suppressed.  The people more focused on gear than music also have their objective weaknesses.

 

Manufacturers manufacture gear to generate profit.  Audiophile publications have become mostly (not completely in some cases) a mere conveyance for manufacturer's marketing material.  Music reviews always give an audiophile publication some credibility.  Objective testing of performance as well.  But as much as I think MQA is A) primarily designed to make Bob Stuart rich and B) a solution in search of a problem to solve, it's naive to the point of childishness to suggest that audiophile publications should show their dedication to "truth" by ignoring MQA.  Anyone who believes that is rationalizing their own consumerism as something more sanctimonious.

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Mea maxima culpa: the April 2015 and December 2013 reviews are identical.

 

Thank you for checking. Stephen's review of the NAD D3020 was first published in our November 2013 issue and was written 6 months before he resigned. The later date refers to the republication of the review on our website, which included the measurements that I performed after Stephen was no longer with the magazine.

 

1 hour ago, Thuaveta said:

 

When you call an industry flak a member of your magazine's family, you have no place lecturing on ethics, and that there's a degree of permeability between the roles that is problematic . . .

 

The permeability applies one way only. While an editor cannot prevent writers who left from working for whomever they wish, he certainly can prevent them from working for audio manufacturers etc while they are contributing to the magazine. I have done so.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[firedog]

JA was correct about that article about the Pono and hi-res. Basically, he took people who listened to mp3 on earbuds and asked them which sound they preferred. They preferred what they were used to or couldn't hear a difference. 

People can hear what they've trained themselves to hear. Many of these same people SAY they can't tell tell the difference between an mp3 and a CD - until you point out the differences to them a few times - and then they somehow can hear the difference. It's not what's in the source file, it's in how you've trained your brain to interpret what arrives to it - to discern smallish differences or not. 

 

That said, NY shot himself in the foot by exaggerating the difference between the sound of his hi-res files and other files, even mp3. The difference isn't always night and day - in many cases it is pretty small, especially for some types of music recorded at higher mp3 rates. 

[Sonicularity]

We're gonna need a bigger DAC!  🛶

                                                            🦈 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

We're gonna need a bigger DAC!  🛶

                                                            🦈 

 

Comment of the month!

 

😂

[Rt66indierock]

12 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

We're gonna need a bigger DAC!  🛶

                                                            🦈 

 

 

Love it thanks.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

The permeability applies one way only. While an editor cannot prevent writers who left from working for whomever they wish, he certainly can prevent them from working for audio manufacturers etc while they are contributing to the magazine. I have done so.

 

As long as the 'writer', who works for an audio manufacturer, does not review any products related to his employer, his employer's competitors, and his employer's business partners, what does it matter if he/she contributes to the magazine?

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

People can hear what they've trained themselves to hear. Many of these same people SAY they can't tell tell the difference between an mp3 and a CD - until you point out the differences to them a few times - and then they somehow can hear the difference.

 

How significant can the 'difference' be if special training is required to hear it?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

How significant can the 'difference' be if special training is required to hear it?

One person's significant is another's insignificant.

[Rt66indierock]

9 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

How significant can the 'difference' be if special training is required to hear it?

 

Don't forget the usual fallback you don't have a highly resolving system to hear the difference.

[christopher3393]

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One person's significant is another's insignificant.

 

Is that:

a) an objective statement

b) a subjective statement

c) a radically subjective statement

d)  both an objective and a subjective statement

e) neither an objective nor a subjective statement

 

⏰