MQA is Vaporware

[Hugo9000]

47 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Oddly enough, when I came to the US from the UK, the INS accepted my qualifications both as a magazine editor and as a journalist and granted me an H1-B work visa: https://workpermit.com/immigration/usa/us-h-1b-visa-specialty-workers

 

Perhaps they were mistaken 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Is your attorney Fred Gailey?  That's similar to the method he used in Miracle on 34th Street to 'prove' to the court that Kris was indeed the real Santa Claus.    

 

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

53 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Oddly enough, when I came to the US from the UK, the INS accepted my qualifications both as a magazine editor and as a journalist and granted me an H1-B work visa: https://workpermit.com/immigration/usa/us-h-1b-visa-specialty-workers

 

Perhaps they were mistaken 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

If you’re a journalist why was it left to me to follow the money and foot steps?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

29 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

but but but....(start your motors), that bolded sentence IS exactly what a trade publication is.  Yes a consumer can benefit from the content of a trade publication in all the ways you detail, but that does not change the fact that JA is a trade promoter (and thus a tool of the trade) and Stereophile is a trade publication.

 

In this context (i.e. MQA) the difference between a trade publication writer and a journalist is the truth.  For the formal, the truth is relevant only if it is convenient.  For the latter, the truth is a core principle.

 

 

I don't disagree with you about journalism...there is little of it..but as far being a "tool" of the industry, it is not so black and white.

[crenca]

What do readers have to do with what Stereophile is?  A:  Readers are the product that Stereophiles sells to its customers  - the industry.  Stereophile does not serve the consumer or the truth (of fill_in_the_blank), rather it serves the promotion of its customers interests.  MQA is exhibit A in this - the truth of MQA (and the impact of this truth upon the consumer) is almost completely irrelevant, and only because of the large blowback has JA himself thrown out a couple of bones of acknowledgement of consumer interest, all the while promoting MQA at full tilt.

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

16 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Is it really! What basis do you have to conclude that Stereophile's readers are mainly people in the trade as opposed to subscribers interested in audio? IMO, you are equating any publication devoted to a particular hobby or industry with a trade publication. The latter's target audience is people directly involved in the trade or industry. I believe it is both inaccurate and unfair to so characterize Stereophile and similar publications.

 

The only way you could have a publication with no industry associations is to publish a magazine without advertising.

Clearly, most of the readers are hobbyists...along with people in the industry, who also may be hobbyists, apart from being in the business. I agree with your points.

[Hugo9000]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

If you’re a journalist why was it left to me to follow the money and foot steps?

Well, to be fair, I don't believe he claimed to be an investigative journalist.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, crenca said:

What do readers have to do with what Stereophile is?  A:  Readers are the product that Stereophiles sells to its customers  - the industry.  Stereophile does not serve the consumer or the truth (of fill_in_the_blank), rather it serves the promotion of its customers interests.  MQA is exhibit A in this - the truth of MQA (and the impact of this truth upon the consumer) is almost completely irrelevant, and only because of the large blowback has JA himself thrown out a couple of bones of acknowledgement of consumer interest, all the while promoting MQA at full tilt.

 

 

Ok, let's pretend MQA never existed..would your opinion be different?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I don't disagree with you about journalism...there is little of it..but as far being a "tool" of the industry, it is not so black and white.

 

Sure, there is always a continuum.  Even in the most rabid gossip mags, there is always a nugget or two of truth.

 

That said, there is nothing that can be stretched to be called  "journalism" in this hobby, and if there is it certainly is not Stereophile, TAS, etc.   No, these two publications are so deep into the industries interests, and so bereft of the tools/methods of real journalism and their readers interests, that they still are promoting MQA!

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Ok, let's pretend MQA never existed..would your opinion be different?

 

MQA only puts a spotlight on the reality

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

If you’re a journalist why was it left to me to follow the money and foot steps?

 

And why was it left to consumer hobbyists to do everything around MQA - the disambiguation of the marketing claims, the reverse engineering of the code, the actual (subjective/objective) testing, etc. etc.  Anything that has to do with the truth of MQA was done by consumers, not the trade publications.

 

Even after all this, the trade publications are still promoting MQA!  Why?  Because that's what they do and that is what they are - they are tools of promotion, not sources of truth...

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

MQA only puts a spotlight on the reality

[Ralf11]

"journalist" has multiple meanings

 

Stereopile is of some value to a consumer, but not much

[Paul R]

31 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

If you’re a journalist why was it left to me to follow the money and foot steps?

 

Possibly because you are simply wrong, in this case at least. The excitement of the hunt can often blind one to obvious differences. 

 

Hunting Sterophile and John Atkinson in particular is a perfect example of a Snark hunt. 

 

 

[Tintinabulum]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Stereopile is of some value to a consumer, but not much

Pretty arrogant comment read in isolation (which is what I did), I subscribe every now and again and hunt through for interesting reviews, comments and good pictures. I'm probably not very significant though...

[Tintinabulum]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

Why? 

Please try not to forget some people like it. Outside your world.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Possibly because you are simply wrong, in this case at least. The excitement of the hunt can often blind one to obvious differences. 

 

Hunting Sterophile and John Atkinson in particular is a perfect example of a Snark hunt. 

 

 

 

Not wrong in this case John didn’t allow financial issues, number of MQA tracks etc to be discussed in Stereophile. There wasn’t much hunting in this case. It took a little time have proof you could hand to skeptic. See Chris C’s challenge to me on number of tracks earlier in this thread as an example.

 

i consider his not reporting of the financial issues to be avoidance journalism. 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

John didn’t allow financial issues, number of MQA tracks etc to be discussed in Stereophile.

 

More fevered imaginings. 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

i consider his not reporting of the financial issues to be avoidance journalism. 

Hi Stephen

 That's a little unfair, as that is not what HiFi magazines are about.  Their readers want information about new products with photos, specifications and quality photographs in combination with an unbiased listening report, which is the main issue here.

 A major problem is that most magazines need revenue from Advertisers to stay in business.

Then it is solely up to the integrity of the Publisher and the magazine's Editorial staff.

 

 Hi Fi Critic which is a limited circulation magazine is one of the few that doesn't rely on Advertising  revenue for it's continued existence, but the subscribers need to pay far more to purchase it due to this, which makes it unaffordable for many like myself.

Regards

Alex

P.S.

 Has there been any progress in the area of outsourcing independent Technical Measurements to complement Chris's reviews ?

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Not wrong in this case John didn’t allow financial issues, number of MQA tracks etc to be discussed in Stereophile. There wasn’t much hunting in this case. It took a little time have proof you could hand to skeptic. See Chris C’s challenge to me on number of tracks earlier in this thread as an example.

 

i consider his not reporting of the financial issues to be avoidance journalism. 

 

Beyond being impossible to prove a negative (his not reporting) I wonder if perhaps you fail to consider that this is not anywhere as important to most of the audio world as it is to you.  And, column inches are expensive! 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Beyond being impossible to prove a negative (his not reporting) I wonder if perhaps you fail to consider that this is not anywhere as important to most of the audio world as it is to you.  And, column inches are expensive! 

 

Well, if it is not so important than why spend so much time lauding such a terrible file format? Because they are getting paid to, plain and simple. As Crenca and others pointed out, the audiophiles are the product being sold, not the other way around.

 

If they were true reviewers and I appreciate they do measurements, etc. they would call into question why prices are going so high, etc. They do not.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

11 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Well, if it is not so important than why spend so much time lauding such a terrible file format? Because they are getting paid to, plain and simple. As Crenca and others pointed out, the audiophiles are the product being sold, not the other way around.

 

If they were true reviewers and I appreciate they do measurements, etc. they would call into question why prices are going so high, etc. They do not.

...and to build on that if no so important why does Paul R continue to post on this thread, often with very wordy, long replies? I guess it MUST are important, or his time is clearly not.

[Thuaveta]

6 hours ago, botrytis said:

Well, if it is not so important than why spend so much time lauding such a terrible file format? Because they are getting paid to, plain and simple.

 

I'm as critical of @John_Atkinson as anyone in their right mind should be, but this is simply unfair. Nothing I've seen of his writing (or Jim Austin's) necessitates Stereophile's writers being on MQA's payroll either directly or indirectly: this can all very well be incompetence, sloth, or many other factors, including wanting to give a hand to an old friend. The same can apply to the rest of the field, where the problem is made worse by it often being either dealers or amateurs who've made a second career that helps fund (through gear loans and rebates) an expensive hobby (often by teaching themselves synonyms of "so many unicorns descended from the heavens when the product entered my living room that even my wife noticed").

 

I still do think there's been no proper addressing of @crenca's questions earlier, and those are some I'd love answers to:

 

13 hours ago, crenca said:

Anything that has to do with the truth of MQA was done by consumers, not the trade publications.

 

13 hours ago, crenca said:

Even after all this, the trade publications are still promoting MQA!  Why?

 

[lucretius]

On 7/2/2019 at 1:23 PM, Paul R said:

Came into being because Steve Jobs was able to take on the music industry and win, at least a bit.  Then more and more wins.

 

The way I see it is Steve Jobs succumbed to the labels in 2003 so Apple could get their download store up and running before RealNetworks or Microsoft.  Sure, later he argued against DRM after a consumer backlash.

 

 

On 7/2/2019 at 1:23 PM, Paul R said:

As for DRM, Apple did not introduce it, and fought against it quite effectively - you are spreading misinformation.  Lookup the Secure Digital Music Initiative. You will find the roots of DRM technology go back decades before even that. IBM, in fact, rejected encrypted software as far back as 1969, after spending a ton of money trying to make it viable. 

 

While Apple was not the first to introduce DRM, Apple certainly was the most significant (by orders of magnitude) player to distribute DRM'd music via downloads. For example, up to that time (April 28, 2003) Liquid Audio (subsequently Anderson Merchandisers) had licenses to distribute only 350,000 (approximately) songs and were unable to get any recent and/or popular content from the major labels. And there was no single storefront; instead record labels, musicians, and retailers maintained their own fragmented storefronts. In my view, Apple could have held out against the labels in 2003. With declining CD sales and no major distribution outlet for digital downloads, Apple (and the consumer) would have won.

[Allan F]

Steve Jobs and Apple always preferred a proprietary approach, whether it be for software or music. Jobs was also invoved in fixing high prices for book downloads. While he clearly was a visionary, he was never known for his generosity.

[jabbr]

21 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

"journalist" has multiple meanings

 

Stereopile is of some value to a consumer, but not much

 

Do you mean because 99% of consumers are not audiophiles?

 

If we take ourselves back before the Internet TAS and Stereophile were one of only scant sources where "Audiophile" information was published. If not for them we would have been left purely to the whims of our local audiophile shops or worse, to the likes of any variety of the other electronics stores over the years ... obviously none of those are working in the consumer's best interest, rather their own bottom line, including payoffs from manufacturers. Nothing different than auto dealers, really.

 

Unfortunately everything is for sale these days including the news, at least TV news. Perhaps 20 years ago a friend who was the GM of a local TV station said to me at a cookout, "Hey man, I've got to make money on the news somehow" -- just to put this in perspective, I am not accusing JA of being bought off. Just let's not hold him to an unreasonable standard.

 

Over the years I've found Stereophile's articles useful to direct me toward listening to products I might not otherwise have.

 

15 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Beyond being impossible to prove a negative (his not reporting) I wonder if perhaps you fail to consider that this is not anywhere as important to most of the audio world as it is to you.  And, column inches are expensive! 

 

Yes, totally agree and we shouldn't hold JA to an unreasonable standard. Anyone can disagree with anything someone else writes. Of course he is here on the site, and should be accorded the politeness due anyone we are directly communicating with. He is not a "shill" or being sneaky or underhanded. Obviously Stereophile has business issues just like any other business. Let's not be naive and let's take what is written at face value with an appropriate degree of skepticism, just like anything else that you read.