Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Not nefarious, but also not in the interest of the consumer.

 

 

I seem to remember a chap going by the name of Sam Tellig. When reviewing a Shure cartridge, he had more than a few unflattering things to say. “Bullshit cartridge with a BullShit price” or something like that. It raised eyebrows by being published in print at the time. 😱🤪

 

Negative reviews are not uncommon.

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Paul R said:

That sounds far more like a Consumer Reports publication than an enthusiast driven audio review. You could define and start something like that if you wanted to. It would be interesting, and possibly useful. 

 

Sorry no. Example Cook's Illustrated is a non-advertising magazine and they do testing. Problem is, most tests in audio magazines are done by people who own that particular brand of component and WOULD NEVER say it is junk, even if it is.

 

I mean even car magazines call a lemon just that. 

 

I think audio magazine have lived out their usefulness since they are more like mouth pieces for the audio manufacturers, kind of like the NRA.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Paul R said:

I seem to remember a chap going by the name of Sam Tellig. When reviewing a Shure cartridge, he had more than a few unflattering things to say. “Bullshit cartridge with a BullShit price” or something like that. It raised eyebrows by being published in print at the time. 😱🤪

 

And yet Sam had his own Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge. A quote from Sam:

"It's no secret I still use the long-discontinued Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge—I think it ranks with the very best."

See https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-compact-domestic-monitor-1-loudspeaker-sam-tellig-december-1998

 

You must be referring to a different and much more expensive Shure cartidge.  ☺️

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Negative reviews are not unknown, but are very uncommon.

 

Openly negative reviews are an attention getting tactic a smart editor never allows to be anticipated or commonplace. 

 

Saccharine, on the other hand, is today's alternative that can be liberally sprinkled on to make almost every nothing palatable without masking the underlying bitterness associated with

 

Mmm, overly processed reconstituted MQA brand is so much better than the real thing. I can consume all I want and never feel...

 

8 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I am not convinced of this....

 

As if a chance to be attendant for the largesse on offer during invite only industry events would be impacted by any sane person reporting on them.  Or refuse to lay waste to the expense account at the slightest humiliation suffered on one of these junkets. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

we seek out products for review that have a good chance of performing well.

 

Any chance you could share with us the criteria Stereophile uses for determining which "products have a good chance of performing well"?  Thanks.

 

Also, why is it that expensive products are more likely to get reviewed than less expensive/reasonably affordable products?  Is there no value in reviewing products in lower price categories?

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

And yet Sam had his own Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge. A quote from Sam:

"It's no secret I still use the long-discontinued Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge—I think it ranks with the very best."

See https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-compact-domestic-monitor-1-loudspeaker-sam-tellig-december-1998

 

You must be referring to a different and much more expensive Shure cartidge.  ☺️

 

I could easily be mis-remembering, but I think the incident I am referring to was pre-internet, around 1985 or 1986 maybe. 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I could easily be mis-remembering, but I think the incident I am referring to was pre-internet, around 1985 or 1986 maybe. 

Ouch! usenet was 1980,  bitnet 1981,  smtp (email) 1982, ftp 1985 ... I'm feeling really old

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment

Sad, there are no negative reviews in audio magazines, then maybe so much junk wouldn't be pedaled to the public. I mean I remember reading a British car magazine a while ago and one article was, 'Her name is Rio and she is crap'. That made Kia go back a redo the car to be better. Right now the Audio reviewers are in bed with the manufacturers, so there are no real reviews, just the same old junk.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
5 hours ago, jabbr said:

Ouch! usenet was 1980,  bitnet 1981,  smtp (email) 1982, ftp 1985 ... I'm feeling really old

 

Well, I actually meant the web, but I was on Usenet, Bitnet, and Arpanet. I get what you are saying. Heck, I remember having use bang paths for email. :)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
9 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Who has said this? When we have published negative reviews at Stereophile, the most pushback we get is from readers either because they actually don't want to read about products that fail to make the grade or because they own the product in question. So like all audio review magazines and webzines, we seek out products for review that have a good chance of performing well. Nevertheless, once we have received the review samples, the review proceeds and is not aborted even it it turns out that it has problems. Scroll down the page at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/index.html .  In that respect, Stereophile does differ from some other magazines.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I can't remember specifics, but I've seen several sites/publications that have said that if a review is going to be truly negative, they send the component back and don't publish. They claim readers aren't interested in negative reviews. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Any chance you could share with us the criteria Stereophile uses for determining which "products have a good chance of performing well"?  Thanks.

 

Also, why is it that expensive products are more likely to get reviewed than less expensive/reasonably affordable products?  Is there no value in reviewing products in lower price categories?

My impression is that Stereophile reviews a fair amount of reasonably priced products. You see them listed  in their yearly recommended components.  Those products have all been reviewed in the magazine. In loudspeakers, for instance, they even have a category for "LF restricted" speakers, which generally translates to reasonably priced. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, I actually meant the web, but I was on Usenet, Bitnet, and Arpanet. I get what you are saying. Heck, I remember having use bang paths for email. :)

I had a root account on ihnp4 :-).

(explanation -- ihnp4 was one of the more common servers on the bang path -- routing was mostly not automatic -- but some servers had a little more inteligence.) ihnp4 was very common bang path constituent for UUCP networks also.  Nowadays, everyone can route to anyone.

 

John

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Nikhil said:

Don't see the point of paying the basturds for "HiFi" when all they do is send junk down the pipe.

Are you finding a lot of albums are only available as MQA?

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...