Popular Post james45974 Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 37 minutes ago, botrytis said: When there is proof shown, on this forum and others, that MQA is not what you or MQA claim and then turn around and say we are defaming you? I find it disheartening that Stereophile and others in the audio press still push this sham that is MQA. It is not enough that you repost the lies and nonsense MQA posted in their marketing ads (almost word for word too), but the Audio magazines seem to be doubling down on it. For what purpose? Nothing has ever been proven but the term historically related to the recording industry "Payola" frequently comes into my head! MikeyFresh and Teresa 2 Jim Link to comment
Popular Post Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 48 minutes ago, mansr said: As the saying goes, if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. You seem like a smart guy. So you can understand that this "saying" you've carted out, which I've never heard before, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, you will hit random dogs, and the ones you hit are likely to yelp. It's a little different with people, some of whom care about their reputations. That's why you shouldn't toss stones without cause, at dogs or at people. It's also worth considering that by posting scurrilous accusations on the Internet, you're effectively tossing stones from behind a tall fence--an act of cowardice. (I'll say it again though: To your credit, it least you don't cower behind a pseudonym.) Without evidence, you cannot know whether the rumor you reported is true. If you don't know if its' true, you shouldn't repeat it--your mother taught you that much at least, right? Provide evidence or delete your post. To do otherwise would be to further expose a serious lack of character. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile esldude, daverich4, maxijazz and 4 others 2 2 3 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, james45974 said: Nothing has ever been proven but the term historically related to the recording industry "Payola" frequently comes into my head! Things have been Proven - 1. MQA is lossy, not lossless. 2. 96 KHz is the max resolution for MQA, anything over that is just oversampling. 3. MQA causes ringing, not preventing it 4. MQA adds noise to the file due to leaky filters. 5. MQA file size is not smaller that the same resolution FLAC file. I am sure there are more but these are facts that have been shown about MQA. The fact that hobbyists found this out, not the audiophile press is just staggering since they spend so much time testing amps, speakers, etc. Teresa, lucretius, esldude and 6 others 6 3 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
Popular Post botrytis Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Jim Austin said: You seem like a smart guy. So you can understand that this "saying" you've carted out, which I've never heard before, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, you will hit random dogs, and the ones you hit are likely to yelp. It's a little different with people, some of whom care about their reputations. That's why you shouldn't toss stones without cause, at dogs or at people. It's also worth considering that by posting scurrilous accusations on the Internet, you're effectively tossing stones from behind a tall fence--an act of cowardice. (I'll say it again though: To your credit, it least you don't cower behind a pseudonym.) Without evidence, you cannot know whether the rumor you reported is true. If you don't know if its' true, you shouldn't repeat it--your mother taught you that much at least, right? Provide evidence or delete your post. To do otherwise would be to further expose a serious lack of character. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile Is it any worse than people trying to demean, degrade, or otherwise call into question Archimago for his work on MQA? How is it any different? It isn't. Teresa, JSeymour, MikeyFresh and 3 others 2 4 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
Popular Post MikeyFresh Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, KeenObserver said: A little while back I was under the impression that the "Old Guard" was walking back some of the fawning praise and corporate dreck that they had spewed about MQA. This led me to believe that they were trying to recover their credibility in the face of MQA failure. I thought similar, some faint signs of a soft pivot on MQA by both JAs, in recent weeks. It would have been a smart move, though I'm not really sure it's possible to fully recover their credibility at this point, however the public does seem to have a fairly short memory and even badly wrecked reputations have been restored in other circles. 1 hour ago, KeenObserver said: Now, it seems, they are doubling down on their push for MQA. And, the "Influencers" are coming out of the woodwork again. Indeed, perhaps the soft pivot was a figment of my imagination then. Or perhaps that softest of pivots was all we'll ever see in that regard. 2 hours ago, firedog said: How does he claim that MQA has become a standard when basically it is only available at Tidal, and for a small minority of even the Tidal catalog. Great point, and I might add that Veth isn't actually an influencer, as best I can tell he's really a nobody. 1 hour ago, firedog said: Wow, overreact much? 1 hour ago, FredericV said: Mansr did not even mention Stereophile, but your reaction speaks volumes. Touched a raw nerve, evidently. 1 hour ago, firedog said: You and your magazine are supposed to be some kind of journalism with standards of objectivity, but you continually shade the truth and misinform about MQA: Show some character: Admit you and your writers are wrong, and correct (at least from this point on) your misinformation about MQA. Now that would be news/journalism, as opposed to thinly veiled trade promotion. 1 hour ago, botrytis said: It is not enough that you repost the lies and nonsense MQA posted in their marketing ads (almost word for word too), but the Audio magazines seem to be doubling down on it. For what purpose? To serve their customers (read: not subscribers). Teresa, lucretius and crenca 2 1 Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Jim Austin said: So you can understand that this "saying" you've carted out, which I've never heard before, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. You've never heard the saying before, yet somehow you know exactly what it means? Teresa, lucretius, Hugo9000 and 3 others 1 5 Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, botrytis said: Is it any worse than people trying to demean, degrade, or otherwise call into question Archimago for his work on MQA? Neither Jim nor I did any of that. What I did do was object to Archimago's need for anonymity. While I understand Archimago's reasons, I disagree with them. But I do agree with Jim's point. If any of you have evidence that any writer for Stereophile is taking kickbacks, not just from MQA but from any manufacturer, please come forward with it. If you don't have evidence, then you should not make such unfounded accusations. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile Teresa, maxijazz, Thuaveta and 2 others 1 3 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Thuaveta Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Jim Austin said: When did it become OK to post second-hand (or third-hand), nonspecific allegations that defame a whole category of professionals? While I'm with you on some of this, which category of professionals are we talking about here ? Is it, as you seem to have understood, the same category that got schooled on their purported field of professional expertise by the anonymous amateurs they foam at the mouth about ? Because if it is, then at least @mansr didn't call them incompetent... crenca and MikeyFresh 2 Link to comment
Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, mansr said: You've never heard the saying before, yet somehow you know exactly what it means? Seriously? Um--yeah. It carries its meaning with it, Mans, doesn't it? How can that not be obvious to you? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile troubleahead 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: But I do agree with Jim's point. If any of you have evidence that any writer for Stereophile is taking kickbacks I never said anyone at Stereophile was. In fact, I deliberately left that part out so as not to implicate any specific person. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: What I did do was object to Archimago's need for anonymity. While I understand Archimago's reasons, I disagree with them. His reasons, needs, or desires for anonymity are not relevant to the facts he presented. Why did you bring it up at all? crenca, askat1988, Thuaveta and 7 others 1 3 6 Link to comment
Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, mansr said: I never said anyone at Stereophile was. In fact, I deliberately left that part out so as not to implicate any specific person. Are you willing to go on record saying, then, that the rumors you repeated did NOT involve Stereophile writers? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile John_Atkinson 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Jim Austin said: Perfect. This forum permits potentially defamatory (though safely nonspecific) posts, then the moderator pretends (by implication) that it's those on the other side of the debate who are being "post-factual", all while posing (i.e. at audio shows) as some sort of impartial observer. When did it become OK to post second-hand (or third-hand), nonspecific allegations that defame a whole category of professionals? At least (in contrast to a great many other MQA critics) mansr doesn't post such pathetic accusations anonymously. At least as far as we know. Show some character. Provide evidence or delete your post. How about you show some character and actually engage with people here instead of your typical post and run tactics? MikeyFresh, crenca, troubleahead and 3 others 6 Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Jim Austin said: You seem like a smart guy. So you can understand that this "saying" you've carted out, which I've never heard before, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, you will hit random dogs, and the ones you hit are likely to yelp. It's a little different with people, some of whom care about their reputations. That's why you shouldn't toss stones without cause, at dogs or at people. It's also worth considering that by posting scurrilous accusations on the Internet, you're effectively tossing stones from behind a tall fence--an act of cowardice. (I'll say it again though: To your credit, it least you don't cower behind a pseudonym.) Without evidence, you cannot know whether the rumor you reported is true. If you don't know if its' true, you shouldn't repeat it--your mother taught you that much at least, right? Provide evidence or delete your post. To do otherwise would be to further expose a serious lack of character. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile Mansr did not even mention Stereophile. It seems from your reaction once again, that it speaks even more volumes. Why would that be? 8 minutes ago, mansr said: I never said anyone at Stereophile was. In fact, I deliberately left that part out so as not to implicate any specific person. It clearly resonated hard .... why would that be the case? MikeyFresh, esldude and lucretius 2 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Just now, Jim Austin said: Are you willing to go on record saying, then, that the rumors you repeated did NOT involve Stereophile writers? No. That would be dishonest. troubleahead 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: What I did do was object to Archimago's need for anonymity. While I understand Archimago's reasons, I disagree with them. Ok, John. What are the reasons and why do you disagree? esldude and MikeyFresh 1 1 Link to comment
John_Atkinson Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: What are the reasons and why do you disagree? This was examined on this forum/ I don't see why I need to repeat it all when you are as capable of using a search engine as I am. My point was that neither Jim nor I have defamed Archimago, as was stated as fact by another poster. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 17 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: Neither Jim nor I did any of that. What I did do was object to Archimago's need for anonymity. While I understand Archimago's reasons, I disagree with them. But I do agree with Jim's point. If any of you have evidence that any writer for Stereophile is taking kickbacks, not just from MQA but from any manufacturer, please come forward with it. If you don't have evidence, then you should not make such unfounded accusations. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile The truth is the truth. Anonymity has nothing to do with it. And we all know that no one from Stereophile has ever received any perk from any manufacturer. And we all know that any test sample written about in Stereophile was purchased anonymously for testing. Is any of this not true? MikeyFresh, Samuel T Cogley and crenca 1 1 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said: This was examined on this forum/ I don't see why I need to repeat it all when you are as capable of using a search engine as I am. My point was that neither Jim nor I have defamed Archimago, as was stated as fact by another poster. Totally not surprised by the non-answer. "kill the messenger" is why the anonymity confounds the Old Guard so. botrytis, esldude, MikeyFresh and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 minute ago, KeenObserver said: And we all know that any test sample written about in Stereophile was purchased anonymously for testing. And this to me implies "paid full retail". Thuaveta, botrytis, crenca and 1 other 1 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Thuaveta Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said: And we all know that any test sample written about in Stereophile was purchased anonymously for testing. Said test sample was also promptly returned, and was never, ever purchased at any discount that couldn't casually be had by a Stereophile reader for that given piece of gear, at the time of publication, of course. esldude, crenca and MikeyFresh 3 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: My point was that neither Jim nor I have defamed Archimago, as was stated as fact by another poster. Nobody said that. The exact phrase was "demean, degrade, or otherwise call into question." troubleahead, esldude, Hugo9000 and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
Popular Post MikeyFresh Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: This was examined on this forum/ I don't see why I need to repeat it all when you are as capable of using a search engine as I am. My point was that neither Jim nor I have defamed Archimago, as was stated as fact by another poster. Right, but you continue to try and use his anonymity as a means of disagreeing and/or to create the illusion of it being a real point of contention when it is not. Go ahead, keep going to that well. It's quite transparent the only thing that's accomplished is you and Stereophile being guilty of a weak deflect, just try to change the subject rather than actually address any of the actual points that Arch, Mans, Frederic, or others have made using actual measurements. esldude, Currawong, Thuaveta and 8 others 11 Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post Thuaveta Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said: It's quite transparent the only thing that's accomplished is you and Stereophile being guilty of a weak deflect, just try to change the subject rather than actually address any of the actual points that Arch, Mans, Frederic, or others have made using actual measurements. Are you suggesting that Stereophile, the greatest minds in the field of audio reviewing, are one of the publications that got schooled by a group of rank amateurs ? That'd be... shocking. JSeymour, crenca, MikeyFresh and 2 others 1 4 Link to comment
Popular Post Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 13 minutes ago, mansr said: His reasons, needs, or desires for anonymity are not relevant to the facts he presented. Why did you bring it up at all? Are you seriously suggesting that criticism shared by an anonymous poster is just as valid as that of someone who stands up and stakes their actual, personal reputation on what they do and say? It's not as if every statement Archie every made about MQA was amply supported by data. Even if they were his personal motives--which are unknown--cannot be evaluated. There is, after all, just one person there. And let the record show that no one who speaks for Stereophile--indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no one who writes for Stereophile--has ever defamed Archimago. (I see now that JA has already made this point.) Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile JSeymour and crenca 2 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