John_Atkinson Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said: 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. As I haven't mentioned Archimago in a long time other than today, in response to another poster's misleading accusation, your use of the word "continue" is plain incorrect. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile troubleahead 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Thuaveta Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: 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? Such as someone under your employ, in a senior technical role, who would've called MQA the "birth of a new world", for example ? Edit: oh, and I personally consider Archimago's investigation better quality than your own reporting. I also tend to have higher trust in his integrity, but that has less to do with you personally than the questionable ethical standards of the group of people you like to defend. esldude, troubleahead, Teresa and 2 others 5 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: 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? Verifiable facts are no less true when conveyed by an anonymous messenger. asdf1000, Hugo9000, lucretius and 12 others 8 1 6 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: 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? So many keystrokes spent on moaning the anonymity, so few on refuting the actual test results. Kill The Messenger! maxijazz, MikeyFresh, troubleahead and 6 others 6 3 Link to comment
Popular Post jriver Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 Please let MQA die. It was a bad idea then. It's still a bad idea. Great minds, like those posting here, deserve better topics to discuss. and, not to be anonymous... Jim Hillegass, JRiver, Team Manager Hugo9000, Mayfair, askat1988 and 14 others 7 4 6 Jim Hillegass / JRiver Media Center / jriver.com Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 I was told that 2+2=4. The person that told me this would not identify himself. Therefore, 2+2 does not equal 4. Makes sense to me! As much sense as Stereophile! esldude, Teresa and crenca 3 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 17 minutes ago, mansr said: Verifiable facts are no less true when conveyed by an anonymous messenger. Furthermore MQA declined to comment on the article: Quote Editor's Note 1: MQA ltd was sent a copy of this article several days prior to the scheduled publication date. The company requested a phone conversation, which took place earlier this week. MQA was encouraged to write a response for inclusion with the article below, but it respectfully decline to submit a formal response. Why did the hifi press ignore or even ridicule the independent researchers, instead of learning from their research? We did our fair share of research: and so much more which was a great learning experience. The Dutch hifi press even tried to attack this research, claiming my DAC was broken .... the same guy who later admitted one of his own MQA reviews was wrong. Teresa, MikeyFresh, John Dyson and 2 others 3 2 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
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: So many keystrokes spent on moaning the anonymity, so few on refuting the actual test results. Kill The Messenger! I wonder if they demand that the postman personally sign all letters he delivers too. Otherwise, how can they trust anything written inside? Mayfair, MikeyFresh, asdf1000 and 1 other 1 1 2 Link to comment
Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 16 minutes ago, mansr said: Verifiable facts are no less true when conveyed by an anonymous messenger. 2 minutes ago, mansr said: I wonder if they demand that the postman personally sign all letters he delivers too. Otherwise, how can they trust anything written inside? Sometimes I think you're smart, and then you write unaccountably really dumb things, like this. Makes me think you really haven't thought through this anonymity thing. And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway? Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions. Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile lucretius, JSeymour, daverich4 and 3 others 1 5 Link to comment
MikeyFresh Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 27 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: So many keystrokes spent on moaning the anonymity, so few on refuting the actual test results. Kill The Messenger! The pattern continues to repeat itself, eh @John_Atkinson? 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 2 minutes ago, FredericV said: Why did the hifi press ignore or even ridicule the independent researchers, instead of learning from their research? Just a wild guess: they're in the business of selling expensive toys to wealthy males, and with it the myth of the golden ear. Flat-out admitting that their "golden-eared", supremely technically knowledgeable reviewers got hoodwinked would destroy their reputations. Ask yourself how Shatki products, and worse still, in a certain case, a decades' worth of recommendation thereof, would've been treated by people intent on learning... esldude, crenca and Teresa 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post jma2 Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 To both JAs, you are an "authority"! You write down stuff which influences people in their buying patterns. You may have - and live the ethics to properly and honestly report on equipment and new codecs but you influence people whether you want or not. If certain "people", whether anonymous or not factually prove your assessments wrong (use the search engine to find all the facts, I do not want to repeat them for you) and you are unwilling to engage in a proper discussion on the basis on the anonymity of an author which proves you wrong, the people get a doubt about your "authority". Please note that in history, "authority" has always been challenged by the "people". Why are you so surprised?! If you, being the "authority" cannot put any factual counter-arguments on the table to counter argue facts presented by Archimago and react as strongly as you do to rumors (that you deliberately chose to interpret in the worst possible way as it suits you), you as an authority lose credibility with at least some some of the "people". Why are you so surprised?! With respect to Chris, I would suppose that his codec-neutrality with respect to this topic was changed strongly only after the - for many of the "people" - eye-opening event of his presentation. He may have been skeptical before, for sure, but the misconduct in the audience was so revealing... I understand it must hurt to read the rumors and I understand your outburst here... and I also understand that it may not be easy to bite the hand that feeds you (I mean herewith: write something against one of your advertisers) but at the same time I suggest you look at this whole MQA discussion from a helicopter view, take a bit of distance, open your eyes and engage in a discussion in which you should engage, rather than keep on stirring the pot in a way which casts even doubts on the "ethics" front. You shouldn't be surprised! Music is all about emotions and "people" react on emotions... MQA is not about emotions, it is about money, control and lies as far as I see it. I belong to the "people", not so skilled as many regular posters here, but I have learned a lot from this thread... I hope many do so. I wish you did. Kind regards, Jan MikeyFresh, Teresa, Kyhl and 5 others 5 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? To do so would be dishonest. Teresa and asdf1000 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway? Do you not have the concept of metaphor in the colonies? crenca, Mayfair and troubleahead 3 Link to comment
Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, mansr said: To do so would be dishonest. There you go--doubling down on spreading rumors. Here's a great explanation of why so many posters wish to remain anonymous. I say this quite realizing that many here will jump to your defense, simply because they agree with you. If you had posted anonymously, the taint on your character from engaging in such unprincipled behavior would be only online. No one would be able to link the online taint to the real you. But your identity is known, I believe. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile Link to comment
Popular Post MikeyFresh Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 43 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: As I haven't mentioned Archimago in a long time other than today, in response to another poster's misleading accusation, your use of the word "continue" is plain incorrect. There's no set/exacting time frame for what would constitute a continuance versus not. Moreover, you've once again decided not to address this being an obvious deflection technique and nothing more. Go ahead, keep deflecting, that strategy has proven to be ineffective at best. The soft pivot was a better idea, over time if properly implemented it likely would aid in salvaging some semblance of credibility, the public has a relatively short memory. crenca, esldude and troubleahead 2 1 Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions. Really? The "anonymous posters are cowards" trope again? I suppose it deflects responsibility for consumer advocacy and reaffirms the "value" of the audiophile press. 🤦♂️ Thuaveta, Mayfair, MikeyFresh and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 40 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: 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 Actually yes. You as a scientist should know that many peer reviewed magazines do their peer review process anonymously. The reason being that personal feelings are not brought up in the process. In fact, many times only the Title of the article and article is given to the reviewers. So, Archimago, Mansr, et al. peer reviewed MQA and found it lacking. Rather than answering this query, one obfuscates from that query and blames everything else. Teresa, askat1988, Shadders and 7 others 6 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 mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: Here's a great explanation of why so many posters wish to remain anonymous. I say this quite realizing that many here will jump to your defense, simply because they agree with you. If you had posted anonymously, the taint on your character from engaging in such unprincipled behavior would be only online. No one would be able to link the online taint to the real you. But your identity is known, I believe. Whatever point you were trying to make, you forgot to include it. Shadders, asdf1000, MikeyFresh and 5 others 1 7 Link to comment
Popular Post Thuaveta Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 Just now, botrytis said: So, Archimago, Mansr, et al. peer reviewed MQA and found it lacking. Rather than answering this query, one obfuscates from that query and blames everything else. Clearly, @Archimago was not onto something when he summarized @Jim Austins MQA reporting as "yet again arguing for Industry interests which adds cost to the consumer for no real benefit". (though I do have to say that I'd understand why Austin wouldn't want to get into the meat of the argument with @mansr, who's clearly forgotten more about digital audio than Austin has ever learned, so one shouldn't presume the man is a fool, or unaware of his limitations). MikeyFresh, crenca and Teresa 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post psjug Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: Sometimes I think you're smart, and then you write unaccountably really dumb things, like this. Makes me think you really haven't thought through this anonymity thing. And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway? Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions. Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile Some people like privacy. Others like to get a domain of their own name and put up a cringey bio. To each his own. crenca, Ran, troubleahead and 7 others 3 1 1 5 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 3 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. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile professionals??? MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 34 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile Let's turn it around. As you are clearly triggered by Mansr, and as he did not even mention Stereophile, it clearly resonates and there must be a reason for that. So are you able to go on record stating that: - none of the Stereophile reviewers / editors were in some way compsenated by Meridian / MQA or it's affiliates (MQA partners), except for the usual pricing of ad space related to MQA enabled products - the compensation for ad space was non exuberant, and comparable to other advertizers - none of the Stereophile reviewers / editors signed NDA's with Meridian / MQA or any contract with non-disclosure clause related to compensation related to pushing MQA and/or being a key influencer / opinion maker If you have nothing to hide, you can go on record. MikeyFresh, Teresa, troubleahead and 1 other 1 3 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
Popular Post Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 31 minutes ago, FredericV said: So are you able to go on record stating that: - none of the Stereophile reviewers / editors were in some way compsenated by Meridian / MQA or it's affiliates (MQA partners), except for the usual pricing of ad space related to MQA enabled products - the compensation for ad space was non exuberant, and comparable to other advertizers - none of the Stereophile reviewers / editors signed NDA's with Meridian / MQA or any contract with non-disclosure clause related to compensation related to pushing MQA and/or being a key influencer / opinion maker Yes, unequivocally. And as for advertising, I don't think there's been any of that either, although I don't pay close attention. I did notice an MQA logo on an old ad recently, but I think that was for a manufacturer whose products incorporate MQA and not MQA itself. Jim Austin, stuck limo, daverich4, Teresa and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 34 minutes ago, FredericV said: - none of the Stereophile reviewers / editors were in some way compensated by MQA or it's affiliates (MQA partners), except for the usual pricing of ad space related to MQA enabled products That is correct. No compensation. And go those who have said in the past that Stereophile accepting advertising for MQA-capable products is equivalent to its writers benefiting from MQA, it should be noted that Chris Connaker would similarly benefit from AudiophileStyle publishing MQA-related advertising, which it does. Quote - none of the Stereophile reviewers / editors signed NDA's with MQA or any contract with non-disclosure clause related to compensation related to pushing MQA That is also correct. No NDAs. No contracts. No compensation, as Jim Austin has also pointed out. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile esldude, Kyhl, Teresa and 2 others 3 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