mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Jim Austin said: Yes, unequivocally. Would you have known, before you became editor, if Stereophile, its parent company, or one of its writers received compensation in exchange for favourable reporting? Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: That is also correct. No NDAs. No contracts. No compensation, as Jim Austin has also pointed out. So why not publish a correction, amendment, explanatory note, or whatever you want to call it outlining the true workings of MQA? Teresa, Currawong, crenca and 3 others 3 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, mansr said: Would you have known, before you became editor, if Stereophile, its parent company, or one of its writers received compensation in exchange for favourable reporting? Jim Austin would not know, but in the 33 years I was the magazine's editor, there were just two instances where after his review was published, a Stereophile writer received compensation for sales resulting from the review. (A practice that I am sad to say is starting to happen with Internet reviews - Google Casper Mattresses, for example.) In both cases I immediately fired the writer. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile esldude, Teresa, daverich4 and 2 others 5 Link to comment
mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said: Jim Austin would not know, but in the 33 years I was the magazine's editor, there were just two instances where after his review was published, a Stereophile writer received compensation after his review was published for sales resulting from the review. (A practice that I am sad to say is starting to happen with Internet reviews - Google Casper Mattresses, for example.) In both cases I immediately fired the writer. I'm aware of the Casper debacle. Clearly, receiving compensation post publication is just as bad as having a prior agreement. So twice you became aware of a writer receiving compensation for a good review. How many occurrences did you miss? There is no way you could possibly know. Link to comment
Jim Austin Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, mansr said: I'm aware of the Casper debacle. Clearly, receiving compensation post publication is just as bad as having a prior agreement. So twice you became aware of a writer receiving compensation for a good review. How many occurrences did you miss? There is no way you could possibly know. There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. It is impossible to audit every bank account. But it is quite easy to get to know a writer and assess his (or, regrettably rarely, her) character and establish trust. That's something that isn't possible on the Internet, especially with respect to anonymous posters. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile daverich4 1 Link to comment
Popular Post jma2 Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Jim Austin said: There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. It is impossible to audit every bank account. But it is quite easy to get to know a writer and assess his (or, regrettably rarely, her) character and establish trust. That's something that isn't possible on the Internet, especially with respect to anonymous posters. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile If you write something positive about MQA, it's clear who could benefit from that... If someone writes something negative about MQA based on facts, who could benefit from that, except for the end-users? Serious, tell me. Jan lucretius, esldude, Shadders and 3 others 1 5 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. The thing is, it wouldn't matter if we were being paid. Facts are still facts. crenca, lucretius, Shadders and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. From who? I'm having a hard time coming up with any possible candidates. lucretius and MikeyFresh 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 20 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: Jim Austin would not know, but in the 33 years I was the magazine's editor, there were just two instances where after his review was published, a Stereophile writer received compensation for sales resulting from the review. (A practice that I am sad to say is starting to happen with Internet reviews - Google Casper Mattresses, for example.) In both cases I immediately fired the writer. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile Sadly, Amazon is also notorious for questionable or paid reviews. That is why, when looking at reviews on their site, I first look at those with 1 star. Currawong, Ralf11, esldude and 3 others 6 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 hours 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. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile It occured in the past and has happened again today. Therefore you have “continued” to do so. Therefore the use of the word is entirely appropriate. Especially as you, Jim, and others from the audio press “continue” to attack his work on the basis of his online anonymity, and not on the basis of it’s content. mansr, Hugo9000, crenca and 2 others 2 1 2 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
Tintinabulum Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, Allan F said: I first look at those with 1 star Paid for by a competitor? esldude 1 Link to comment
Thuaveta Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: That's something that isn't possible on the Internet, especially with respect to anonymous posters. That's an exceptionally broad, irresponsible, and concerning statement coming from someone in an editorial position anywhere. I'd contend it's actually disqualifying, and that if the intent of the publication was really to inform the public, a reasonable owner should give serious thought to firing you on the spot for it. kumakuma 1 Link to comment
KeenObserver Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. It is impossible to audit every bank account. But it is quite easy to get to know a writer and assess his (or, regrettably rarely, her) character and establish trust. That's something that isn't possible on the Internet, especially with respect to anonymous posters. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile Cui Bono? kumakuma 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour 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 Hello @Jim Austin and @John_Atkinson, Over the years, I think you've seen in my writings that I have very much appreciated what Stereophile has provided for the audiophile community. Without it, there would be essentially no outlet for a more balanced, objective outlook on the many topics and points of contentions at least here in North America. I think you've seen that of all the audiophile press, I have regarded Stereophile as the "authority" for much of the truth that we know as a result and have even thanked Stereophile and you particularly John for the years of service and technical expertise culminating in the large archive of content from which we can draw historical correlations. Having said this, of course I have to take a critical position on some of what I consider as myths that continue to be perpetuated by the audiophile press including in the pages of Stereophile. I do not expect people to agree with all that I say, but I hope you appreciate that when I do say something, I will try to back it up with examples and even demonstrations and blind test opportunities for folks to try at their own leisure (like the "bits are bits" article recently). As such, I am not expecting anyone to consider what I do as "authoritative" in the traditional sense based on who I am or what my credentials are as some kind of audio academic announcing anything. Even among the Stereophile team of writers, how many knowledgeable academics are there? As such, I would rather build the persona of "Archimago" based on the years of writing and allow fellow audiophiles on this journey to think and participate for themselves as best I can convey, based on the "truths" I have found. No connections to the Industry (other than some as friends whom I have had the fortune to interact with). My article here for Chris and on the blog regarding MQA in general have always been an invitation for you and others in the press or general audiophile community to challenge or agree as you see fit. That Bob Stuart and MQA did not respond to the article here I think does convey a message. That you Jim, and John have not provided anything to counter arguments laid out (both objective and hypothetical on how MQA is restrictive for consumers and manufacturers) is also telling. Words around identities and "motivations" do not further the discussions. I certainly hope my motivations are obvious as laid out above (and on the blog). As others have noted, what difference does it make if I write based on a pseudonym when the points I'm making can be verified by anyone who knows how (something @The Computer Audiophile already conveyed last year at that unhappy presentation in RMAF 2018)? I am sure you guys know exactly what I and others here are saying about MQA and pointing at. To think otherwise would be disrespectful of your intellectual abilities. I (and others) too might have questions about your motivations. In fact, is it not more reasonable to question your motivations when dramatic comments like "birth of a new world" are being messaged out (or TAS' "paradigm shift" article not to just point at Stereophile)? As a magazine that desires to be influential and representative of the audiophile community (I assume you do want this, right?), please don't ignore MQA's obvious use of questionable filters and reduced potential bit depth (especially for MQA-CD!!!). Do not ignore the unfortunate obfuscation about what is "lossless" or that there is anything but lossy content being added to the signal when unfolded. Please remind writers that MQA decoding to 24/192+ as if there is content worthy of this "bit bucket" is also meaningless and will reflect badly on the knowledge base of your writers. These are truths that will not change. The audiophiles who appreciate the potential for high-resolution digital audio unobstructed by MQA both technically and in content restrictions are simply not "wrong" in their opinion, nor should be silenced regardless of what you subjectively believe (or are motivated to portray regardless of specific NDAs or direct financial transactions). I believe that if you truly desire to embrace the breadth and depth of the audiophile community, then these viewpoints should also be reflected on your pages. I for one hope that this is indeed the future of audiophilia and the mainstream audiophile press. Ran, Currawong, lucretius and 23 others 11 2 13 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 21 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. You're reaching, Jim. Can you be sure the audience you're playing to (not this forum) won't see this as rather transparent deflection? Your de facto advocacy for MQA can objectively be characterized as anti-consumer. Teresa, crenca, lucretius and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said: 20 minutes ago, Jim Austin said: There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. It is impossible to audit every bank account. But it is quite easy to get to know a writer and assess his (or, regrettably rarely, her) character and establish trust. That's something that isn't possible on the Internet, especially with respect to anonymous posters. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile Read more Cui Bono? A manufacturer of D/A processors whose sales are suffering due to the lack of MQA decoding ability? To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile JSeymour, MikeyFresh and lucretius 3 Link to comment
KeenObserver Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: A manufacturer of D/A processors whose sales are suffering due to the lack of MQA decoding ability? To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile Seriously? Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Thuaveta Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. Did he add "job well done" ? crenca 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Yes, See Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. Give yourself a well-earned pat on the back for helping to make this happen. MikeyFresh, lucretius, Ran and 2 others 3 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: A manufacturer of D/A processors whose sales are suffering due to the lack of MQA decoding ability? To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. Hard to believe there's that much interest in Tidal. Very hard. MikeyFresh and crenca 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. In this scenario, what role do you see yourself playing? crenca, esldude, Ran and 4 others 4 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, Archimago said: Even among the Stereophile team of writers, how many knowledgeable academics are there? Academics, supposedly at least one. Knowledgeable, no evidence of any. Ran, crenca and daverich4 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted August 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 21 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: A manufacturer of D/A processors whose sales are suffering due to the lack of MQA decoding ability? To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile That is fine. I was in a shop in a town near me (OK near me means 1.5 hours away) and the saleman basically said MQA, based on his chat to manufacturers he sells, said MQA is a nothing. They will put it in because some customers want it, most don't. I find that argument disingenuous at best (highlighted). I think making the best DAC for the money is important. MQA is mostly streaming and since I don't stream it is a nothing to me. I would prefer having a DAC that can do FLAC and DSD files WAY MORE THAN MQA. I get that may people like the sound of MQA. People also like haggis. There is no accounting for tastes. MikeyFresh and Teresa 2 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 Rt66indierock Posted August 23, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2019 5 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 Jim, I knew no one alive in the United States when I went my first audio show in 2016. Several people told me the rumors about MQA Ltd. paying journalists without me even asking about it. So, the rumors are out there not just here. Stereophile seems to be a little thin skinned about this. JVS made sure I knew he wasn’t paid by MQA Ltd. at t.h.e Show this year. I don’t care myself because my view is any company should be able to manipulate the press for free. I consider paying journalists to be a symptom of marketing failure. Chris was commenting on the distribution of MQA or lack of it when he talked about a post-factual world. Connecting it to mansr’s comment is your error. “When did it become OK to post second-hand (or third-hand), nonspecific allegations that defame a whole category of professionals?” In my profession’s case 1992. But there is nothing in my state’s statues that considers journalism a profession. I’m willing to listen to why you think you qualify as professional under New York’s statues. And speaking of manipulation what if posting something about companies paying the press is just a trick to show a few of our critics that Stereophile does pay attention to this thread? crenca and Teresa 1 1 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