MQA is Vaporware

[vmartell22]

5 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As Stereophile doesn't publish content from anonymous sources, your question is moot.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Does that mean you ignore and/or don't try corroborate anonymous tips/information/possible facts OR does it mean that you will always identify your sources?

(sincere, somewhat neutral question)

 

v

[svart-hvitt]

11 hours ago, botrytis said:

There is no mQa news as it is the same ol' same ol'

You are right. MQA stays the same but things around it don’t, sort of.

 

Let me try to explain.

 

First we had «MQA is lossless». Then we had «MQA is better than lossless». What happened on the way?

 

MQA is an excellent tool for separating fake from real. This outburst from Amir/ASR, where he uses all tricks to discredit a person ( @GoldenOne ) he disagrees with, is telling:

 

https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/blind-test-we-have-a-volunteer.23857/page-13#post-805315

[For the link to work one has to replace the quotation marks around «science» with period (.) sign]

 

And then we have other journalists whose view on anonymity, whistle blowers and power balance has come up to the surface.

 

In my view, MQA is a big success.

[UkPhil]

Some recently posted info on MQA CD file comparisons against Red Book

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/investigated/MostlyQuiteHarmless.html

 

 

[John_Atkinson]

13 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

For the sake of full disclosure and openness, could you answers the following questions.

During your tenure at Stereophile, what percentage of the market did Meridian hold?

 

I have no idea.

13 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

During your tenure at Stereophile, how many reviews were made of Meridian equipment?

24 Meridian products were reviewed in that period. To put that number into context, there were 41 reviews of Audio Research products, 37 reviews of Sony products, 32 reviews of PS Audio products. 23 reviews of PSB products, etc etc.

 

13 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

What is your relationship with Bob Stuart?

 

I have been acquainted with Bob Stuart since the late 1970s, but I have no relationship with him any more than I do with the dozens of other audio engineers with whom I interact as an editor or reviewer.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

12 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

What % of advertising dollars are from MQA. Not the amount, just the % would be useful. This gets to the meat of the nut.

 

MQA has never advertised in Stereophile, so the answer to your question is 0%.

 

And to forestall other questions, manufacturers of D/A processors that are compatible with MQA advertise in Stereophile but so do manufacturers of similar products that are not compatible with MQA. The same appears to be the case with Audiophile Style.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

10 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

Does that mean you ignore and/or don't try corroborate anonymous tips/information/possible facts OR does it mean that you will always identify your sources?

 

I ignore anonymous tips. Not that I am sent any anonymous tips.

 

In the case of the articles/videos that are being discussed here, I read/watch them to learn what is being said. Nut unit the authors publish using their real names that's all I do.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

12 hours ago, Currawong said:

In your first post, not after the omission is pointed out. 

I did. In the first post on this subject where I wrote "Having worked in audio magazine publishing for 45 years, I strongly believe that if you are going to publish opinions and test results that may result in financial consequences for those whom you write about, you must do so using your actual name. With one exception - an exception that was agreed to before I joined the magazine - every contributor to Stereophile signs his work with his real name."

See audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=1137995

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

5 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Nut unit

should be "But until"

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

MQA has never advertised in Stereophile, so the answer to your question is 0%.

 

And to forestall other questions, manufacturers of D/A processors that are compatible with MQA advertise in Stereophile but so do manufacturers of similar products that are not compatible with MQA. The same appears to be the case with Audiophile Style.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Mr. Atkinson - you replied quickly and courteously - Thank you.

[botrytis]

59 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

should be "But until"

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

but you gotta admit - the typo IS funny.

[Cebolla]

1 hour ago, UkPhil said:

Some recently posted info on MQA CD file comparisons against Red Book

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/investigated/MostlyQuiteHarmless.html

 

 

 

The premise that the 2L sample files from the column labelled “MQA stereo original resolution” are the result of decoding the MQA-CD data is incorrect - they are actually the hi-res encoded MQA files themselves!

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Cebolla said:

 

The premise that the 2L sample files from the column labelled “MQA stereo original resolution” are the result of decoding the MQA-CD data is incorrect - they are actually the hi-res encoded MQA files themselves!

 

Apparently, the author did not understand what is meant by "MQA stereo original resolution". He should have been able to discern what the file was after playing it. But the fact that he couldn't make the correct determination even then makes me dubious of his entire article.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Apparently, the author did not understand what is meant by "MQA stereo original resolution". He should have been able to discern what the file was after playing it. But the fact that he couldn't make the correct determination even then makes me dubious of his entire article.

 

But, mQa mavens will point to this a definitive proof that it mQa is better. 

[KeenObserver]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

24 Meridian products were reviewed in that period. To put that number into context, there were 41 reviews of Audio Research products, 37 reviews of Sony products, 32 reviews of PS Audio products. 23 reviews of PSB products, etc etc.

 

To put that in perspective, in the market that Stereophile served, what would be the ratio of products sold by Sony and Meridian?

10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?  Possibly a million to one?

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

To put that in perspective, in the market that Stereophile served, what would be the ratio of products sold by Sony and Meridian?

10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?  Possibly a million to one?

 

How many people could afford the Meridian products also.

 

Maybe the audiophile press (I use that in the totality) would better serve the public if they actually would review more kit that people can afford than can't afford.

[KeenObserver]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

How many people could afford the Meridian products also.

 

Maybe the audiophile press (I use that in the totality) would better serve the public if they actually would review more kit that people can afford than can't afford.

 

Looking at the financials of Meridian, it looks like not a lot afforded the equipment.

I suspect that if not for the support of the Journals, Meridian would have folded long ago.

Much like MQA.

 

The bright spot for Meridian is that now that Bob Stuart has left, it looks like they are turning the corner to profitability.

[botrytis]

It is not that I am not interested in how the other half spends their coin, it doesn't bother me at all, but it shows who the press is really supporting, the manufacturers. The audience for the magazines are the manufacturers and the product is to influence the buyers.

 

[KeenObserver]

I have to give credit to Bob Stuart and John Atkinson. They are both in their seventies, a time when most are retired and enjoying their golden years.

And yet they are still manning the ramparts against the "anonymous bloggers" that are launching truth bombs.

[lucretius]

19 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I have to give credit to Bob Stuart and John Atkinson. They are both in their seventies, a time when most are retired and enjoying their golden years.

And yet they are still manning the ramparts against the "anonymous bloggers" that are launching truth bombs.

 

Perhaps they both should take up card games instead:

 

https://www.generationshcm.com/blog/2016/10/three-card-games-seniors-need-try/

[botrytis]

25 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I have to give credit to Bob Stuart and John Atkinson. They are both in their seventies, a time when most are retired and enjoying their golden years.

And yet they are still manning the ramparts against the "anonymous bloggers" that are launching truth bombs.

 

Well, I am 60 and still doing cutting edge biotech research. Most people though may need to be pushed out because they are not cutting edge, just also ran type of stuff. I ran into this during my Post Doc.

 

I love Mr Atkinson's objective measurements, that is something I totally respect and look forward to seeing. He gets my whole hearted thanking on that.

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

 

but you gotta admit - the typo IS funny.

 

Perhaps revealing how he truly feels about some of us... 👺

[svart-hvitt]

52 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Well, I am 60 and still doing cutting edge biotech research. Most people though may need to be pushed out because they are not cutting edge, just also ran type of stuff. I ran into this during my Post Doc.

 

I love Mr Atkinson's objective measurements, that is something I totally respect and look forward to seeing. He gets my whole hearted thanking on that.

FWIW, Mr. Atkinson’s measurements have been great for decades. What made me «sleepless» is his stance on whistleblowers and anonymous sources. The ordinary press would never be the same without anonymous sources, but I understand that (parts of) the HIFI press is different.

[botrytis]

I am trying to separate the two issues but I do agree.

[botrytis]

15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Perhaps revealing how he truly feels about some of us... 👺

 

Maybe he just lost his funny bone... 

 

I mean the same issue is happening in the US with how to teach American History - do we teach it warts and all or do we sanitize everything. I myself had warts, so I like them 😁

[KeenObserver]

Facts are facts.

If you don't believe them, disprove them.

Opinions are opinions. They are relatable to the person that gave them.

Since the majority of what was produced in Stereophile was opinion, it was important to relate that to the author.

If you had a three or four page review that was all hyperbole, it was important to know who the author was.

If you had a music reviewer that gave a glowing review of music that you thought sounded like the death screams of a hyena, you wanted to know who that reviewer was.

If you tested equipment you knew that the tests could be duplicated by others, so your reputation depended on accurately testing and reporting.

If you want to refute what GS published, refute the facts and produce the proof!

 

If you attack him personally, it means you have NOTHING!