Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[Miska]

3 hours ago, semente said:

Any new format means costs for the end user and profits for the industry (magazines included).

 

And in this case severely attempts to hamper the way content can be used. Trying to make it much harder to use digital room correction, 3D headphone processing and other DSP technologies.

[firedog]

44 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

 

 

Did @TheComputerAudiophile get another call from Bob Stuart? He's suddenly pushing back quite hard against MQA critics using the usual guises of faux neutrality and "friendly" advice (to stop saying bad things about MQA).

 

Most recent:

 

 

 

 

Record breaking response time, Chris.  Within mere minutes?  It usually takes at least a few months before you come to realize and act against the pro-MQA shills.  The MQA critics, on the other hand, within minutes.  Also, seems the more effective and knowledgeable the critic, the quicker you respond.  Interesting to witness.

 

 

Sorry, your post is ridiculous. The fellow was banned not because of his opinions, but because he refused to acknowledge his identity as an industry worker, which is against forum rules. Simple as that.  The rest of your post also has a tenuous  connection to reality.  The only thing your post proves is your inability to see past YOUR prejudices. 

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

And in this case severely attempts to hamper the way content can be used. Trying to make it much harder to use digital room correction, 3D headphone processing and other DSP technologies.

 

That is one of the major downsides for me, personally. I use DSP for all my systems, including headphones for EQ and crossfeed. Having spent quite a bit of time fine tuning this process, I would never want to go back. There's just no comparison with the non-DSP'ed versions. Any format or process that denies me the use of DSP in my own system is a loser in my book.

[mansr]

47 minutes ago, firedog said:

he refused to acknowledge his identity as an industry worker

He said he was retired. Do you know the meaning of this word?

[firedog]

33 minutes ago, mansr said:

He said he was retired. Do you know the meaning of this word?

And then he said he was still consulting in the industry. I think consulting counts as work. Or in your dictionary of “meanings” is it something else?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, rwdvis said:

 

 

Did @TheComputerAudiophile get another call from Bob Stuart? He's suddenly pushing back quite hard against MQA critics using the usual guises of faux neutrality and "friendly" advice (to stop saying bad things about MQA).

 

Most recent:

 

 

 

 

Record breaking response time, Chris.  Within mere minutes?  It usually takes at least a few months before you come to realize and act against the pro-MQA shills.  The MQA critics, on the other hand, within minutes.  Also, seems the more effective and knowledgeable the critic, the quicker you respond.  Interesting to witness.

 

 

My response time is directly related to what I'm doing and whether or not posts are reported by members of the CA Community. In this case, I received several reports to check out the abusive language of this person, which lead to additional scrutinization based on his own comments about working the industry.

 

Do you really think I'm biased toward MQA and against members of the CA Community, yet I host the largest anti-MQA area on the internet?

[mav52]

15 minutes ago, firedog said:

And then he said he was still consulting in the industry. I think consulting counts as work. Or in your dictionary of “meanings” is it something else?

Consulting is work, you get paid, its counted as income , you pay taxes at least here in the states. .

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Do you really think I'm biased toward MQA and against members of the CA Community, yet I host the largest anti-MQA area on the internet?

 

I'm surprised this seems to be lost on some.  Whenever MQA or their surrogates (like Stereophile) talks about "MQA haters", they're talking about people at CA.

[mansr]

40 minutes ago, firedog said:

And then he said he was still consulting in the industry. I think consulting counts as work. Or in your dictionary of “meanings” is it something else?

He said he might do some consulting in the future. If Chris was able to find something on this person placing him in an active industry role, he should disclose what it was. Maybe the ban was deserved (foul language aside), maybe not. We can't tell without that information. Do we really want a place where people get banned for made-up reasons?

[Miska]

14 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Whenever MQA or their surrogates (like Stereophile) talks about "MQA haters", they're talking about people at CA.

 

I found it a bit funny when they talked about "anonymous forum posts", I don't think all forum posters here or elsewhere are that "anonymous"...

[rwdvis]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

 

Sorry, your post is ridiculous. The fellow was banned not because of his opinions, but because he refused to acknowledge his identity as an industry worker, which is against forum rules. Simple as that.  The rest of your post also has a tenuous  connection to reality.  The only thing your post proves is your inability to see past YOUR prejudices. 

At times, the dishonesty of some here is astounding.  Did you miss the point(s) on purpose?  Did I say anything about banning, industry worker, or forum rules?  Read again.

 

"Record breaking response time, Chris.  Within mere minutes?  It usually takes at least a few months before you come to realize and act against the pro-MQA shills.  The MQA critics, on the other hand, within minutes.  Also, seems the more effective and knowledgeable the critic, the quicker you respond.  Interesting to witness."

 

The critique was regarding response time and swiftness of action.  With shills who’s positions seem to benefit the site and/or owner, response time from Chris is slow, and decisions labored over (for seemingly ever) before actions taken.  Every possible benefit of doubt is given and common Chris replies include:

 

“Well, I can't read all posts.”
“I can’t be sure that X is a shill/industry affiliate/etc.”
“I like to take a soft approach to moderating.”
“Never received report by members.”

 

In the most recent example, response time was instant and without benefit of doubt.  These actions have become more common and more obvious in the MQA threads.

 

How quickly does he respond to others who are suspected of shilling and/or of being industry affiliates?

 

And by the way, as some have mentioned, there is some doubt as to whether the banning was justified, but Chris has zero interested in entertaining those thoughts at all.  The member did not refuse to acknowledge any industry affiliation, it’s not known whether he is currently affiliated or not.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

At times, the dishonesty of some here is astounding.  Did you miss the point(s) on purpose?  Did I say anything about banning, industry worker, or forum rules?  Read again.

 

"Record breaking response time, Chris.  Within mere minutes?  It usually takes at least a few months before you come to realize and act against the pro-MQA shills.  The MQA critics, on the other hand, within minutes.  Also, seems the more effective and knowledgeable the critic, the quicker you respond.  Interesting to witness."

 

The critique was regarding response time and swiftness of action.  With shills who’s positions seem to benefit the site and/or owner, response time from Chris is slow, and decisions labored over (for seemingly ever) before actions taken.  Every possible benefit of doubt is given and common Chris replies include:

 

“Well, I can't read all posts.”
“I can’t be sure that X is a shill/industry affiliate/etc.”
“I like to take a soft approach to moderating.”
“Never received report by members.”

 

In the most recent example, response time was instant and without benefit of doubt.  These actions have become more common and more obvious in the MQA threads.

 

How quickly does he respond to others who are suspected of shilling and/or of being industry affiliates?

 

And by the way, as some have mentioned, there is some doubt as to whether the banning was justified, but Chris has zero interested in entertaining those thoughts at all.  The member did not refuse to acknowledge any industry affiliation, it’s not known whether he is currently affiliated or not.

Now you're stating things that are 100% false about me. 

 

My response time has to do with what I'm currently doing and if posts get reported by the community. Facts are facts, you can't have your own. People reported this guy because of his language. I read his posts and the big "tell" was the following statement:

 

22 hours ago, seldomheard said:

My boss would fire me. We have to sell product in this whore of a market.

 

His own words indicate he's currently working. You said, "it’s not known whether he is currently affiliated or not." You're twisting the facts to fit your narrative. He admitted to working with his own words.

 

I know who he is because I did some searching. 

 

I encourage you to read this and all the MQA threads. Count the number of posts for and against MQA. If your logic holds true, there should be many more pro MQA posts and a host of banned people that are against MQA. The reality is, you aren't using facts. You're going on a feeling you have. Again, find a larger area on the internet than CA where anti-MQA voices can be heard. You won't. 

 

 

You also said, "With shills who’s positions seem to benefit the site and/or owner, response time from Chris is slow." You are in a 100% fact-free world if you believe what you wrote. You have no idea what benefits the site and are showing a complete lack of knowledge  with respect to how to run a business. I don't blame you for not understanding this, but I do blame you for proving it without a doubt. 

 

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know who he is because I did some searching.

Could you at least tell us who he works for?

[dpstjp2]

That would be in breach of CA's Privacy Policy, wouldn't it?

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

Could you at least tell us who he works for?

No. 

[NOMBEDES]

He was banned for quasi hate speech not his pro or con MQA position.  He is gone, why keep harping on the ban?

[firedog]

1 hour ago, rwdvis said:

At times, the dishonesty of some here is astounding.  Did you miss the point(s) on purpose?  Did I say anything about banning, industry worker, or forum rules?  Read again.

Zero dishonesty from me. But you are clearly clueless and lack basic reading comprehension skills - apparently especially if what you read doesn't fit your preconceptions. 

[Rt66indierock]

On 12/17/2017 at 6:10 AM, mcgillroy said:

So I tried to get a grip on the ownership structure of Stereophile and that's a wee bit complicated.

 

They are owned by a holding called Source which manages a consortium called TEN standing for "The Enthusiast Network."

 

TEN publishes number of consumer interest titles ranging from sufer mags over baseball to audio. 60 mags and about a 100 online titles all together. These titles deal mostly with medium to high priced hobby consumer goods.

 

I could not find any good info on the financial structure and ownership makeup of Source but then I didn't look to hard.

 

Anybody able to shed some light on this?

 

Particularly if there are any investments or stakes in Source by Warner or any of the other big media-conglomerates. 

 

A little housekeeping.

 

The Enthusiast Network was Source Interlink Media. They are owned by Golden Tree Asset Management.

 

Goldentree Asset Management manages funds for institutional investors, pension funds and countries.

 

TEN is a coordinated marketing approach to reaching men under 50, guys who like cars of all ages, a few women who surf, snowboard, skateboard etc.

[GUTB]

Please step away from the deep end. Stereophile has been in print for over 50 years, and John Atkinson has been at Stereophile for over 30.

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Please step away from the deep end. Stereophile has been in print for over 50 years, and John Atkinson has been at Stereophile for over 30.

 

Still no answer to yesterday's question:

 

21 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Do you have any industry affiliation?

 

Multiple people have asked you if you are Steve Guttenberg with no response from you.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@GUTB Are you affiliated with the industry in any way?

[Rt66indierock]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Please step away from the deep end. Stereophile has been in print for over 50 years, and John Atkinson has been at Stereophile for over 30.

 

I told you who owned Stereophile, public information. TEN is primarily a group of auto publications that's where the advertising dollars are. The audio parts of TEN are a tiny part of their operation. Think Motor Trend, Hot Rod, and a personal favorite Street Rodder. If you aren't thinking about things like the DEW Tour, drag racing and surfing you aren't in their demo either.

[rwdvis]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

My response time is directly related to what I'm doing and whether or not posts are reported by members of the CA Community. In this case, I received several reports to check out the abusive language of this person,

People reported this guy because of his language.

“People” sure seem quick to report behavior of MQA critics.  I’ve seen plenty of bad language occur all over the site, but lightning-fast reports only seem to be made against certain critics at certain times.  Did it ever occur to you that it’s possible this trend might have something to do with a group of pro-MQA affiliates and shills within the site?  Something to think about the next time these selective rapid reports come flying in.

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

IAgain, find a larger area on the internet than CA where anti-MQA voices can be heard. You won't. 

 

You also said, "With shills who’s positions seem to benefit the site and/or owner, response time from Chris is slow." You are in a 100% fact-free world if you believe what you wrote. You have no idea what benefits the site and are showing a complete lack of knowledge  with respect to how to run a business. I don't blame you for not understanding this, but I do blame you for proving it without a doubt. 

 

This:

On 6/7/2017 at 10:41 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

With respect to MQA, I've heard many in the music industry who like it or hate it and for all kinds of reasons related to sound quality, DRM, change, etc... To me it doesn't really matter what anyone else says (good or bad). Everyone has an opinion. Touting one guys opinion (good or bad) doesn't move the needle, but it does drive site traffic.

You’ve also stated elsewhere (in the MQA is Vaporware thread, I believe) that only a small percentage of consumers actually read the MQA threads on this site, so it's not surprising that you allow some critique.

 

Conclusion:

 

Additional site traffic
Average consumers won’t see or understand MQA critiques anyway ("doesn't move the needle")
Present a faux-neutral position rather than a healthy dose of skepticism and investigative reporting
Step in with frequent “friendly” advice (and banning) for critics on how to proceed in a more gentle manner (ie., don't say too many bad things about MQA).

[mansr]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No. 

So you basically banned him because you said so. Thanks for clarifying the rules.

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

So you basically banned him because you said so. Thanks for clarifying the rules.

I don't doxx people.