The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[mcgillroy]

...proves one thing: Internet 1 - Stereophile 0.

 

They painted themselves into a corner with MQA. Now they are in defence and their game doesn't look to good so far. Reputation damage done and they seem to think that lashing out and trying to discredit internet posters somehow helps them with their credibility.

 

Good clickbait though.

 

Let's see in a year from now it might well be Internet 2 - Stereophile 0.

 

[GUTB]

Why do you perceive Stereophile as the enemy?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I was surprised JA contributed that gratuitous "MQA is elegant" post.  That one had the unmistakable stench of desperation.

 

Consumer advocacy is the opposite of what Stereophile does.  They cater only to the covetous.

[mcgillroy]

44 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why do you perceive Stereophile as the enemy?

 

That you can think of an agonal frame only is telling.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I was surprised JA contributed that gratuitous "MQA is elegant" post.  That one had the unmistakable stench of desperation.

 

Consumer advocacy is the opposite of what Stereophile does.  They cater only to the covetous.

 

He goes into a bit more detail here:

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/9/90555.html

 

I won't argue if "deperate" is the right word.  No matter how you look at it JA has more than a bit of egg on the face.  IMO the reason is that he/they (i.e. the majority audiophile press) don't have a necessary and critical distance from the industry.  Most of the time, this fact does not matter as much because when dealing with speakers/boxes etc. They are all just yet another product and by itself an overly positive review can't do much damage.  With MQA, which promises to fix this recording chain problem (I should note it is a problem from an audiophile perspective), the overpromise really snookered JA and the rest of them and revealed just how deep they are into the industry perspective and how distanced from and perplexing they find their very own customers priorities (assuming of course that they consider their readers their customers)...

[psjug]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

He goes into a bit more detail here:

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/9/90555.html

 

Does anyone understand what JA means by  "reducing all the stages between 
the input of the A/D converter to the output of the D/A converter"?  This is part of his "elegant" argument but I don't get it.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, psjug said:

Does anyone understand what JA means by  "reducing all the stages between 
the input of the A/D converter to the output of the D/A converter"?  This is part of his "elegant" argument but I don't get it.

 

Isn't it just a pseudo-technical way of saying, "what the artist intended"?

[GUTB]

....Stereophile is a subjective review magazine that deals mostly with high-end audio equipment. Does Harman, Focal, Rega or Nelson Pass care about Stereophile's stance on MQA? Do boutique manufacturers of 200-lbs SET amps have a stake in MQA? I would imagine most of Stereophile's readership buys $30+ hi-res albums and $50+ audiophile vinyl releases and don't consider an inexpensive Tidal streaming account the key part of their system's performance.

 

Let's be real for half a second -- the real reason why you hate audiophile is because it deals with high-end audio. The MQA angle is just an excuse.

[psjug]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Isn't it just a pseudo-technical way of saying, "what the artist intended"?

I don't know.  I would say "controlling all the stages between the input of the A/D converter to the output of the D/A converter"

 

That's elegant from a royalties point of view.

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, psjug said:

I don't know.  I would say "controlling all the stages between the input of the A/D converter to the output of the D/A converter"

 

That's elegant from a royalties point of view.

 

One of the promises of MQA (which can not be easily observed because its actual workings are inside the "black box" and behind the IP firewall) is that it corrects somewhat vaguely identified digital errors caused by the recording/mixing/production/delivery chain.  It also promised to enforce an audiophile grade discipline in this chain, though this promise was even more vague.

 

Consumer sleuthing here (mansr, etc.) and industry insiders like Brian Lucey have revealed that these promises are simply not true, and this would the case even if MQA was adopted as the industry standard.

 

Looking back (20/20 and all that) it is so head slappingly obvious that MQA over promised in this area one has to ask what it is about the culture of Audiophiledom that leads to such naivete...

[Samuel T Cogley]

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

He goes into a bit more detail here:

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/9/90555.html

 

I won't argue if "deperate" is the right word.  No matter how you look at it JA has more than a bit of egg on the face.  IMO the reason is that he/they (i.e. the majority audiophile press) don't have a necessary and critical distance from the industry.  Most of the time, this fact does not matter as much because when dealing with speakers/boxes etc. They are all just yet another product and by itself an overly positive review can't do much damage.  With MQA, which promises to fix this recording chain problem (I should note it is a problem from an audiophile perspective), the overpromise really snookered JA and the rest of them and revealed just how deep they are into the industry perspective and how distanced from and perplexing they find their very own customers priorities (assuming of course that they consider their readers their customers)...

 

The elephant in the room with JA and MQA is the longevity of audiophilia.  The observation that the number of exhibitors and "audiophile press" rivals the actual consumer attendees at audio shows is a potent one.  The "establishment" (JA, et al.) seems to have adopted a "whistling past the graveyard" approach.  Perhaps they're clinging to the 50+ demographic because they know that's the only demographic that's reading their content and buying the things they advertise.

 

I  haven't put much stock into Establishment reviews because of the obvious relationships they have with manufacturers.  Like I said, it's the opposite of consumer advocacy IMHO.  While some might take this as an extreme position, I would trust more an amateur review from a person that paid full retail for an item before I would trust a pro that got it at a "pro" discount or for free.  In my opinion, there's far too little disclosure from the pros about what discounts they got for what audio gear they personally own.  It's an opportunity for corruption.

[realhifi]

Where is Atkinson’s post?  Love to read it. 

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, realhifi said:

Where is Atkinson’s post?  Love to read it. 

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/9/90555.html

[Norton]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

Why do you perceive Stereophile as the enemy?

 

Agreed, this is getting to be playground stuff now with multiple negative threads, competitions to debunk articles before they are even published, references to "sides"' "supporters" and "shills" ( the latter apparently can only be  pro MQA for some reason) 

 

Interesting that according to (largely the same) critics, MQA can simultaneously be both 1. an apparently  small and financially failing concern pedalling vapourware and 2. A powerful sinister corporation with all the labels and audio media in its pocket.

 

And just for the standard absolution,  no, I have no connection with the audio industry, have never heard and don't own or intend to own MQA hardware or software.

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

... They cater only to the covetous.

 

great quote material

[wushuliu]

Meh, the future right now is in headphones not whatever Stereophile is fronting. That's where the new $$$ market is. Good luck convincing Head-fi members that MQA is worth splurging for...

[kilroy]

deleted, not worth the effort

[Milt99]

4 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

 

That you can think of an agonal frame only is telling.

 

Do you know the meaning of the words you used?

I really wish Chris would delete these threads that have a personal axe to grind.

Audio Asylum serves that purpose well & is one reason I haven't gone there in years.

 

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Norton said:

 

Agreed, this is getting to be playground stuff now with multiple negative threads, competitions to debunk articles before they are even published, references to "sides"' "supporters" and "shills" ( the latter apparently can only be  pro MQA for some reason) 

 

Interesting that according to (largely the same) critics, MQA can simultaneously be both 1. an apparently  small and financially failing concern pedalling vapourware and 2. A powerful sinister corporation with all the labels and audio media in its pocket.

 

And just for the standard absolution,  no, I have no connection with the audio industry, have never heard and don't own or intend to own MQA hardware or software.

 

Norton, to be a shill you have to be on the side promoting or selling a product or service. Stereophile telegraphed what they are going to say about MQA long before the article was announced and John Atkinson said he hoped the series would be persuasive. Why wait until the articles are published to announce a contest to debunk them? People need time to go over the extensive information about MQA Ltd’s claims and what they are claiming this month to write rebuttals to Jim Austin’s articles.

 

As for sides it seems you are either on the Bob Stuart (whom I’ve met) Charles Hansen (who was a friend) side or the Rob Watts (who I’ve talked extensively with) John Saiu (whom I’ve met) side. I prefer Rob and John’s side. But just like the American tax code there can be two sides with substantial authority and Charley Hansen did make a good argument for his side to me.

 

The labels made a hedging transaction licensing MQA and owning just over 20% of MQA Ltd not the “buy in” MQA and the American press are touting. It was easy for Bob Stuart to put the audio media in his pocket at first. They wanted a new format to promote and Bob Stuart gave them one. If you have been paying attention Hi-Fi News slipped out of MQA’s pocket.

[fas42]

Apparently JA said ,  "Not only that, but there was palpability to the sound, a transparency to the original event, that I have almost never heard before...."

 

Ummm ... that's what happens when a system, any system, gets to a certain level of competence. This was possible in the mid 1980's if the user took enough care to sort things out - which happens extremely rarely, of course.

 

I keep recalling a video of a presentation by JA, of an ambitious system, where at point it reproduces a sample of a real life sound maker. And JA then proceeds to use one of these devices, for real, in the clip to demonstrate something. Ummm - the system was a miserable fail in getting that sound anywhere near right, and this was obvious in the 'poor quality' Youtube clip.

 

If the sound is damaged on the path to being reproduced, then band aids like MQA may help, improve things - the alternative I prefer is to get the playback chain working right; an all round better solution, to me.

[NOMBEDES]

Look.  People read car magazines full of reports on cars which very few people can afford, and even fewer can afford to maintain.  So I guess a magazine that only "appeals to the covetous" audiophile is ok.   I don't pay much attention to audio reviews anyway, source material and room dynamics kind of wipe out the reviewers opinion.

[asdf1000]

26 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

or the Rob Watts (who I’ve talked extensively with) John Saiu (whom I’ve met) side. I prefer Rob and John’s side.

 

I've seen Robs 2017 RMAF talk on YouTube. He never mentions MQA but he discusses his preference for keeping the pre-ringing as is - as it's important for the DAC to reproduce the transients of the analogue signal as correctly as possible.

 

Assuming I have Rob's gist correct above (anyone please correct me if i'm wrong), is John's position the same or similar?

 

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, Em2016 said:

 

I've seen Robs 2017 RMAF talk on YouTube. He never mentions MQA but he discusses his preference for keeping the pre-ringing as is - as it's important for the DAC to reproduce the transients of the analogue signal as correctly as possible.

 

Assuming I have Rob's gist correct above (anyone please correct me if i'm wrong), is John's position the same or similar?

 

 

John Saiu's and others I didn't name position are the same/similar. 

 

Did you see both seminars or just the first one?  

[asdf1000]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

 

John Saiu's and others I didn't name position are the same/similar. 

 

Did you see both seminars or just the first one?  

 

Cool, thanks. When he started talking about pre-ringing, I immediately thought MQA. Nice to see I've learnt a thing or two from this forum.

 

I've only seen this video linked below. 

 

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Cool, thanks. When he started talking about pre-ringing, I immediately thought MQA. Nice to see I've learnt a thing or two from this forum.

 

I've only seen this video linked below. 

 

 

 

 

He also put on a DAC Masterclass seminar on Sunday. This was the Saturday seminar I'm just off camera to the left.