The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[Sal1950]

20 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

You are drawing a general conclusion from too small a sample. You are doing what my statistics professor called "data dredging," using a chosen data set to support a predetermined conclusion. I have written elsewhere that the ratio between advertisers and non-advertisers whose products are reviewed in Stereophile is around 50/50. That statement was based on looking at the reviews in a large number of issues. But if you examine just one issue, as you have done, the ratio can be very different.

Ah, now I clearly understand John, we have to look at a bigger picture. I'm figuring what your doing is to add in all the reviews from back in the years when Stereophile didn't accept any advertising. That's where we're missing getting the numbers you have stated. Quite easy when you understand the inside details.

[Sal1950]

On 12/31/2017 at 7:41 AM, John_Atkinson said:

The Stereophile writers who have auditioned decoded MQA files and compared them with the PCM originals (where the provenance is known) have found that there is an improvement in sound quality. Sometimes the improvement is small, sometimes not so small, but there is never a degradation.

Has the listening been done under a blind controlled  condition?

If the difference is obvious how do you determine that it's really better and not just different? It's easy for folks to be fooled by euphonic coloration, look at the current fad for vinyl.

Either way, in the end your willing in time to lose the distribution of totally lossless original PCM files to the DRM like control of MQA?

That will be a sad ending, your mags position is sticking knives in the backs of audiophiles for the sake of some marketing $ dollars.

[Sal1950]

15 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

What marketing dollars? As I have pointed out before, while MQA has advertised in The Absolute Sound, they haven't spent a cent advertising in Stereophile.

 

BTW, I note you quoting the late Peter Aczel in your posts - not the most appropriate role model for those who desire integrity in audio journalism. :-)

 

Please John, Don't play us for blind fools. MQA is a potential money maker for most everyone in the industry from the source material suppliers to the hardware manufacturers. Everyone making more money means more potential income for Stereophile.  Just as a good portion of your writers are portraying vinyl as the top tier for obtaining high fidelity reproduction in this year of Our Lord 2018, flip thru the pages of Stereophile to see how much advertising money is now being made from the vinyl industry as the outcome of your magazines promotion of vinyl as SOTA.

 

As to your remarks about Peter, I won't debate only to say IMHO. the goings on at The Critic were a shining light of integrity compared to Stereophile's track record. YMMV

[Sal1950]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

And this would be an even bigger scam

And one that could probably make a lot of money.

Lets talk dude. 

[Sal1950]

On 1/1/2018 at 10:10 PM, wdw said:

The issue is not whether you imagine your position to be correct, that is a debatable point, but more so the malice that you write into them.   You constantly offer these silly BS $$ challenges.  Please go back to hacking Hillary’s emails.  I personally believe this site as  a whole should put you on ignore.  

Queue Cogley and Kamakame.

Some people have the confidence to put their money where their mouth is.

Others can only run their mouths.