The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[Mordikai]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Nearly everyone wories like crazy about speakers ... I don't ... .

 

Their sins are not particularly relevant to the quality of sound I'm after - I have not once thought. "Gee, I need better speakers to get somewhere with this combo!" - I make sure their integrity as an assembly of bits is in good shape, and work on stabilising them in the position they're in - and that's it!

 

Why this appears to work is because speakers don't introduce the disturbing, low level distortions that electronics do - those telltale anomalies that disturb the illusion of a realistic presentation.

Wow, you and I live on different planets. Can I ask what speakers you use? What kind of music do you listen to?

[Mordikai]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Possibly ... . Speakers? A variety of boring box speakers, usually 2 ways - one setup had a single channel subwoofer. Music? Absolutely everything - from full bore orchestral and opera, to weirdo alternative stuff, to classic pop albums, going waaaay back - even country ... .

 

A system working well can handle anything, and I mean everything. The point being, you never "hear the speaker" - it, to coin a phrase , is merely "a window to the recorded performance" - if I do hear the speaker having some characteristic, then the system is not working well enough, and needs to be fixed ...

Ok, I got it. I think you and I just listen for different things. I do obsess over speakers and enjoy the process very much. Enjoy!

[Mordikai]

2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Let me stop you there.  That statement was made in a review written by Larry Greenhill and, despite what you seem to believe, JA does not impose his views on the writers.  The opinions expressed are those of the writer and that goes for JA, too. 

The fact that everyone at stereophile seems compelled to mention this very fringe product in they're reviews is a bit ridiculous. I mean nobody at stereophile has a problem with MQA? Where is the debate within the magazine? Shouldn't the staff represent the differing views within the audiophile public? What percent of audiophiles want MQA? I would guess fewer than 50%. 

[Mordikai]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yep! I've noted how some people relate to the "sound of the speaker" - but that's not my thing. I'm into being taken to a music event, and being immersed in the sense of that - the system is merely a means to an end. If I was a cabinet maker I would get great pleasure from crafting a speaker cabinet that pleased the eye - and the sounds it made would be of much lower importance - the experience for the senses is everything.

Yeah- that's not what I meant. I don't obsess over the look or idea of speakers but how they convey the music. I found that getting the speakers and room right and I'm 90% there. I don't think I value the music any less than you or anyone else and I don't know how anyone could assess that anyway. 

Have fun!

[Mordikai]

Hey JA- I don't really care about all this advertising talk. I am however a paid subscriber to Stereophile and find it disturbing that no one who has issues with MQA has had an article published in your magazine. Does no one on your staff have a negative outlook on MQA? If not I would suggest you do some hiring. I believe a lively debate within an organization is healthy and if Stereophile does not have that a lot of the audiophile community(me) is being neglected.

[Mordikai]

JA- really, why no dissenting opinion among Stereophile staff? Everyone thinks MQA is great? That seems unlikely.

I'm not a hater, I read Stereophile, please respond.

[Mordikai]

1 hour ago, 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.

 

Now it is always possible that we are hearing the absence of PCM artefacts and have not yet learned the sonic signature imposed by MQA encoding. Just as when they first heard CD, many listeners were impressed by the absence of LP's sonic artefacts - CD's pitch stability on piano recordings, for example - and hadn't yet learned to hear CD's failings. But for now we are reporting what we hear, just as we do with anything else we audition.

 

BTW, if you read the Web reprint of my "As We See It" in the January 2018 issue, I do provide links to criticisms of MQA. And in the forthcoming February issue, I examine an issue with MQA that has nothing to do with sound quality but does, in my opinion, explain so much of the antagonism expressed.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

There are enough issues for me that I'm uninterested in anything related to MQA regardless of how it sounds. I have a very hard time believing it's going to do more for the sound than DSP speaker and room correction, which it is not compatible with, and any closed loop liscences arrangement is not cool with me.

I'm not an especially conspiratorial person but I don't trust MQA or the record labels. The labels have a long history of making the wrong moves when it comes to technology and the changing modes of music distribution. 

I do think it would benefit Stereophile and your readers(me) to have more diversity of opinion. You guys sure appeared to jump out of the gate with an over the top endorsement of MQA. Like buying the car before you even look under the hood.  I can't remember the last time I've been that bowled over by a play back system or component, yet you seemed to think it was the second coming and gave it a ringing endorsement immediately. I guess I'm looking for a more journalistic approach where big claims are questioned and research is done to verify.

 

anyway, as a subscriber to Stereophile I would prefer a more cautious approach to MQA or atleast a little more diversity of opinion. If it's not available within your staff I'm sure there are many industry professionals who could contribute a reasonable skepticism of MQA. 

I look forward to the upcoming issue 

thank you

 

[Mordikai]

 I love my class A and tube sound and if an album is produced with a distinct retro sound I'm fine with that. But if the record labels wanted to apply this very pleasing distortion to the entire catolog I'd be totally against it. I like some ECM recordings they have a distinct house sound but I would not want all my music to go through processing to sound like ECM recordings. 

It seems with the giant increase in storage and streaming capabilities we are on the verge of saying good bye to MP3, I'm not ready to jump into another defacto standard. 

[Mordikai]

2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

If you are referring to my December 2014 report on MQA, I don't think I have anything to apologize for. It was a report on the technology and its implications.

 

 

That is what Jim Austin's ongoing series of articles in Stereophile is doing. Note, BTW, that in my not-uninformed opinion, much of the criticisms made of MQA made on this and other forums are simply wrong. I don't see it as part of Stereophile's role to spread such misinformation.

 

 

Manufacturers who have been critical are not disinterested observers. Jim Austin examines this in the March 2018 issue.  And as you are a  Stereophile subscriber - for which thanks -  you will have noted in our report from the 2017 AXPONA that it is actually difficult to get people to go on the record for Stereophile on MQA. (Again, see my "As We See It" in the current issue.) For example, I have been having mail exchanges with two respected engineers who are critical of MQA, particularly regarding what happens when an MQA file is decoded without any unfolding. But both have shared their opinions with me on the condition that I would not publish them in the magazine.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

JA- I'm not asking for apologies or making any demands, just stating my opinions. When speaking publicly (or privately for that matter) I don't make wild accusations or typically assume the worst of someone. I can understand why you would not want unsupported wild accusations in your magazine. I would also not like having premature enthusiastic support for unsupported claims of a company with a giant financial stake in a product(software) in the magazine.

thanks for the response, I've said my peace.

[Mordikai]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

 

In fact one of my main complaints about the audiophile world is the tendency to exaggerate small differences and say they are night and day type differences. I think it happens all the time. So whenever I hear a hobbyist or a professional make claims like "my system sounded completely different"   after switching a component or "component A was vastly superior to component B"  when both are good components - I'm skeptical about how large the differences actually are.  I think audiophiles are so focused on the hobby and listening so hard to hear differences that often small changes are perceived as large ones. I guess it helps justify spending ever larger sums on upgrades as you go  further and further along the scale of diminishing returns for your additional dollar. 

 

Yes! This is a chronic problem and it's not just the magazines, even your average forum participants do this a lot.