The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[plissken]

56 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

How about I just screen scrape it an post it here so there's no redirect? I also made sure to grab this out of cache and not your page ;-)

 

 

 

Lol, Thanks for DMCA'ing it John. And yes I expected it since you're a class act all the way.

 

My point is you can cross link for more profits to drive people to your content, but somehow Archimago gets painted with a different brush but the same color here.

 

The difference being is that he's more competent at reviewing, measuring, extrapolation than you are but since he refuses to be part of the paid horses mouth in this industry he gets a cold shoulder from the entrenched.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As you made the accusation, surely you bear the burden of proof? But if you want some "math," read the essay at https://www.stereophile.com/content/great-wall-china-0

 

And thank you in advance for gifting us a page view, thus revenue :-)

 

Oh, and here is the link to the analysis on the Audio Asylum:

https://www.audioasylum.com/messages/critics/53003/i-can-t-believe-i-did-this

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I don't read the printed Stereophile these days, but was subscriber for a long time.  Unless it has greatly changed it is true something like half or less of reviewed products have ads in Stereophile.  

 

Now maybe if you count all brands available at some of the large east and west coast dealers the number goes much higher.  That however is not at all like a maker of a reviewed product advertising their gear.

 

So this doesn't paint too nice a picture of those posting against this without looking at the actual facts of the matter. 

[John_Atkinson]

29 minutes ago, plissken said:

Lol, Thanks for DMCA'ing it John. And yes I expected it since you're a class act all the way.

 

We do not allow third-party sites to reprint our copyrighted content. If you wish to read what we have to say, you have to visit our website. As access to our website is free, I don't see that as a hardship.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

 

1 hour ago, plissken said:

How about I just screen scrape it an post it here so there's no redirect? I also made sure to grab this out of cache and not your page ;-)

Edited 1 hour ago by The Computer Audiophile

 

Copyrighted content removed at request of John Atkinson

 

Thank you Chris.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[plissken]

38 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

We do not allow third-party sites to reprint our copyrighted content. If you wish to read what we have to say, you have to visit our website. As access to our website is free, I don't see that as a hardship.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

You missed the point.

 

Archimago, for some boilerplate reason (running a blogspot with insertion advertising), has been lampooned here for linking to his content.

 

While one is okay, the other isn't.

 

Trust me: Next time I'll tear apart the article, comment on various aspects of it, properly attribute it and post a fair use banner.

[Ralf11]

advertisements vs. reviews ranked on how favorable the review was would be more interesting

[John_Atkinson]

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

You missed the point.

 

Archimago, for some boilerplate reason (running a blogspot with insertion advertising), has been lampooned here for linking to his content.

 

While one is okay, the other isn't.

 

You'll have to raise that with Chris Connacker. I was providing the link as a response to "crenca"'s challenge to provide evidence for my claim. Note that I also provided a link to an analysis performed by a poster to The Audio Asylum. I have no intention of posting promotional links to Stereophile articles other than to support what I say.

 

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Trust me: Next time I'll tear apart the article, comment on various aspects of it, properly attribute it and post a fair use banner.

 

I don't have any problem with that.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[Tony Lauck]

On 12/26/2017 at 3:20 AM, Em2016 said:

 

http://www.psaudio.com/forum/directstream-all-about-it/mconnect-control-app/page-4/#p76644

 

"What’s a proper reconstruction filter?  An infinitely long filter with linear phase.  Non linear phase will mess with the phase, well, non-linearly.  Since filters can’t be infinitely long, what are the best approximations to one?  Opinions differ, but I agree with the folks at Schiit Audio and Chord that the filter should be as long as possible and shouldn’t mess with the phase – we all use as long of a filter as is practical (well, we all use slightly impractical filters )"

 

 

This is all BS.   The filter used for playback is going to interact with the filter used for recording.  In the event of compromised systems, such as 44.1 kHz PCM, these filters have subtle but audible interactions.  It is not possible to have a system that has full frequency range (e.g. up to 20 kHz), is free of ringing, and does not create spurious frequencies due to aliasing. The optimum filter for playback of 44.1 recordings is going to vary according to the filter used for playback and upon the quality of the original recording, even the type of music.  This is not a matter of "proper" or "improper".

 

With appropriate playback software you can tweak the playback filter and observe these effects.  However,  this is generally a waste of time if one's goal is music rather than sound, especially if the music is available in high resolution format, where the effects of filtering are much less significant.  This can be done with software such as HQPlayer which has a choice of filters, or with pro software such as iZotope RX, which allows setting many different parameters of filters used for downsampling (recording) and upsampling (playback), including a mix of linear vs. minimum phase filters, filter slope, and filter center.

 

[tmtomh]

I am very suspicious of MQA's claims and have said so here more than once.

 

But WTF is this extended interrogation of @John_Atkinson and Stereophile's motives, asking him to prove that advertising isn't biasing reviews? Ridiculous - not because we shouldn't be on the lookout for conflicts of interest, but rather because IMHO Stereophile and Atkinson have decades of good reputation, and more importantly, such a conflict is totally unnecessary to prosecuting the argument against MQA.

 

You can argue that Atkinson has bought a good chunk of MQA's PR, and/or that he and others are claiming to hear sonic benefits for which there's no evidence. But to argue that he and others are intentionally (or I guess in the more sophisticated variants, semi-unconsciously) engaged in an ad-revenue-fueled conspiracy? That's silly, and there's no point to it. All it's likely to do is drive Atkinson away from these forums - and audiophile forums are notorious for driving away industry professionals because of just this type of behavior.

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

I am very suspicious of MQA's claims and have said so here more than once.

 

But WTF is this extended interrogation of @John_Atkinson and Stereophile's motives,...

 

 

because: Internet

[semente]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

We do not allow third-party sites to reprint our copyrighted content. If you wish to read what we have to say, you have to visit our website. As access to our website is free, I don't see that as a hardship.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

And advertising probably pays for the free website.

[crenca]

45 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

You can argue that Atkinson has bought a good chunk of MQA's PR, and/or that he and others are claiming to hear sonic benefits for which there's no evidence. But to argue that he and others are intentionally (or I guess in the more sophisticated variants, semi-unconsciously) engaged in an ad-revenue-fueled conspiracy? That's silly, and there's no point to it.

 

The point is not to point out conspiracy, but rather as evidence for a hegemonous culture where the interests of "the industry" are all foreground and the interests of the consumer is usually not even acknowledged.  When it is acknowledged, it is negatively (i.e. consumers wage "wars" and are "nasty", etc.).  My point is that the definition of "advertising" that JA uses is self serving.  He and others disagree and that is fine.  The industry is relatively small and these interrelationships are what they are.  The thing about MQA is that it has really exposed a lot of things about this culture - almost all of it negative from any perspective outside "the industry"...

[gridlock74]

I have to agree with tmtomh, it's a bit uncomfortable and feels like a bit of a witch hunt. Surely we should be trying to get learn from each other rather than trying to hammer away at a point. I think he's done well to fight his corner, with evidence and still no one accepts what he says. I suspect it doesn't matter how much evidence he puts forward conjecture will win out. 

 

I have no love for stereophile or any other magazine, but I'm keen to hear what he has to say and why he thinks what he does and maybe learn something along the way. I'm also happy to disagree without ceaselessly hammering away at a single point with no amount of evidence provided changing my mind.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, gridlock74 said:

 I suspect it doesn't matter how much evidence he puts forward conjecture will win out.

 

 

You mean like the ticker tape parade JA and co were willing to throw MQA in 2014 before it was even released?

 

That kind of forward conjecture?

 

Bottom line is the umbrella company that runs Stereophile and other sub brands has zero editorial oversight, or they just don't give a shit, and therefore allow for writers that simply lie and make stuff up. I'm not about to try and separate the wheat | chaff. They are all suspect IMO.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, gridlock74 said:

I have to agree with tmtomh, it's a bit uncomfortable and feels like a bit of a witch hunt.

 

I don't see a "witch hunt", any more than I see the efforts of consumers on forums such as this one to get the truth about MQA as "a war" or "nasty" (these are the exact terms two stereophile writers use to describe forum posters such as yourself).  John and Kal were not born yesterday, they can take a little questioning of their explicit claims of firewalls, how they use terms such as "advertising" and the like.  Relax, sit back, it's only audio.

 

Besides, it does not matter if the reviewed-to-advertised mix is 10%, 50%, or 90% - their position on MQA remains as anti-consumer as it has been...

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Abtr said:

 

I hear you. What I attempted to convey is that at some point, if every part of the chain is basically OK, a simple tube (impedance match?) can trigger a new SQ level in a highly non-linear fashion (what I called discrete). It's like the proverbial whole that suddenly seems to be more than the sum of its parts. Of course it is a synergy between all system components, but it must be largely independent of (small) tolerances of individual resistors, capacitors, etc. And it is so radical, involving every aspect of sound, that it makes me wonder what global variables define this threshold. Could (as some suggest) a format like fully unfolded MQA trigger this at the DAC output with its reconstruction filters? If so, it must be measurable..

 

Bit of a bitchin' session now ... gosh, why are we here, in CA, etc - is it about where the money is, or somewhat vaguely about achieving sayisfying sound?

 

Pixie dust solutions, like MQA, will fade - as they all deserve to ... competent reproduction of all digital was possible 3 decades ago, if one knew what to do ...

 

OK ... every part of the chain is basically OK is where nearly all systems are - but there is still too audible dirt present, from weaknesses at one, or a number of points. Either by diligent experimentation, or a fortunate one or two changes or tweaks - as you found out - those weaknesses are sufficiently reduced in significance ... and a new SQ level is triggered.

 

Synergy? Just a fancy word for saying that the system is mainly working properly. Tolerances of parts? Not in the normal sense, but if a part with better parasitic behaviours is swapped in, this might just be enough. Global variables? The presence and amount of low level, disturbing artifacts, anomalies, or "character" in the sound. MQA? All it does is alter the music data so that often the playback chain is adding less unpleasantness to the subjective experience - "making it better".

 

Measuring what's going on is hard, very hard. The important thing is what's going on inside the brain, which means that it will vary per individual - I think it highly likely that one will never be able to point to hard numbers, here.

[mav52]

Very odd, some attack the magazine but seem to have moved or missed the point to question the stance Stereophile has on MQA.   I could careless about their advertising, the column lines, adds per page, ,marketing.  copyrighted content etc.. its about their position on MQA that should be identified with facts if that's what this thread is supposed to be about, maybe I missed the slight of hand change of direction notice,.  Carry on. Just noticed, it appears the thread is back on track. .

[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.

[John_Atkinson]

52 minutes ago, plissken said:

Bottom line is the umbrella company that runs Stereophile and other sub brands has zero editorial oversight,

 

To clarify, the person who exerts editorial oversight over Stereophile's content is me, and has been for almost 32 years. But you are welcome to write to company president Kevin Mullan and let him know of your dissatisfaction.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

[plissken]

4 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

To clarify, the person who exerts editorial oversight over Stereophile's content is me, and has been for almost 32 years. But you are welcome to write to company president Kevin Mullan and let him know of your dissatisfaction.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I know you're the editor (I'm assuming that Stereophile also includes sites like AudioStream but willing to be corrected). As editor I also know that you allow writers to 100% lie and make shit up. I'm not saying anything I can't back up.

[John_Atkinson]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

I know you're the editor.

 

And that means exactly what I wrote. We have a shallow management structure. I am a senior manager and report to a group general manager who reports to the president who reports to the board. I am responsible for Stereophile's editorial strategy, policy, direction, budget, and control. The general manager is responsible for the magazine's business activities including revenue, staffing etc.

 

1 minute ago, plissken said:

As editor I also know that you allow writers to 100% lie and make shit up. I'm not saying anything I can't back up.

 

Good grief, so much anger, so little actual knowledge :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[plissken]

15 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Good grief, so much anger, so little actual knowledge :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

So there is no content, that you are ultimately responsible for, that isn't 100% falsified?

 

Feel free to correct then... I'll be here.

[realhifi]

Silly little internet forums come and go. Stereophile and Absolute Sound will keep on. 

[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.

[james45974]

8 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Silly little internet forums come and go. Stereophile and Absolute Sound will keep on. 

Seems to me the opposite is more likely.  We are witnessing the last bleatings of the paper audio press proceeding to extinction, or alternatively to exclusive online content.