Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mcgillroy

The fact that Atkinson showed up here

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"...


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. .


The Truth Is Out There

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)


Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...