The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Tony Lauck said:

 Assuming the digital sampling has extra guard bits they can afford to provide headroom to prevent clipping.  However, unless the output of the upsampling is then reduced down to the actual resolution of the converter circuitry there will be clipping.

 

Top of the line Wolfson DAC chips have a configuration option for this. Described as "Anti-clipping mode control. Attenuates PCM gain path by 2 dB". This feature is disabled by default. 2 dB is not always enough either...

 

For other chips the behavior varies...

[fas42]

I should point out that I normally always run the laptop speakers at 100% volume - the amplifying circuitry and speakers do this very cleanly, and it means that there is one less processing activity happening while playing. Only pieces with excess bass cause obvious distress to the setup, doing this.

[John_Atkinson]

Just now, Fair Hedon said:

Totally and utterly disingenuous. MQA partners in fact HAVE advertised in Stereophile. You made a market, and are now reaping the financial benefits via ad dollars.

 

 I mean this in all sincerity and with respect and and with all good wishes for the New Year, and, of course, without wishing to cause offense, but you, sir, are not playing with a complete hand of cards!

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[Shadders]

10 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

 I mean this in all sincerity and with respect and and with all good wishes for the New Year, and, of course, without wishing to cause offense, but you, sir, are not playing with a complete hand of cards!

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

You too can insult everyone at your whim. Just try these out :

https://dan.hersam.com/lists/not_bright.html

My favourite : 36. A few clowns short of a circus.

Or, you could try : 48. Missing a few buttons on his remote control.

Or : 85. If you gave them a penny for their thoughts, you'd get change.

Yes, no shortage of idioms...

[beerandmusic]

39 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

 I mean this in all sincerity and with respect and and with all good wishes for the New Year, and, of course, without wishing to cause offense, but you, sir, are not playing with a complete hand of cards!

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I don't dispute you, and probably only read 2 or 3 posts in this entire thread....I would be surprised if MQA is even in the black yet?  but certainly hasn't hurt your bottom line, and find no problem with that.

[John_Atkinson]

10 minutes ago, Shadders said:

You too can insult everyone at your whim. Just try these out :

https://dan.hersam.com/lists/not_bright.html

My favourite : 36. A few clowns short of a circus.

Or, you could try : 48. Missing a few buttons on his remote control.

Or : 85. If you gave them a penny for their thoughts, you'd get change.

 

An invaluable resource that I am sure I will make use of in the weeks to come when Stereophile's next reports on MQA hit newsstands and our website :-)

 

Thank you!

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[Fair Hedon]

33 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

 I mean this in all sincerity and with respect and and with all good wishes for the New Year, and, of course, without wishing to cause offense, but you, sir, are not playing with a complete hand of cards!

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

That may be true, I may be a Joker short of a full deck, but that nonetheless does not over ride your disingenuous answers.

 

Regardless if MQA Ltd them selves have or have not advertised, Stereophile has benefited from MQA related ads.

 

Go ahead..spin. 

[John_Atkinson]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

Regardless if MQA Ltd themselves have or have not advertised, Stereophile has benefited from MQA related ads.

 

You have overlooked that we have also benefited from non-MQA advertisers. Schiit, for example, hates MQA with a vengeance but advertises regularly in Stereophile. Sometimes, sir, a cigar is just a  cigar. :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You have overlooked that we have also benefited from non-MQA advertisers. Schiit, for example, hates MQA with a vengeance but advertises regularly in Stereophile. Sometimes, sir, a cigar is just a  cigar. :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

schiit also hates dsd...

 

I don't see all the fuss others have with you...make a buck where you can, makes sense to me.

 

If ALEXA will support MQA, i will start looking at it. (grin).

[plissken]

51 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You have overlooked that we have also benefited from non-MQA advertisers. Schiit, for example, hates MQA with a vengeance but advertises regularly in Stereophile. Sometimes, sir, a cigar is just a  cigar. :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

The old business adage comes to mind: Find as many ways of taking a customers $$ as possible.

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

The old business adage comes to mind: Find as many ways of taking a customers $$ as possible.

What would you expect JA to do?

 

The promises claimed by MQA were of interest to audiophiles everywhere.  They had to cover it.  Maybe they bought into it too easily.  You seem to be complaining if he supports it and if he doesn't.  That would be a no win situation. I think they soft-pedaled it.  Being overly hard edged about new ideas or products isn't usually going to be a good approach. 

 

I do think the time has come to ask more hard questions and be more explicit about what it is.  To ask for more examples if the early claims are still touted by MQA.  Very early questions were about it being lossy and whether end to end retro-active application worked as described.  MQA assured us of the latter and ignored the former.  At this point neither of those appear to be true for MQA. 

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Well documented. Involved accepting money for subscriptions, including from this would-be reader, but then folding his magazine and as far as I am aware using the funds to start a speaker company. (He favorably reviewed the speaker in his magazine without revealing that he had an ownership interest in the company that made it.) When that company was wound up, he relaunched the magazine but refused to honor paid-for subs to the earlier incarnation.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I'm aware of those two - nothing else?

 

The speaker co. is something he explained to varying degrees of satisfaction...

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

What would you expect JA to do?

 

...Being overly hard edged about new ideas or products isn't usually going to be a good approach. 

 

 

I think in an industry like Audiophiledom, where most "new ideas" are either half baked or outright scams, a critical stance to these ideas is necessary.  That is if your going to be anything other than a trade publications that essentially exists to regurgitate marketing materials, etc.  In this Stereophile, TAS, etc. has not really "covered" MQA at all.  The dreaded forums have done all the heavy (and for that matter just about all of the) lifting...

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You have overlooked that we have also benefited from non-MQA advertisers. Schiit, for example, hates MQA with a vengeance but advertises regularly in Stereophile. Sometimes, sir, a cigar is just a  cigar. :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

"Regularly"?   They only started with you mid 2017 after your Facebook spat with Jason Stoddard well documented on Head Fi. You actually gave them some excellent copy with your "obsolete" rant.

[plissken]

37 minutes ago, esldude said:

What would you expect JA to do?

 

The promises claimed by MQA were of interest to audiophiles everywhere.  They had to cover it.  Maybe they bought into it too easily.  You seem to be complaining if he supports it and if he doesn't.

 

I didn't make the statement with any malicious intent. I understand that for Stereophile the readership are the product.

 

It's not like they are consumer reports or anything.

 

What I would expect JA to do is exercise critical thinking. I mean we are dealing with a publishing group that allows writers to out and out just make stuff up.

 

[wdw]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

I didn't make the statement with any malicious intent. I understand that for Stereophile the readership are the product.

 

It's not like they are consumer reports or anything.

 

What I would expect JA to do is exercise critical thinking. I mean we are dealing with a publishing group that allows writers to out and out just make stuff up.

 

Not sure when and why you've imagined yourself to be the arbiter of moral/immoral, right/wrong, etc...it is just staggering the positions you take with such apparent ease...seriously doubt you be willing to speak so rudely to someone across the table at, say, a bar as, I suspect, you'd have your lights punched out in no time flat........but I truly think that JA has more to offer this site than your persistent, arrogant and negative postings.  Please don't chase another industry good fellow away.

[plissken]

42 minutes ago, wdw said:

Not sure when and why you've imagined yourself to be the arbiter of moral/immoral, right/wrong, etc...it is just staggering the positions you take with such apparent ease...seriously doubt you be willing to speak so rudely to someone across the table at, say, a bar as, I suspect, you'd have your lights punched out in no time flat........but I truly think that JA has more to offer this site than your persistent, arrogant and negative postings.  Please don't chase another industry good fellow away.

 

I'm simply stating and keeping to positions that I can back up. I'm not arbitrating anything. The facts are there are writers in the Stereophile family that have, multiple times now, been allowed to fabricate content.

 

It is what it is. You can put me on you're ignore list.

 

I've rather publicly stated the conditions that I would be willing to be proven incorrect and I've put $$ where my mouth is. How many here can say the same I wonder.

 

The matter of the fact is that the remedy here against my accusations is the truth. But we both know that it won't be forthcoming.

 

 

[wdw]

9 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'm simply stating and keeping to positions that I can back up. I'm not arbitrating anything. The facts are there are writers in the Stereophile family that have, multiple times now, been allowed to fabricate content.

 

It is what it is. You can put me on you're ignore list.

 

I've rather publicly stated the conditions that I would be willing to be proven incorrect and I've put $$ where my mouth is. How many here can say the same I wonder.

 

 

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.

[wdw]

17 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

The matter of the fact is that the remedy here against my accusations is the truth. But we both know that it won't be forthcoming.

 

 

So now you’re Joan of Arc!   Pleeeese.

[plissken]

33 minutes ago, 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.

 

To each their own.

[esldude]

46 minutes ago, 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.

If you don't like the challenges, then step up and shut him up.  Otherwise looks like the challenges can't be met.

[wdw]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

 

To each their own.

See above....plissken and his little buddy. 

[wgscott]

Rocketman sure wants to see a lot of people banned.

[wdw]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Rocketman sure wants to see a lot of people banned.

HA!

not too many.  Just one or two disagreeable meanies.  Blue meanies.

[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