The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[Kal Rubinson]

16 minutes ago, Mordikai said:

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

I think you hit on it in your first statement.

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Me too :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

I absolutely adore the fact that MQA is promoted in the context of every review of every digital product. So you punish companies that have not fallen in line and plant doubt in a prospective buyers mind. Subliminal market making. SHAMEFUL.

 

"However, Bryston hasn't yet decided whether or not to include MQA capability in their digital gear, which may make some think twice about upgrading to a BDP-3."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bdp-3-digital-music-player#bGTT7jya0e8kqeMc.99

 

 

 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

13 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I absolutely adore the fact that MQA is promoted in the context of every review of every digital product. So you punish companies that have not fallen in line and plant doubt in a prospective buyers mind. Subliminal market making. SHAMEFUL.

 

"However, Bryston hasn't yet decided whether or not to include MQA capability in their digital gear, which may make some think twice about upgrading to a BDP-3."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bdp-3-digital-music-player#bGTT7jya0e8kqeMc.99

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. 

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes 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. 

I did not mean to imply that it was a JA review.  However, using every review to evangelize MQA, is still, in a word, shameful.

 

It is far worse even than telling consumers they should think twice about buying an amazing sounding DAC because it does not do DSD, or a SOTA SACD player because it does not do multi channel.

 

Clearly, the "crew" is all on the same page with their MQA love-fest.

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

54 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

 

It is far worse even than telling consumers they should think twice about buying an amazing sounding DAC because it does not do DSD, or a SOTA SACD player because it does not do multi channel.

All of those are factual notices which the consumer can use as he chooses.  

 

54 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I did not mean to imply that it was a JA review.  However, using every review to evangelize MQA, is still, in a word, shameful.

All opinions expressed are those of the writer.  

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Mordikai said:

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

 

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 ...

[Ralf11]

 something is not working well enough, and needs to be fixed ...

[fas42]

The speaker of the house?

[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!

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, Mordikai said:

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!

 

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.

[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!

[Norton]

6 hours ago, Fair Hedon said:

I absolutely adore the fact that MQA is promoted in the context of every review of every digital product. So you punish companies that have not fallen in line and plant doubt in a prospective buyers mind. Subliminal market making. SHAMEFUL.

 

"However, Bryston hasn't yet decided whether or not to include MQA capability in their digital gear, which may make some think twice about upgrading to a BDP-3."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bdp-3-digital-music-player#bGTT7jya0e8kqeMc.99

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are clutching at straws, desperate  to find evidence of  some kind of conspiracy.  Firstly the article was written by an existing BDP owner. Secondly the caveat re. MQA was not about buying a unit, but whether existing owners should consider an upgrade.  Thirdly the author wasn't instructing owners not to upgrade, just pointing out that ( apparently) the BDP3 is not MQA compatible (not  knowing that much about MQA, I'm  not even sure if that is correct as the BDP is a player outputting only digital,  not a DAC).

 

I'm more concerned about the potentially misleading impression the review generates in stating: "The BDP-3 can handle files of resolutions up to 32-bit/384kHz PCM and DSD128 (both via a USB-connected DAC), compared to the BDP-2's maximum of 24/192. The BDP-3 can also connect to more devices, including NAS drives, Internet radio, and lossless Tidal streaming (subscription required), and can be configured as a Roon Ready endpoint"

 

I can confirm, as an owner, that both the BDP2 and even the BDP1 can also play PCM 384 and DSD128 and connect to all those devices and services.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Mordikai said:

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!

 

A little misunderstanding here - the conveying of the music is primarily a function of the electronics I find - if they don't do the job well enough then, yes, fiddle with the speaker and room to minimise impact of the playback anomalies.

 

Music is what the game is about - and in the end if you enjoy the recordings that matter, that's all that's important ... cheers!

[semente]

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A little misunderstanding here - the conveying of the music is primarily a function of the electronics I find - if they don't do the job well enough then, yes, fiddle with the speaker and room to minimise impact of the playback anomalies.

 

Music is what the game is about - and in the end if you enjoy the recordings that matter, that's all that's important ... cheers!

Yes electronics can produce nasty distortions, and vinyl adds noise and wow (which I find intolerable).

But the speakers' performance affects the sound in orders of magnitude than exceed anything else in the chain - tonal balance, resolution at low levels, distortion at high levels, driver and cabinet induced distortions. And then there's the room...

Perhaps you are not sensitive to these aspects, or you just don't care.

It's a matter of expectations, you are not as demanding as some of us here.

My monophonic Tivoli tabletop radio sounds quite musical and I enjoy listening to even orchestral music but the quality of the sound it puts out is rubbish.

Sorry, I think you are wrong with this one.

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, semente said:

Yes electronics can produce nasty distortions, and vinyl adds noise and wow (which I find intolerable).

But the speakers' performance affects the sound in orders of magnitude than exceed anything else in the chain - tonal balance, resolution at low levels, distortion at high levels, driver and cabinet induced distortions. And then there's the room...

Perhaps you are not sensitive to these aspects, or you just don't care.

It's a matter of expectations, you are not as demanding as some of us here.

My monophonic Tivoli tabletop radio sounds quite musical and I enjoy listening to even orchestral music but the quality of the sound it puts out is rubbish.

Sorry, I think you are wrong with this one.

 

I suspect you are not aware of how impressive sound reproduction can be - most so-called high end sound is highly flawed, and makes one very much aware of the reproduction machinery; there is a very distinct step up from this behaviour, where everything "sounds quite musical" - but this is now in the realm of the intensity, and ease, that 'natural', acoustic music making projects. Once one has experienced this, the typical quality of sound produced by the typical audiophile system can never be taken seriously again - and, yes, in this situation it may be preferable to listen to that tabletop radio; it can be extremely irritating, and fatiguing to put up with the misbehaviour of ambitious setups.

[mcgillroy]

Somebody make a little table of all DAC/Streamer reviews and announcements in Stereophile during the last 24 months: tabulate number of MQA mentions in three columns vs total number of reviews/announcements:

 

A. MQA mentioned as existing feature

B. MQA mentioned as missing feature

C. MQA not mentioned

 

Anybody willing to make a guess how many percent of the reviews/announcements will fall into columns A or B?

 

The real interesting question though will be how many percent of DACs and streamers not having MQA will fall in category B.

 

My guess is in both cases 66%.

 

Maybe Mr. Atkinson pulls this numbers from his CRM. Should be easy enough! Else teh internet needs to debunk either him or itself.

 

 

[semente]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I suspect you are not aware of how impressive sound reproduction can be - most so-called high end sound is highly flawed, and makes one very much aware of the reproduction machinery; there is a very distinct step up from this behaviour, where everything "sounds quite musical" - but this is now in the realm of the intensity, and ease, that 'natural', acoustic music making projects. Once one has experienced this, the typical quality of sound produced by the typical audiophile system can never be taken seriously again - and, yes, in this situation it may be preferable to listen to that tabletop radio; it can be extremely irritating, and fatiguing to put up with the misbehaviour of ambitious setups.

 

Your suspicion is incorrect.

My reference system (not my own) consists of a highly modified CD-player, custom-designed DAC and amplifier and a pair of modified large 3-way speakers.

The sound is very smooth but incredibly dynamic and the degree clarity and absence of distortion is amazing at any listening level.

I use the same CD player and amplifier in my system.

[hsmeets]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

I suspect you are not aware of how impressive sound reproduction can be - most so-called high end sound is highly flawed, and makes one very much aware of the reproduction machinery; there is a very distinct step up from this behaviour, where everything "sounds quite musical" - but this is now in the realm of the intensity, and ease, that 'natural', acoustic music making projects. Once one has experienced this, the typical quality of sound produced by the typical audiophile system can never be taken seriously again - and, yes, in this situation it may be preferable to listen to that tabletop radio; it can be extremely irritating, and fatiguing to put up with the misbehaviour of ambitious setups.

 

Yes, reproduction is not the same as life music. It never can be. 

Having said that I concur with previous posters that room and speakers have the biggest impact on the reproduction, much more than the electronics.

[gdpr]

Whilst I agree that reproduction never will be the same as life music, my audio system is very much capable of not only delivering high quality sound, but even more important the ambiance of a life music performance.

 

Today I prefer by far listening to 'live' albums (even when sound quality somtetimes is lower) than studio recordings of the same artists. 

This was quite the opposite with my initial hifi-components.

Only when that 'live' preference became clear to myself, I knew I had finally reached my audio reference system.

 

Dirk

 

 

 

 

[rwdvis]

9 hours ago, Fair Hedon said:

I absolutely adore the fact that MQA is promoted in the context of every review of every digital product. So you punish companies that have not fallen in line and plant doubt in a prospective buyers mind. Subliminal market making. SHAMEFUL.

 

"However, Bryston hasn't yet decided whether or not to include MQA capability in their digital gear, which may make some think twice about upgrading to a BDP-3."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bdp-3-digital-music-player#bGTT7jya0e8kqeMc.99

 

 

9 hours ago, Fair Hedon said:

I did not mean to imply that it was a JA review.  However, using every review to evangelize MQA, is still, in a word, shameful.

 

It is far worse even than telling consumers they should think twice about buying an amazing sounding DAC because it does not do DSD, or a SOTA SACD player because it does not do multi channel.

 

Clearly, the "crew" is all on the same page with their MQA love-fest.

 

Exactly.  And here's another example of the despicable behavior you mention.

 

Begin at 11:07

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07NpWk_Xf8

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

3 hours ago, rwdvis said:

 

Exactly.  And here's another example of the despicable behavior you mention.

 

Begin at 11:07

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07NpWk_Xf8

 

 

Thanks for posting this. This is not the first video where he endorsed MQA. His sell out on MQA is one of the more

bizarre ones. His Brinkmann DAC "review" was so absurd, it defies logic.

 

BTW, if he saw anyone set up their analog as sloppily and carelessly as he has his digital rig, he would go ballistic.

 

[Fair Hedon]

7 hours ago, Norton said:

 

You are clutching at straws, desperate  to find evidence of  some kind of conspiracy.  Firstly the article was written by an existing BDP owner. Secondly the caveat re. MQA was not about buying a unit, but whether existing owners should consider an upgrade.  Thirdly the author wasn't instructing owners not to upgrade, just pointing out that ( apparently) the BDP3 is not MQA compatible (not  knowing that much about MQA, I'm  not even sure if that is correct as the BDP is a player outputting only digital,  not a DAC).

 

I'm more concerned about the potentially misleading impression the review generates in stating: "The BDP-3 can handle files of resolutions up to 32-bit/384kHz PCM and DSD128 (both via a USB-connected DAC), compared to the BDP-2's maximum of 24/192. The BDP-3 can also connect to more devices, including NAS drives, Internet radio, and lossless Tidal streaming (subscription required), and can be configured as a Roon Ready endpoint"

 

I can confirm, as an owner, that both the BDP2 and even the BDP1 can also play PCM 384 and DSD128 and connect to all those devices and services.

You are correct, and I am intimately familiar with the BDP-2 and it in no way is limited to 24/192.

Sloppy, sloppy work. One wonders why Bryston did not correct this unless they were not sent a pre publication draft.

[crenca]

14 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. 

 

Kal, respectfully, let me stop you there.  Are you saying that there is NOT an overwhelming homogeneity of opinion/perspective/reporting on MQA at Stereophile?  Whether JA is directly responsible for Larry's opinion of the importance of MQA is quite besides the point.  This is like arguing whether the New York Times directly imposes a liberal view on 99% of its writers, or whether Fox directly imposes a conservative view on its writers.  Heck, both of those organizations at least make a show of reporting the other side even if their whole point is to push a particular agenda.  Stereophile has not even made a show of presenting a downside to MQA...

[plissken]

14 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. 

 

I think many people aren't going to put in the effort to disassociate an article writer from Stereophile and the editorial staff that oversees what goes into the publication.

 

When I first read the partially vomit inducing article in 2014 about a format that wasn't even available, it was just another indicator that the fix was in and whom was doing the fixing.

 

Editors have all the discretion in the world. For the past two years if you are a manufacturer that hasn't included YAF (Yet ANOTHER format) that the press has rallied around (even before it was a thing, hey remember Pono?) then they've been on the receiving end of a very strenuous tsk, tsk, tsk, from people that normally can't install a AA battery in the correct orientation on the 2nd go round.

 

Love your MCH enthusiasm and reviews. But I have no use for the audiophile press, the agenda, and if I ever need a good laugh I like to listen to the panel with JA and Krueger.