The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[Fair Hedon]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

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.

While I agree with you that the agenda was set, I do have to correct you on Pono.

 

It is NOT a format. Pono was a hirez portable file player and a download store. They sold FLAC files. That is it, no other format. Pono failed because of machinations behind the scenes by several competitors.  They had a good product.

 

I personally bought many out of print titles from the Pono store that were available no where else.

[Norton]

16 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

 

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.

.

Intrigued as to what  partial vomit induction involves, and how it would manifest itself.   About to throw up but somehow get it back down again maybe?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Norton said:

Intrigued as to what  partial vomit induction involves, and how it would manifest itself.   About to throw up but somehow get it back down again maybe?

 

It's called vurping (vomiting plus burping) 

[Fair Hedon]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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...

Not only that..let's look at HOW this crew reached their "conclusions:" about MQA.

 

We know that MQA clearly positioned itself as 'high resolution", encoded from 24 bit master files.

-Herb Reichert compared it to CD.

-Fremer compared it to CD streams.

-Lavorgna, Austin, and Atkinson initially compared MQA to a handful of handpicked files

on a $200 Meridian DAC. Atkinson later used their $24,000 DAC.

 

Clearly they had a story line they wanted to sell. Fremer claiming he would have adopted digital fully 30 years

ago if MQA had been around and that MQA beat vinyl on several occasions pushes the boundaries of what can

be considered believable by any intelligent person.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

....Fremer claiming he would have adopted digital fully 30 years

ago if MQA had been around and that MQA beat vinyl on several occasions pushes the boundaries of what can

be considered believable by any intelligent person....

 

Well, show business will be show business.  The exaggerated late-night-infomercial rhetoric is part and parcel of the art and wine, subjectivised "Audiophiledom" that has been around for quite a while now (ever since High Fidelity-ism died).  It's all about creating and selling a culture, a perception of "high end" and in that sense MQA is just the current useful idiot, except this one got away from them because MQA is not just another product (like a speaker, a cable, etc.).

 

Don't worry, the times are a changin...

[Kal Rubinson]

It is clear that whatever I say will not have much impact here but, before I ignore the rest of this thread, here goes:

54 minutes ago, crenca said:

Are you saying that there is NOT an overwhelming homogeneity of opinion/perspective/reporting on MQA at Stereophile?

I cannot say because I hear more about MQA in Stereophile on this forum than I actually read in Stereophile.  As a reader, I really do not see much about it because I am not looking for red flags and because I am not very interested.  My responses here are only about editorial policy in my experience.

 

34 minutes ago, plissken said:

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.

One should.  AFAIK, all these writers were hired before MQA was announced so their positions on it cannot have been considered.

 

34 minutes ago, plissken said:

Love your MCH enthusiasm and reviews. But I have no use for the audiophile press, the agenda, ...............

Thanks but, to the point, MCH is about my personal agenda which is not shared by most of the other writers or by JA.  I do not share an enthusiasm for MQA and no one has called me on it.  

 

That's all, folks!

[Rt66indierock]

32 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Not only that..let's look at HOW this crew reached their "conclusions:" about MQA.

 

We know that MQA clearly positioned itself as 'high resolution", encoded from 24 bit master files.

-Herb Reichert compared it to CD.

-Fremer compared it to CD streams.

-Lavorgna, Austin, and Atkinson initially compared MQA to a handful of handpicked files

on a $200 Meridian DAC. Atkinson later used their $24,000 DAC.

 

Clearly they had a story line they wanted to sell. Fremer claiming he would have adopted digital fully 30 years

ago if MQA had been around and that MQA beat vinyl on several occasions pushes the boundaries of what can

be considered believable by any intelligent person.

 

Probably at good time to point out the $200 Meridian DAC used to compare MQA has been replaced by the Direct DAC which doesn't mention MQA support. See the Vaporware thread.

[plissken]

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

One should.  AFAIK, all these writers were hired before MQA was announced so their positions on it cannot have been considered.

 

I'm a 180 in that respect. Editors edit. They edit for a whole range of reasons including content.

 

Let me get to the point: In the long view, IMO, Stereophile is going to have egg on face over the support for MQA when it wasn't even available, the way that content has been evaluated with zero controls in place, the current state of the filter and compression MQA uses being better understood and now replicated.

 

It's been back slapping pageantry since MQA was announced three years ago and it's editorial staff that have allowed their agenda to drive all this. A lot of times it's over a cliff the driving goes. I'll just step to the side and what the car of buffoons that make shit up go on over the edge.

[Norton]

35 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Probably at good time to point out the $200 Meridian DAC used to compare MQA has been replaced by the Direct DAC which doesn't mention MQA support. See the Vaporware thread.

I would have thought the Explorer2 was the replacement MQA DAC.  From what I can see the Direct DAC is an older, though still available, model that was launched prior to MQA 

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, Norton said:

I would have thought the Explorer2 was the replacement MQA DAC.  From what I can see the Direct DAC is an older, though still available, model that was launched prior to MQA 

 

I'm looking at marketing literature and noticing the MQA is moved down the marketing points. Meridian seems to going back to their other filters in their marketing it is noticeable in Europe especially in home theater where MQA has made a big push in the United States. 

 

[crenca]

54 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

It is clear that whatever I say will not have much impact here but, before I ignore the rest of this thread, here goes:

I cannot say because I hear more about MQA in Stereophile on this forum than I actually read in Stereophile.  As a reader, I really do not see much about it because I am not looking for red flags and because I am not very interested.  My responses here are only about editorial policy in my experience.

 

One should.  AFAIK, all these writers were hired before MQA was announced so their positions on it cannot have been considered.

 

Thanks but, to the point, MCH is about my personal agenda which is not shared by most of the other writers or by JA.  I do not share an enthusiasm for MQA and no one has called me on it.  

 

That's all, folks!

 

Thanks for your perspective.  It should be pointed out that you say nothing to disabuse us of the overall perspective of Stereophile and the rest of the audiophile trade publications.  This perspective (too weak a term, it truly is an agenda) is grounded in not so much an overt editorial enforcement policy by JA and the like, but a cultural homogeneity.  Nobody gets hired at Stereophile without being in strong agreement with its culture.  This of course has strengths and weakness.  MQA has definitely brought out the weaknesses.

 

 Stereophile (or TAS, etc.) could of course publish an counter perspective from a writer that has a firm grasp of the various technical, legal, etc. cons of MQA.  This would be a "show" of sorts as clearly it is already committed to MQA.  I however don't expect it.

[Samuel T Cogley]

39 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Thanks for your perspective.  It should be pointed out that you say nothing to disabuse us of the overall perspective of Stereophile and the rest of the audiophile trade publications.  This perspective (too weak a term, it truly is an agenda) is grounded in not so much an overt editorial enforcement policy by JA and the like, but a cultural homogeneity.  Nobody gets hired at Stereophile without being in strong agreement with its culture.  This of course has strengths and weakness.  MQA has definitely brought out the weaknesses.

 

 Stereophile (or TAS, etc.) could of course publish an counter perspective from a writer that has a firm grasp of the various technical, legal, etc. cons of MQA.  This would be a "show" of sorts as clearly it is already committed to MQA.  I however don't expect it.

 

+1

 

I noticed Mr. Rubinson used the words, "as a reader" with regards to Stereophile.  While I certainly appreciate his candor when he says, "I am not very interested [in MQA]", the notion that he can offer something like an objective take on Stereophile "as a reader" is preposterous to the point of almost(?) being insulting. And I think it's a fantastic illustration of the groupthink that pervades the audiophile "culture".

[Fair Hedon]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Probably at good time to point out the $200 Meridian DAC used to compare MQA has been replaced by the Direct DAC which doesn't mention MQA support. See the Vaporware thread.

Thanks for noting that. I am not sure I would read too much into that just because it is not mentioned on the Meridian site..the DAC may very well still have MQA support...or not.

[Fair Hedon]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

I'm a 180 in that respect. Editors edit. They edit for a whole range of reasons including content.

 

Let me get to the point: In the long view, IMO, Stereophile is going to have egg on face over the support for MQA when it wasn't even available, the way that content has been evaluated with zero controls in place, the current state of the filter and compression MQA uses being better understood and now replicated.

 

It's been back slapping pageantry since MQA was announced three years ago and it's editorial staff that have allowed their agenda to drive all this. A lot of times it's over a cliff the driving goes. I'll just step to the side and what the car of buffoons that make shit up go on over the edge.

Yes, egg on their face..just like they did when they reported their would be tens of thousands of DSD downloads for sale.

[plissken]

I agree: Let's see Stereophile hire the likes of Archimago or Mansr.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Stereophile (or TAS, etc.) could of course publish an counter perspective from a writer that has a firm grasp of the various technical, legal, etc. cons of MQA.  This would be a "show" of sorts as clearly it is already committed to MQA.  I however don't expect it.

Positive Feedback did just that with the Andreas Koch piece.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Fair Hedon said:

Thanks for noting that. I am not sure I would read too much into that just because it is not mentioned on the Meridian site..the DAC may very well still have MQA support...or not.

 

I put these events together, Bob Stuart left the board before Meridian's year end (May 2017), operating losses (not counting sales of intellectual property), unsuccessful move to a premium brand model and the partnership with LG (to replace Samsung). LG is smart enough to know there are MQA clones out there and damn its hard to play MQA files on our flagship V30 phone. So if you're Meridian you slowly walk back MQA support like LG has with V30 and look forward to a brighter future. Some of the latest marketing materials support this. 

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

I agree: Let's see Stereophile hire the likes of Archimago or Mansr.

LOL, - anti-science, anti-audiophile trolls are needed everywhere....

[fas42]

10 hours ago, semente said:

 

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.

 

Which echos what I believe motivates a lot of audiophiles - they have come across a combo which pushes so many buttons, and they obviously want the same for themselves.

 

"Smooth",  "incredibly dynamic", "clarity and absence of distortion is amazing at any listening level" - a nice collection of buttions ... I would be curious as to the level of "invisibility" of the speakers of this rig ...

 

My path has been to explore the factors that allow all these buttons to be triggered - and I'm especially impressed by how remarkably low cost items can do this, if the right steps are taken. Of course, they can't produce SPLs beyond inherent limitations - but everything else can come together.

 

BTW, things like MQA are a microscopic blip in all this - a dead end if ever I saw one ...

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

+1

 

I noticed Mr. Rubinson used the words, "as a reader" with regards to Stereophile.  While I certainly appreciate his candor when he says, "I am not very interested [in MQA]", the notion that he can offer something like an objective take on Stereophile "as a reader" is preposterous to the point of almost(?) being insulting. And I think it's a fantastic illustration of the groupthink that pervades the audiophile "culture".

 

I have to defend Kal on this. Unless he changed his mind he wrote that he could not tell the difference between MQA files and non MQA files listening casually. When critically listening he said it was a different sort of different.

 

I can't find any fault with his position on the sonic merits. 

[plissken]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

LOL, - anti-science, anti-audiophile trolls are needed everywhere....

 

People like Hirsch and Holt used to be the norm. That sort of reasoned thinking has now been driven out. 

 

Thankfully forums with really well educated individual are available.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have to defend Kal on this. Unless he changed his mind he wrote that he could not tell the difference between MQA files and non MQA files listening casually. When critically listening he said it was a different sort of different.

 

I can't find any fault with his position on the sonic merits. 

 

He could also propose and encourage efforts like Mark Waldrep to get his 24/192 files put through the conversion chain and when Bob Stuart leads him around by the nose for 2 years and then stops answering calls...

 

Well maybe the same  enthusiasm that JA and co promoted an unreleased product could have been brought to bare on this also. But is wasn't and I think I know why that could be. 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, hsmeets said:

 

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.

 

Reproduction can't be "exactly the same" - but it can easily mimic the sensations of live music - in fact, it can do a lot better than the "real thing", in many instances!

 

Part of that quality of reproduction is that the listening room and speakers "disappear", as a subjective impression - I achieve this by working on the electronics, the most effective route.

[Rt66indierock]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

He could also propose and encourage efforts like Mark Waldrep to get his 24/192 files put through the conversion chain and when Bob Stuart leads him around by the nose for 2 years and then stops answering calls...

 

Well maybe the same  enthusiasm that JA and co promoted an unreleased product could have been brought to bare on this also. But is wasn't and I think I know why that could be. 

 

Michael Ridder of Berkeley Audio Design (BAD) said in our back and forth on The Absolute Sound that a pure 24/192 recording chain was better than MQA as a "transparent pipe. " I think Bob always knew this. 

 

As long as Kal is exploring the things he wrote about in the January issue I'm good with that.

[Fair Hedon]

36 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have to defend Kal on this. Unless he changed his mind he wrote that he could not tell the difference between MQA files and non MQA files listening casually. When critically listening he said it was a different sort of different.

 

I can't find any fault with his position on the sonic merits. 

????

 

"However, when I switched from the DXD (native 24/352.8) to the MQA version (24/44.1 decoded to 24/352.8), there was a consistent improvement in the impression of transparency, and the disassociation of the soundstage from the physical positions of the speakers.

 

After listening to all of the multichannel samples, as well as a few dozen stereo tracks, I am confident in saying that MQA, played through Mytek's Brooklyn DACs, made a real and consistent improvement. If MQA can recruit recording companies to offer sufficient, interesting, and new MQA-encoded recordings in multichannel, I don't see how the technology can be ignored. I'd be in with both feet.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-84-multichannel-mqa-page-2