I Now Consider The Stereophile Staff Snake Oil Salesmen

[Brinkman Ship]

Based on the irrational comments in the "MQA Conceptualized" post, I have

no choice to consider the staff at Stereophile snake oil salesmen.

 

Many here have worked under the delusion that they would start to temper

their support once all the widely available data was examined. Keep dreaming.

 

These excerpts show they have doubled down:

 

JIm Austin:

 

"MQA is currently in "bootstrap" or "startup" mode. (It may graduate from that or just disappear. Only time will tell.) As a result, processes are still being worked out. But what you describe--your desire to sign off on the MQA version--is completely consistent with MQA's creators' vision; this is what the blue light (as opposed to the green light) is intended to mean"
 

"As for MQA, a current problem is that, away from the mastering studio, artists commonly lack access to an MQA-capable DAC (and, very likely, a system capable of resolving those differences)."

 

"You said you'd never heard MQA. When you do--when you compare MQA and non-MQA versions of your work--I think you will be surprised how similar they sound. I have never heard a piece I thought MQA made worse, but in general the change is quite subtle, IMO. (YMMV.)"

 

Jason Victor Serinus: (Try not to laugh)

 

"If MQA didn't audibly improve sound quality to our ears, our coverage would be minimal."

 

"MQA's argument is that you and recording engineers are currently hostage to DAC timing errors. If MQA can truly correct those errors, does that make you a double hostage, or are you actually freer to move closer to the source?"
 

"How would you feel if I reviewed your recording without listening to it? I ask because you have just made absolute pronouncements about something you have never heard and, admittedly, have not taken the time to read about or understand."

 

If your answer is affirmative, you have just read what a lot of us, including a host of major sound and mastering engineers and recording label executives, have been saying. That doesn't mean that, once you listen, you have to agree. But Lord almighty, don't you hope people will come to your music with an open mind? Why not extend the same courtesy and curiosity to MQA?"

 

Sickening . And when you are sick, the last thing you need is SNAKE OIL.
 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-contextualized

 

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-contextualized

[Indydan]

As I understand Jason Victor Serinus' reply to Jerome Sabbagh, he is basically saying listen to MQA; if it sounds better, nothing else matters.

 

Jerome pointed out a lot of problems with MQA that have nothing to do with sound quality. JVS basically tells him that the supposed better sound quality of MQA, justifies every other (bad) thing about MQA. I rolled my eyes when I read that one. 

 

Serinus is whistling one really bad tune... 

[Indydan]

I hate to play devils advocate in this situation  (I am very anti MQA myself), but I would not paint with such a broad brush. I would not call everyone on Stereophile's staff a snake oil salesman. 

 

For example, I don't remember reading Art Dudley or Herb Reichert even mentioning MQA. 

 

In my opinion, TAS has been much more vocal, and over the top in their support of MQA than Stereophile. 

 

Have people forgotten this "gem" from Robert Harley?

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/

 

FFS, he compares Bob Stuart's MQA in terms of a scientific revolution comparable to Newtonian physics!  

[Brinkman Ship]

9 hours ago, Indydan said:

I hate to play devils advocate in this situation  (I am very anti MQA myself), but I would not paint with such a broad brush. I would not call everyone on Stereophile's staff a snake oil salesman. 

 

For example, I don't remember reading Art Dudley or Herb Reichert even mentioning MQA. 

 

In my opinion, TAS has been much more vocal, and over the top in their support of MQA than Stereophile. 

 

Have people forgotten this "gem" from Robert Harley?

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/

 

FFS, he compares Bob Stuart's MQA in terms of a scientific revolution comparable to Newtonian physics!  

I hate to disappoint you , but Reichert wrote one of the most ignorant and pathetic MQA panders to date:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-brooklyn-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-herb-reichert-may-2017

 

Try not to throw up.

 

"Listening To MQA

... and sounded like the purest DSD.

 

...  MQA makes it a demonstration-quality track.

 

... The MQA version of Vespertine sounded so much better than the CD that it seemed too good to be true.

 

... Will I ever comprehend the real reasons MQA sounds as enjoyably vivid and insightful as it does?

 

... For now, I'm happily addicted to MQA”

 

On the the Snake Oil List;

 

Atkinson

Fremer

Rubinson

Rechert

Austin

JVS

 

You are right about one thing, Art Dudley is the only hold out. There are good reasons. He probably would not be caught dead streaming from Tidal, and his competency with digital servers is nil. And he probably has an actual BS detector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

40 minutes ago, Indydan said:

As I understand Jason Victor Serinus' reply to Jerome Sabbagh, he is basically saying listen to MQA; if it sounds better, nothing else matters.

 

Jerome pointed out a lot of problems with MQA that have nothing to do with sound quality. JVS basically tells him that the supposed better sound quality of MQA, justifies every other (bad) thing about MQA. I rolled my eyes when I read that one. 

 

Serinus is whistling one really bad tune... 

JVS is like the lobotomized member of a quasi religious cult. He repeats his MQA mantras daily while drooling into his bib.

 

One of four 68-70 year olds, more than likely with seriously deficient hearing, pleading with us to just "listen" to MQA (with Atkinson, Fremer, and Reichert).

 

His lecture to Jerome was hysterical.

 

[NOMBEDES]

Jesus H. Christ, when did you get the idea that Stereophile was involved in the snake oil trade?    When they claimed Cable A “sounded” better than cable B? When they claimed that the amplifier which cost $15000. was a “reasonable price” for quality audio.   When they featured a pair of speakers that were so large, so heavy, so expensive and so ugly that no person besides Russian oligarchs ( well known for bad taste) would buy them?  @Brinkman Ship welcome to the real world.  Most of us reached the same conclusion years ago.  MQA is just the latest brick in the wall.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

Jesus H. Christ, when did you get the idea that Stereophile was involved in the snake oil trade?    When they claimed Cable A “sounded” better than cable B? When they claimed that the amplifier which cost $15000. was a “reasonable price” for quality audio.   When they featured a pair of speakers that were so large, so heavy, so expensive and so ugly that no person besides Russian oligarchs ( well known for bad taste) would buy them?  @Brinkman Ship welcome to the real world.  Most of us reached the same conclusion years ago.  MQA is just the latest brick in the wall.

 

 

...sneaky...slipping in those song lyrics...!

 

 

[Fluffytime]

13 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

Jesus H. Christ, when did you get the idea that Stereophile was involved in the snake oil trade?    When they claimed Cable A “sounded” better than cable B? When they claimed that the amplifier which cost $15000. was a “reasonable price” for quality audio.   When they featured a pair of speakers that were so large, so heavy, so expensive and so ugly that no person besides Russian oligarchs ( well known for bad taste) would buy them?  @Brinkman Ship welcome to the real world.  Most of us reached the same conclusion years ago.  MQA is just the latest brick in the wall.

 

 

 

To be fair, some random Saudi Prince would probably see those speakers and think "I need those".

 

So it's not just Russian oligarchs. And I'm sure GUTB would love them too, as soon as he was shown the pricetag.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

JVS is like the lobotomized member of a quasi religious cult. He repeats his MQA mantras daily while drooling into his bib.

 

One of four 68-70 year olds, more than likely with seriously deficient hearing, pleading with us to just "listen" to MQA (with Atkinson, Fremer, and Reichert).

 

His lecture to Jerome was hysterical.

 

Stop the personal attacks. If you can't stop, you'll need to move on.

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I hate to disappoint you , but Reichert wrote one of the most ignorant and pathetic MQA panders to date:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-brooklyn-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-herb-reichert-may-2017

 

Try not to throw up.

 

"Listening To MQA

I began my investigation of the Mytek Brooklyn, Tidal Masters, and MQA with Mozart's Violin Concerto 4 in D, K.218, performed by soloist Marianne Thorsen with Øyvind Gimse conducting the Trondheim Soloists, from the sampler 2L: The Nordic Sound—2L Audiophile Reference Recordings (2L). It came through at 24/352.8 and sounded like the purest DSD. While I listened, I kept mumbling, This is 21st-century hi-fi-del-i-ty radio—and it's unbelievable! And only $19.99 a month! (footnote 1)

"Daddy made a soldier out of me . . . and my Daddy said shoot!"

 

If you want to experience Tidal Masters MQA in full force, listen to "Daddy Lessons," from Beyoncé's ass-kicking Lemonade (Columbia). Certainly, there are MQA files that audiophiles will more heartily endorse, but I think Lemonade got the full MQA treatment. If you're not already a fan of Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter or MQA, this album's high-flying, 21st-century R&B poetics will fix both problems. I think "Don't Hurt Yourself," with Jack White, is one of the best pop songs I've heard in years, and MQA makes it a demonstration-quality track.

 

Another excellent Tidal Masters album is Björk's Vespertine (Elektra), which, when compared to my CD version, seemed incredibly more vivid, open, and present. The illusion of space was dramatically improved. Voices felt more solid, more precisely positioned. The MQA version of Vespertine sounded so much better than the CD that it seemed too good to be true.

 

When I visited Michal Jurewicz's mastering lab and studio in Greenpoint, we compared a lot of files: first without, then with MQA. In every comparison, MQA made the original recording sound more dynamic and transparent, but only sometimes more temporally precise. After a while, the MQA versions began to remind me of those old Loudness Contour buttons on 1960s receivers, which used equalization to compensate for the loss of treble and bass at low listening levels.

 

Consistently, MQA sounded as though it was tweaking the EQ in the presence region (footnote 2). I noticed that most of the MQA versions sounded rounded off and smoother than the originals, and asked why that was. Jurewicz said he wondered about that. It was also clear that MQA enhanced some vintage recordings much less than others, and again I wondered why. I'm certain that the provenance of the master used to create the MQA version plays an important role in the end result, but now, after listening at considerable length, I wonder more than ever: Will I ever comprehend the real reasons MQA sounds as enjoyably vivid and insightful as it does?

 

For now, I'm happily addicted to MQA, Tidal Masters, and the Mytek Brooklyn. Together, this trio delivered more plaisir and jouissance than I'm used to experiencing with streamed digital music. These milestone products have, each in its own way, brought computer audio to a hip new place in which I could hunker down for years, just having fun."

 

On the the Snake Oil List;

 

Atkinson

Fremer

Rubinson

Rechert

Austin

JVS

 

You are right about one thing, Art Dudley is the only hold out. There are good reasons. He probably would not be caught dead streaming from Tidal, and his competency with digital servers is nil. And he probably has an actual BS detector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, I had not read that review from Reichert. Faint praise it is not! 

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

Thanks, I had not read that review from Reichert. Faint praise it is not! 

Reichert (despite his MQA fanboyism, totally over the top in that article),  which I ignore and which he doesn't do it in every article,   and another one who's name I can't remember are the only ones who make  Stereophile worth reading at all. Even then I would not  pay for the 'paper' one.

[Rt66indierock]

On 2/17/2018 at 8:56 PM, Indydan said:

I hate to play devils advocate in this situation  (I am very anti MQA myself), but I would not paint with such a broad brush. I would not call everyone on Stereophile's staff a snake oil salesman. 

 

For example, I don't remember reading Art Dudley or Herb Reichert even mentioning MQA. 

 

In my opinion, TAS has been much more vocal, and over the top in their support of MQA than Stereophile. 

 

Have people forgotten this "gem" from Robert Harley?

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/

 

FFS, he compares Bob Stuart's MQA in terms of a scientific revolution comparable to Newtonian physics!  

 

Herb is in bag for MQA. 

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Herb is in bag for MQA. 

As I noted, the only staff member who to the best of my knowledge has not mentioned MQA in a review or column

is Art Dudley.

[Rt66indierock]

23 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

As I noted, the only staff member who to the best of my knowledge has not mentioned MQA in a review or column

is Art Dudley.

 

Based on my conversations with Herb he long past where you placed him. 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Based on my conversations with Herb he long past where you placed him. 

That is frightening. From a "reviewer" who cannot even set up a simple high resolution server.

[GUTB]

Dude, you literally made up a fake story about doing a listening test with made-up MQA albums, and you’re out calling Stereophile snakeoil salesmen?

 

Guys, look, if you’re here eating up the anti-MQA messaging, please look around and realize who you are associating yourselves with. You can be anti-MQA without being a part of an online cult.

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Dude, you literally made up a fake story about doing a listening test with made-up MQA albums, and you’re out calling Stereophile snakeoil salesmen?

 

Guys, look, if you’re here eating up the anti-MQA messaging, please look around and realize who you are associating yourselves with. You can be anti-MQA without being a part of an online cult.

Dude, YOU Made up a story about ME making up a story. I know you get off on that narrative. Stop the trolling. Oh daym, t just turned into a Moda-Rata-Wanna-Be.

 

 

[GUTB]

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Dude, YOU Made up a story about ME making up a story. I know you get off on that narrative. Stop the trolling. Oh daym, t just turned into a Moda-Rata-Wanna-Be.

 

 

 

You straight up lied about it. It’s depressing more people couldn’t immediately tell your ridiculous rich audiophile friend test story was fake on its face. You had to be challenged to list these 50 MQA albums you downloaded before more people started to realize the story was made up. Just sad.

 

But because anti-MQA is a cult, the story being fake doesn’t matter. The liar is still welcome. Critical thinking can go to hell, it’s all about the dopamine fix from signaling on the MQA question with made up villains and imaginary facts.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

You straight up lied about it. It’s depressing more people couldn’t immediately tell your ridiculous rich audiophile friend test story was fake on its face. You had to be challenged to list these 50 MQA albums you downloaded before more people started to realize the story was made up. Just sad.

 

But because anti-MQA is a cult, the story being fake doesn’t matter. The liar is still welcome. Critical thinking can go to hell, it’s all about the dopamine fix from signaling on the MQA question with made up villains and imaginary facts.

No, the REAL story is that you are depressed about the fact that my REAL friend's system smokes yours, and that

you do not have any where near the listening skills to hear MQA for what it is, amateur hour lossy DSP .

 

Own it.

[GUTB]

2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

No, the REAL story is that you are depressed about the fact that my REAL friend's system smokes yours, and that

you do not have any where near the listening skills to hear MQA for what it is, amateur hour lossy DSP .

 

Own it.

 

You made it up. You were caught. That’s all there is to it. 

[Spacehound]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

You straight up lied about it. It’s depressing more people couldn’t immediately tell your ridiculous rich audiophile friend test story was fake on its face. You had to be challenged to list these 50 MQA albums you downloaded before more people started to realize the story was made up. Just sad.

 

But because anti-MQA is a cult, the story being fake doesn’t matter. The liar is still welcome. Critical thinking can go to hell, it’s all about the dopamine fix from signaling on the MQA question with made up villains and imaginary facts.

Not that we couldn't tell, it is that we take people 'positively' until they prove otherwise.

 

"imaginary facts"? Show us your real ones.

 

[Fluffytime]

Any time I read a post by GUTB, this is what comes to mind:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

[Ralf11]

or maybe Russian Troll Bots arguing with each other

[Brinkman Ship]

14 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

You made it up. You were caught. That’s all there is to it. 

This is the typical TIRED MO of posters who neither have the technical acumen or perceptive skills to understand what MQA is doing and they simply attack the credibility of the poster. Yawn. Own it Gut Bee.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Not that we couldn't tell, it is that we take people 'positively' until they prove otherwise.

 

"imaginary facts"? Show us your real ones.

 

Your best post of the month!