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

[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.

 

[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...!

 

 

[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.

[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.

[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.

 

 

[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.

[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!

[Brinkman Ship]

6 hours ago, Spacehound said:

GUTB no longer replies to my posts.

 

The most generous explanation I can think of is  that I'm on his  ignore list.

 

(There is a long established  and very 'expert'  'CA Guru' with  a warehouse  full of equipment just to play a tune, who did that when I questioned his omnipotence, me being a mere embryo in his eyes.)

Diana Krall, "Keith Don't Go" by Nils Lofgren, Chesky crap, or Jennifer Warnes?

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

You've got it exactly.

True story...NYC dealer who had a customer who bought a 250K system...owned 5 CDs.

 

Played them over and over because they made his system sound "good"...his children threatened

to destroy the system if he ever played those 5 again..3 were Diana Krall.

 

(Nothing against her, great artist, if rather bland, but it is not her fault she became Audiophile

demo dreck)

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, patagent said:

I won't say a listening test didn't take place.  But putting aside  biases, it's clear to me he has a calculated agenda.

Another newbie Sock Puppet sent to attack the credibility of a poster who has decided MQA is a scam. Been there done that, eh?

[Brinkman Ship]

30 minutes ago, mansr said:

Did he ever say they listened to all the albums in their entirety?

Nope, never did. We sampled key tracks from the albums.

[Brinkman Ship]

12 minutes ago, patagent said:

 

What are the odds two different listeners would prefer (at 100% rate) the at least 50 non-MQA tracks that were played during the purported 8-10 hours blind listening test?  Amino acids in a primordial soup had better odds.

Considering, MQA is a lossy, amateurish application of DSP that sounds like fake surround, or a loudness button on a shitty AV receiver,..UH...100%?

[Brinkman Ship]

"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."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-brooklyn-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-herb-reichert-may-2017#hflMIXbcmleEX18t.99

 

So despite a totally artificial presentation, as noted above, major cluess shilling takes place.

 

That is exactly what I want from my hirez digital..boosted treble and bass, and a "rounded off sound".

 

Great Herb!

[Brinkman Ship]

14 minutes ago, patagent said:

Except Archimago already conducted a test where listeners slightly preferred PCM over MQA (roughly 55% to 45%).  If you were smart, you would have said you compared 10 albums and preferred non-MQA files 80% of the time.  That could have been believable. 

Your condescending tone is getting you no where.

 

Archimago's test had no relation to what I did. Virtually none of the participants had MQA DACs, and he use a capture of a stream. This will clearly blur the differences (no pun intended). I am big fan of his write ups, but that particular test proved nothing.

 

..now...try again...

[Brinkman Ship]

16 minutes ago, eclectic said:

 

What does "temporally precise" actually mean?

 

I never got the PRaT thing. Is this the same?

Maybe this helps?

 

____________

 

bull·shit

ˈbo͝olˌSHit/

vulgar slang

noun

1. 

stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.

verb

1. 

talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, eclectic said:

 

Thank you. Very helpful, though I prefer the more polite description "Male Bovine Excrement". Wouldn't want to offend anyone's sensibilities after all. 

glad i could help!

[Brinkman Ship]

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

FWIW, I share your experience with the elusiveness of PRaT.  The consistent read that I've gotten from audiophile forums is some variation of, "if you can't hear PRaT, your system is not resolving enough".  I just lumped it in with danceable cables.

You realize that PRAT, along with other pretentious nonsense, started with the magazines.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm not really familiar with the etymology.  It seemed to be a favorite term with some who spent a substantial amount of money on their systems.  And it didn't really seem like a thing with headphones, so I just sort of moved on.

..they invented a pretentious pseudo intellectual way of describing how gear sounds so as to position them selves as voices of authority.

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Wrong.

?

[Brinkman Ship]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Wrong. It was an early Naim advertising slogan created by Naim's  eccentric founder., and his  'philosophy'. It was real too.

Yes, but apparently a UK HiFi writer started to use the term in his articles...

 

...real to whom? LSD trips real too...to those dropping. As is the fact anything over $20 for audio cables is a rip off...

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Those terms may be real, but they apply to music and musical performances, not playback equipment. No matter how bad an amp is, it won't make the drummer miss a beat or make a waltz sound like reggae.

I have NEVER heard a musician EVER discuss "PRat", and I know quite a few..and I have never thought about it while listening to live music. It is fabricated Audiophile "male cow excrement.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, dalethorn said:

 

On a positive note, I've purchased about 1/3 of the albums he recommended, which is better than average for me.

That is good to hear. He has very esoteric taste and nothing wrong with that at all. John Marks was the same way.