I Now Consider The Stereophile Staff Snake Oil Salesmen

[Panelhead]

  I tried reading the MQA articles in this month’s Stereophile. Could not follow the message. 

  I do want to see the detailed timing measurements and graphs. The first article on timing confused me. The tests seemed thorough just could not decipher the conclusion.  

  I too never listen to MQA material or hardware. So have no opinion on sound quality or accuracy.

[Indydan]

4 hours 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.

 

First of all, I am not, and have never been part of a cult. Not here, nor anywhere else.

 

Now, do you have proof Brinkman Ship lied? If so, please present it. Of course I do not believe everything I read in Internet forums. I do find Brinkman Ship's story a little too convenient. But, since I have no proof he lied, I do not accuse him. I also did not drop down on my knees to praise him for his anti MQA test results. I am anti MQA for many reasons, and was long before Brinkman Ship showed up on CA.

 

The anti MQA threads here on CA are numerous and very long. I don't have the time or desire, to call out every single person who appears suspicious. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that is posted; even if a comment is posted by someone who is anti MQA like I am. Just because I live in or near the same village, doesn't mean I will drink the Kool-aid. 

 

Most anti MQA posters are very reasonable. I wish all of them were. When an anti MQA poster goes over the top, or rants stupidities, he gives the pro MQA cartel ammunition to discredit all of us anti MQA people. The MQA people will not debate MQA on a technical level, because they know they will lose. That is why they resort to attacking the character of the anti MQA crowd. They attack the messenger, not the message.

 

Every time an anti MQA poster talks out of his ass, responds with too much anger, or personally attacks an MQA enthusiast,  he or she HELPS the other side. 

 

 

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, Indydan said:

...

Every time an anti MQA poster talks out of his ass, responds with too much anger, or personally attacks an MQA enthusiast,  he or she HELPS the other side.

 

Yes. Very much this.

[Spacehound]

On ‎18‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 1:15 AM, Brinkman Ship said:

....."MQA is currently in "bootstrap"..... 

It's an 'application', not an 'Initial Program Load'

 

They don't even use the correct Mumbo Jumbo.

[Spacehound]

7 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Your best post of the month!

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.)

[Spacehound]

7 hours ago, Fluffytime said:

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

 

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

I got stuck when I reached 'noted' homophobes  versus   'mainstream'  homophobes.

[kilroy]

.

[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?

[mansr]

7 hours ago, Spacehound said:

It's an 'application', not an 'Initial Program Load'

 

They don't even use the correct Mumbo Jumbo.

The correct term is "malware."

[patagent]

11 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

First of all, I am not, and have never been part of a cult. Not here, nor anywhere else.

 

Now, do you have proof Brinkman Ship lied? If so, please present it. Of course I do not believe everything I read in Internet forums. I do find Brinkman Ship's story a little too convenient. But, since I have no proof he lied, I do not accuse him. I also did not drop down on my knees to praise him for his anti MQA test results. I am anti MQA for many reasons, and was long before Brinkman Ship showed up on CA.

 

The anti MQA threads here on CA are numerous and very long. I don't have the time or desire, to call out every single person who appears suspicious. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that is posted; even if a comment is posted by someone who is anti MQA like I am. Just because I live in or near the same village, doesn't mean I will drink the Kool-aid. 

 

Most anti MQA posters are very reasonable. I wish all of them were. When an anti MQA poster goes over the top, or rants stupidities, he gives the pro MQA cartel ammunition to discredit all of us anti MQA people. The MQA people will not debate MQA on a technical level, because they know they will lose. That is why they resort to attacking the character of the anti MQA crowd. They attack the messenger, not the message.

 

Every time an anti MQA poster talks out of his ass, responds with too much anger, or personally attacks an MQA enthusiast,  he or she HELPS the other side. 

 

 

 

He claims that he and his buddy listened to multiple versions of 50 albums in 8-10 hours.  Simple math shows that his claims are highly dubious.

 

Let's assume, Brinkman and his buddy listened to one song per album and they never performed listening tests on the same songs.

 

1 file / album  x 50 albums = 50 files

 

They listened to at least two versions of the files (MQA and non MQA).  On some files, they also listened to vinyl versions.

 

50 files x 2 versions = 100 files

 

Since this was a critical listening test, they matched volumes and presumably took notes.  Let's assume they spent 5-10 minutes on each file or 7.5 minutes.

 

100 files x 7.5 minutes / file = 750 minutes or 12.5 hours.  

 

This is assuming Brinkman and his buddy never performed listening tests on the same song which is highly unlikely.  

 

[Indydan]

1 minute ago, patagent said:

 

He claims that he and his buddy listened to multiple versions of 50 albums in 8-10 hours.  Simple math shows that his claims are highly dubious.

 

Let's assume, Brinkman and his buddy listened to one song per album and they never performed listening tests on the same songs.

 

1 file / album  x 50 albums = 50 files

 

They listened to at least two versions of the files (MQA and non MQA).  On some files, they also listened to vinyl versions.

 

50 files x 2 versions = 100 files

 

Since this was a critical listening test, they matched volumes and presumably took notes.  Let's assume they spent 5-10 minutes on each file or 7.5 minutes.

 

100 files x 7.5 minutes / file = 750 minutes or 12.5 hours.  

 

This is assuming Brinkman and his buddy never performed listening tests on the same song which is highly unlikely.  

 

 

What you say makes sense. But it still isn't proof he lied. I wish he would list the 50 albums he listened to in order to help his case. 

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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

You've got it exactly.

[patagent]

15 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

What you say makes sense. But it still isn't proof he lied. I wish he would list the 50 albums he listened to in order to help his case. 

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.

[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?

[mansr]

26 minutes ago, patagent said:

He claims that he and his buddy listened to multiple versions of 50 albums in 8-10 hours.  Simple math shows that his claims are highly dubious.

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

[patagent]

5 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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

 

Huh?  I don't like MQA.  I use Tidal but choose to actively avoid streaming MQA content.  Putting aside my biases against MQA, I can clearly see that your story doesn't hold water.

[patagent]

Just now, mansr said:

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

Check my math.  I only picked one song per album.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, patagent said:

Check my math.  I only picked one song per album.

7.5 minutes is far more than the average track length.

[patagent]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

7.5 minutes is far more than the average track length.

 

He said they level matched volume and listened to 3 versions of some songs (vinyl).  You think they listened non stop for 8-10 hours?  What about food and bathroom breaks?

[mansr]

No matter how implausible, his story is still more believable than Bob Stuart's.

[Spacehound]

13 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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)

A lot of audiophiles are far more interested in their equipment than music, (count 'gear' posts vs music posts) and Krall in particular is the proof -  a minute  of YouTube was enough for me. Not incompetent like so many,  but as bland as baby food. I've never heard of the bloke. 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Who cares how many CDs someone has or why they get into this hobby? I don't judge. 

[Alcap]

Sorry to barge in but what are “listening skills” ? I don’t think I have those,

I hear music  playing on a system, I like it......no skill required.