MQA Shill Steve Stone Provides a Good Laugh For a Friday...

[rwdvis]

23 hours ago, ARQuint said:

The term "shill" has been accurately defined (Wikipedia) as "a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization." As so defined, my colleague Steve Stone (or, for that matter, Robert Harley, John Atkinson, or Jason Serinus) is not a "shill", though a few of the less thoughtful participants on CA forums focused on MQA love applying the term to pretty much any industry person with a positive view of the technology. It's a classic ad hominum attack, questioning the motives and integrity of that person.

“Not a shill”?  Please clarify.

 

Are you stating that they are not shills because they have disclosed any relationship(s)?  Or, that they are not shills because they have no relationship with the person or organization (i.e., BS, MQA)?  If the the former, then maybe shill is not the most accurate term.  Assuming that any relationship and/or affiliation has been properly disclosed, the more accurate description would be biased, partial, non-objective PR/marketer (considering the ridiculously over-the-top praise).  If the latter, please see the following:

 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

 

Quote

It's a classic ad hominum attack, questioning the motives and integrity of that person.

It’s only an ad hominem attack if it’s used in place of an actual argument.  The counter arguments against MQA have already been made on multiple occasions.  Did you somehow miss these counter arguments?  The fact that some point out shill behavior is not necessarily an ad hom attack, it’s merely a recognition that some are engaged in the shill tactic or behavior.  This is a good thing.  Exposing shills and disingenuous, dishonest behavior is of benefit to the reader.

[rwdvis]

23 hours ago, ARQuint said:

It's noteworthy that the ire directed at MQA at CA has so easily morphed into a contemptuous dismissal of the established magazines. When it comes to assessing audio equipment, these publications, as well as strictly electronic outlets, and even some blogs that are basically one-man shows, all operate on a very well-established protocol. A manufacturer sends a product, a reviewer attempts to understand its design goals and listens to it for a length of time that varies but is always longer and more comprehensive than a non-reviewer customer could expect, and then writes about his conclusions, incorporating a variable mix of objective measurement and subjective impressions that employ a descriptive language developed decades ago in the pioneering "high-end" magazines.

The contemptuous dismissal is justified in the fact that never before have we seen such disingenuous, dishonest, biased views from the “established” magazines.  In the past, there was at least some attempt made at delivering honest conclusions and opinions.  With the exception of a very few writers, those days appear to be long gone.

[rwdvis]

23 hours ago, ARQuint said:

What strikes me as an illogical and contradictory aspect of the bashing of the established publications in several CA forums is the suggestion that the content in the magazines is merely a platform for advertisers—the possibility that hobbyists actually read the magazines for entertainment and informed opinion is dismissed. The irony, of course, is that tens of thousands of people actually pay to subscribe to TAS and Stereophile. To be sure, advertising dollars are necessary to attract decent writers and to make these enterprises at all profitable, but there is a significant base of income that comes from paid subscriptions.

No, it is not dismissed.  This is your straw man and the paragraph is a huge non-sequitur.  The attributes you mention can coexist.  That is, the magazines exist as a platform for advertisers, and hobbyists can still read for entertainment and informed opinion.  The fact that hobbyists gain entertainment and informed opinion does not dispute the claim that the magazines exist as a platform for advertisers.

 

Quote

The irony, of course, is that tens of thousands of people actually pay to subscribe to TAS and Stereophile.

This is an appeal to popularity and does nothing to dispute the claim that the magazines exist as a platform for advertisers.
 

Quote

It's not a surprise to me that CA forums are so lightly edited, compared to the way that noxious reader comments are dealt with on the TAS and Stereophile sites.

 

Chris is trying to remain neutral and serve the consumer/reader.  The magazines, on the other hand, apparently, serve their bottom-line.  Anything written that interferes with the bottom-line of the “established” magazine gets labeled “noxious” and is removed/censored.

[rwdvis]

On 4/24/2018 at 5:09 AM, ARQuint said:

Fair enough. But by passing on an opportunity to give an opinion regarding the effect of a modification to a top-of-the-heap digital product on SQ, was CC responding to the sensibilities of some of the manufacturers that pay the pills at Computer Audiophile—basically what the "MQA is Vaporware" crowd is so vociferously accusing TAS and Stereophile of?

This is another straw man.  The “crowd” is accusing TAS and Stereophile of being disingenuous, dishonest, deceptive, uncritical etc. in regards to MQA claims, specifically.  What Chris apparently chose to do was to remain neutral and skeptical on the topic until more is/was learned.  There’s a big difference between being neutral and sensible with manufacturers, versus the outright deception seen on the part of the "established" magazines.