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

[Norton]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

package.  @Nortonand those like him think they are listening to something called "MQA" that is a kind of "greater than the sum of its parts"

 

You'd have done well in the Soviet Union - anyone who challenges the dominant narrative ( in the case of this site by openly admitting enjoyment of  MQA) must be guilty of "incorrect thinking".

 

You  can't accept an alternate perspective and thus try to intellectualise it away.  But the explanation is much simpler - I enjoy MQA simply because, to my ears, it provides a satisfyingly  accurate reproduction of live orchestral music.    As an audiophile, that's my #1 consideration.  

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Norton said:

 But the explanation is much simpler - I enjoy MQA simply because, to my ears, it provides a satisfyingly  accurate reproduction of live orchestral music.    As an audiophile, that's my #1 consideration.  

 

Simplistically, MQA is not the reason for your enjoyment - not the package.  You like certain masters played with certain filtering and flat (not DSP, etc.).  MQA the package is not needed.  Not only that, the package contains elements such as DRM, "end to end", etc. that is either directly harmful or fraudulent.

 

When a consumer oriented Audiophile points this out, you say it is all over done, going as far as to accuse us of "soviet" level propaganda.  Such a thing is ridiculous and points to something strange about Audiophiledom and the "thinking" it engenders...

[daverich4]

5 hours ago, tmtomh said:

@The Computer Audiophile

No one can deny that for years, in fact a couple of decades by now, it has been an article of faith in the audiophile press (not to mention most of the audiophile community) that lossless audio formats are to be avoided,

 

Any chance you meant to say "lossy audio formats"?

[Norton]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

going as far as to accuse us of "soviet" level propaganda

 

My comment was addressed to you alone.  AFAIK, only the Queen and Gollum use "us" as the first person singular.  I'll be kind and disregard the latter, which must mean you consider yourself audiophile royalty.

[crenca]

53 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

My comment was addressed to you alone.  AFAIK, only the Queen and Gollum use "us" as the first person singular.  I'll be kind and disregard the latter, which must mean you consider yourself audiophile royalty.

 

Look, you can single me out and kick and scream all you want, I'm a big boy 

[Norton]

22 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Look, you can single me out and kick and scream all you want, I'm a big boy 

 

Nice try, but I'm wise to your regular tactic of trying to conflate your individual views with that of some  unspecified "we".  I didn't "single you out", you responded directly to  my post and I replied in kind, your majesty.

[Ralf11]

We are not amused.

[plissken]

I wonder if CA now comes up in organic google searches on the first page when the search criteria is 'mqa'.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

I wonder if CA now comes up in organic google searches on the first page when the search criteria is 'mqa'.

 

First hit for me was #14, Archimago's review.  Linn's take was number 4 however...

[tmtomh]

5 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Any chance you meant to say "lossy audio formats"?

 

Yes indeed! I meant lossy; unfortunately I didn't catch the typo until it was too late to edit the post.

[Rt66indierock]

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

This thread provides an opportunity to comment further on an aspect of the vexed relationship between audio publications and their constituents in online communities—a subject I addressed in an editorial that appears in the current (May/June) issue of The Absolute Sound ("Audiophiles Online: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly".) I'm a faithful follower of Computer Audiophile, so I feel I have the right to participate; I'm claiming no special status as an audio writer.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

In case you haven't noticed, that's what goes on at Computer Audiophile. A professional journalist assesses a product in an informed and disciplined fashion and produces a cogently written piece that intelligent people will want to read. At CA, that obviously means Chris Connaker, though there may be others that CC compensates for producing content for the site. It's not hard to imagine Chris functioning very successfully as a reviewer for TAS or Stereophile—he is technically savvy and writes fluently and entertainingly. Manufacturers seek out CA, as they do Stereophile and TAS because the publication gets them in front of the customer base they need to be in front of, which is a function of the quality of the content.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Nobody pays to read Computer Audiophile. All the funds needed to sustain Chris C come from advertisers. And that's where you, the enthusiastic, sometimes unbridled, and largely anonymous posters come in. Many enthusiasts come to the site to participate in or just observe the catfights, takedowns, and general mean-girl posturing that informs many of the forum discussions. Did "MQA is Vaporware" need to run 329 pages? Of course not—it became a repetitive, self-congratulatory echo chamber early on—but the number of views were manna for Chris. 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.

 

 

 

So, is Chris Connaker a "shill?" By virtue of the fact that he commissioned Archimago's thorough review of the MQA story, one could conclude that, like many in the industry, he's very skeptical of the benefit of the technology for consumers. On the other hand, he doesn't feel the need to ring in on the merits (or lack thereof) of MQA whenever the subject arises. Take Chris's piece last November on the Berkeley Alpha DAC MQA update. At the outset of the piece, Chris felt it was important to state up front that

 

 

 

"…this article is neither a referendum on MQA, nor an endorsement or rejection of MQA."

 

 

 

A disingenuous straddling of the fence? A look over his shoulder at the advertisers that have decided to include MQA in the design of their products? Later, Chris admitted

 

 

 

"Of course I listened to some MQA material through the DAC but I purposely avoided using that in the review. The topic is too loaded and would distract from the real story that is the firmware update."

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

No, Chris Connaker is not a shill. But there's a real tension in play with Computer Audiophile. So much of the content is well informed, helpful to readers, and reflects a sense of a generous and inclusive hobbyist community. At the same time, a small number of intemperate and self-important forum participants are generating a lot of the views that Chris Connaker needs to show advertisers.  He does need to keep those advertisers convinced that CA is a productive place to engage potential customers. The risk is that his wonderful site is commandeered by a tiny cadre of single-issue individuals who are very much in love with the sound of their own voices.

 

 

 

Andrew Quint

 

Senior Writer

 

The Absolute Sound

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew, of course there is a troubled relationship between Stereophile and The Absolute Sound’s constituents in some online communities. We had several discussions about the press and our issues with the press in late 2016 and they have continued to this day. There are a lot of people who disagree with your well-established protocol for reviews and believe reviews in Stereophile and The Absolute Sound are marketing materials.

 

If reviewers are going to consider themselves journalists then I expect you to follow “journalism’s most basic tenants: Be fair; stick to the facts; question authorities; don’t assume; pay attention to alternative explanations.” These are from Justice Delayed by Rachel Smolkin in the American Journalism Review, August/September 2007 issue.

 

Go ahead and provide some convincing arguments that The Absolute Sound’s coverage of MQA has been fair. The only reason we know the facts we do about MQA is because people outside the industry found them. As far as questioning authorities all I’ve seen is Stereophile and The Absolute Sound fawn over Bob Stuart. Leading to if Bob Stuart says it we assume it’s true when you shouldn’t assume. And neither Stereophile nor The Absolute Sound has paid attention to alternative explanations of MQA. A reasonable person can conclude the American print audio publications violated all five basic tenants of journalism in their coverage of MQA.

 

I think your definition of shill is a little narrow.  Yours doesn’t include a large number of journalists considered shills the Washington Press Corps. Maybe you should wait until I write about MQA marketing and journalists next month to be critical. You may prefer to be shills.

 

Andrew you are doctor and a journalist two occupations where good business advice rarely comes from. So don’t worry about a few of us commandeering the Computer Audiophile. What has been written about MQA here has created a community a little different than others in the audio world but one worth supporting with advertising dollars. Something I’ve been communicating to people in the industry since the Los Angeles Audio Show last year. Just to counter your innuendo that the tension between forum participants here and the audio press makes it a risky place for your advertising dollars. I’ve also quietly been telling people in the industry MQA is a roadblock to moving the industry forward. Which means the press supporting MQA are also in the way of a good chance at real progress.

 

Finally I don’t mind you being critical “MQA is Vaporware” because it was evolved past the original intent of the post which was to point out the failings of audio journalists and reinforce the idea that MQA was more of a marketing concept than an actual product. And it is my opinion you missed the change because it was gradual. Now it is a central place to share information about MQA. That it causes MQA supporters heartburn and even people in the industry who oppose MQA wish it would go away is a bonus. Why because it is now dawning on the press and the industry that to make the thread go away MQA will have to go away.

[Indydan]

On 20/04/2018 at 6:36 PM, Brinkman Ship said:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2018-axpona-show-report-digital-and-personal-electronics/?utm_source=The+Absolute+Sound+List&utm_campaign=4b535a6c2d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_844faeddad-4b535a6c2d-109080993&mc_cid=4b535a6c2d&mc_eid=7e57b16115

 

The second and equally important detail about MQA A/B listening comparison tests is if you are not in the prime listening position, which is the one that triangulates most precisely with the transducers used during the listening session, you are not in a position to judge MQA sound quality properly. When I was even one seat to the side of the central listening position the effects of MQA were vastly reduced to the point where they were almost nonexistent. I have been in sessions where even professional recording engineers (and audio reviewers) have made dubious (and IMHO downright wrong) assessments of MQA’s sonic effects based on a group session where almost everyone in the room is in a bad seat (which is any seat that is not properly triangulated with the transducers). In all the other seats you might as well be listening through a Dixie cup and a string—really.

 

Too funny. Stone calls a poster a dummy for questioning his prime listening position statement. Angers are flaring over there on TAS... 

[MikeyFresh]

On 4/26/2018 at 7:39 PM, Rt66indierock said:

innuendo that the tension between forum participants here and the audio press makes it a risky place for your advertising dollars.

 

I remember that same line of BS was espoused here by one Witchdoctor, though his position was rather lacking in any form of subtlety or innuendo.

 

Same ineffective end result however.

[mcgillroy]

On 4/27/2018 at 1:39 AM, Rt66indierock said:

A reasonable person can conclude the American print audio publications violated all five basic tenants of journalism in their coverage of MQA.

 

 

Thx for this! Well put and to the point. MQA proved to be a journalism litmus test and the established audiophile turned out to be rather acidic.

 

Good luck to TAS and Stereophile trying to neutralise that impression.

[emcdade]

These threads are so repulsive that I feel like I signed up at r/thedonald.

 

Not a good look for this community, at all.

[Brinkman Ship]

7 hours ago, emcdade said:

These threads are so repulsive that I feel like I signed up at r/thedonald.

 

Not a good look for this community, at all.

Repulsive? Save it. What IS repulsive is fake journalism, shameless shilling, allowing charlatans to rise

to prominence, allowing fake technologies to grab the spot light

 

Don't like these threads? Simple solution..you know where the door is, and don't let it smack you

in the behind.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Repulsive? Save it. What IS repulsive is fake journalism, shameless shilling, allowing charlatans to rise

to prominence, allowing fake technologies to grab the spot light

 

Don't like these threads? Simple solution..you know where the door is, and don't let it smack you

in the behind.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we are "not a good look".  I have always known that I am not the prettiest bearded lady around, but jeez, does he have to be so judgemental?  You know @emcdade, fat and ugly shaming is not really "in" right now...

 

[mav52]

10 hours ago, emcdade said:

These threads are so repulsive that I feel like I signed up at r/thedonald.

 

Not a good look for this community, at all.

well at least this community, provided real honest science to back up the claims made by those on here that feel MQA as printed in some of these magazines is misleading and full of untruths.  The mags do nothing to deny the science CA has provided , they only attempt to bash the members of the community. 

[christopher3393]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Repulsive? Save it. What IS repulsive is fake journalism, shameless shilling, allowing charlatans to rise

to prominence, allowing fake technologies to grab the spot light

 

Don't like these threads? Simple solution..you know where the door is, and don't let it smack you

in the behind.

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

12 hours ago, emcdade said:

These threads are so repulsive that I feel like I signed up at r/thedonald.

 

Not a good look for this community, at all.

 

Scroggie, is this you?

 

Alert the ListMeister

[botrytis]

13 hours ago, emcdade said:

These threads are so repulsive that I feel like I signed up at r/thedonald.

 

Not a good look for this community, at all.

 Why? I think the problem is too many do not question and follow like sheep. Could this community be a little more respectful while questioning? Sure, which community doesn't need a bit more. But, I think you are missing the message.

[Indydan]

16 hours ago, emcdade said:

These threads are so repulsive that I feel like I signed up at r/thedonald.

 

Not a good look for this community, at all.

 

The problem is, Bob Stuart and all of his sycophants are selling a shit sandwich, and they are insisting it tastes good and we should love it. The people here on CA can smell the shit sandwich from a mile away, and know exactly what it is. 

 

It is only normal to respond strongly when someone tries to shove something unpleasant down your throat, while LYING and telling you how good it will be. 

[emcdade]

12 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Repulsive? Save it. What IS repulsive is fake journalism, shameless shilling, allowing charlatans to rise

to prominence, allowing fake technologies to grab the spot light

 

Don't like these threads? Simple solution..you know where the door is, and don't let it smack you

in the behind.

 

"Fake journalism", "shilling".....sounds familiar.  What is good for a laugh is how worked up you get over an audio format.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, emcdade said:

 

"Fake journalism", "shilling".....sounds familiar.  What is good for a laugh is how worked up you get over an audio format.

....why are you here? 

[emcdade]

To point out the ridiculousness of your nature.

 

Enjoy the music.