"Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested".....

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

35 minutes ago, firedog said:

On 6/18/2018 at 12:53 AM, Brinkman Ship said:

Every single time. "Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ... "

Don't actually think this is relevant at all. Listening skills mean a lot more that the ability to hear very high frequencies. My ability to hear high frequencies is way down from years ago, but I can hear and understand much more of what is going on in playback than I could then. I can also hear all sorts of things younger people can't, because they don't know how to listen or what to listen for. 

 

I note it is not Brinkman's quote in the opening post but it does illuminate the ignorance of the person that did say this. ..[ "Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested -- and have the hearing test results in graphs posted alongside their stories --- these graying dudes at audio magazines who've lost a third or more of their hearing ... "]

 

I wager that if "some graying dude" considered to be an audio icon came out against MQA, those lobbying against MQA would not ask for the audiologist's report.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, realhifi said:

Many are too subtle in their reactions or comments that it feels as if it wasn’t noticed.

 

Unless it's an anti MQA comment then subtlety seems to be abandoned altogether . I am anti MQA but sometimes these multiple anti MQA threads full of what might be seen by some as unbalanced opinions bordering on vitriol doesn't really advance the cause IMO. Again, I am anti MQA.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The screaming on the side of I love MQA and those screaming on the side of I hate MQA are usually ignored. Those in the middle with reasoned arguments either way are the ones most people pay attention to.

 

Yes I agree completely.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 6/22/2018 at 11:09 PM, PeterSt said:

 

You mean that all what's in between contributes to a sensible discussion ?

Chris, it drags down your forum. Possibly you are blind to it.

 

Yes I agree. IMO there is not enough people in the reasonable middle ground countering the extreme anti MQAists. There are people here that have joined relatively recently and have largely either started anti MQA threads or posted in them.That was by the way a criterion suggested by some to suggest a shill (whether pro or anti MQA).

 

Also, phrases like "righteous anger" and "there is nothing to debate" don't IMO encourage people to go against the herd. Those that do get labelled shills (and some were of course) but again, it's an environment that deals harshly with dissent.

 

While I agree with you Peter that it is not a great look for the forum, for the record, CC has done a great job IMO in not steering or censuring others' opinions.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

40 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is no reasonable middle ground.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

There is no reasonable middle ground.

 

4 hours ago, mansr said:

That's not an outcome that anybody wants.

 

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Clearly untrue.

 

Mans, you have been given already two perfectly reasonable middle ground options. Talking in black and white absolute generalizations which are transparently untrue simply undermines your credibility  ..

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

As someone else posted..there is no middle ground.

 

Not for an extremist.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

 Those who have honestly examined the full implications have, without exception, taken the nothing side.

 

You are beginning to embarrass yourself Mans. I am not saying this to score points. Apart from anything else I am anti MQA. However these types of absurd generalizations are not helping the cause IMO.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Not trying to score point but I think you're using the word "generalizations" wrongly, then trying to score points with the word "absurd"...

 

How

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, crenca said:

 

What

 

When

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

If you've never been in a postion where you were compelled to express a righteous anger

 

I have been

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, 4est said:

With all due respect, what you are calling sermon on on civility, was actually an appeal for the extremists to consider how there argument might(likely will) be perceived. As to cluttering this thread, that is not your call, but Brinkmanship's. The fact that six  posters happen to agree makes me less inclined to care what you think. I felt it needed to be said- yet again...

 

Well said. The "sermon on civility" was and is a classic strawman fallacy. While civility remains relevant and sometimes a casualty of extremism, it is extremism itself that was being discussed and  how it is negatively seen by others it seeks to convince.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Actually anger worked really well in 2017. And you are making a fundamentally wrong assumption that the battle against MQA is being fought on audiophile website. 

 

I disagree. Anger, if overtly expressed, seldom forms the basis of a reasoned debate and reflects poorly on those exhibiting the anger .

 

Notwithstanding the role of "money" and "financials", certainly A (if not "the") battle against MQA is being fought on an audiophile website and I think you may underestimate the potential influence that CA and other fora have in this regard.There  have been mainstream audio writers participate here and according to some a veritable "army of MQA shills" so someone is paying attention. Public opinion would also appear important and it is the public that need to be tuned into the facts not extremist sentiment IMO.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I disagree.  Genial, middle of the road, audiophile "debate" is actually what brings us things like MQA.  It assumes that any and all assertions are in some way equal, even ones that clearly do not add up (see my signature). Bob S predicted and counted on such spineless and endless "debate".

 

It is a post John F Kennedy, post Walter Cronkite world.  Trump is president, and the gloves are off.

 

 Bob S is not about debate or the truth, he's about selling his voodoo.  The subject(s) of this thread, the trade publications are not about debate or the truth, they're about selling you something.

 

A little fight, a little spit is exactly what was needed.  All this concern about tone and optics to me is so much pining for a bygone world, you know the one where everybody was reasonable and we could all just get along.... ?

 

So perhaps we can steer the topic back on subject - any opinion as to why the trade publications are almost universally on board with Bob S' voodoo?

 

 

 

I think you are conflating so called middle ground fallacy with reasoned and civil debate.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

49 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

55 minutes ago, mansr said:

What we have here is a few people equating disagreement with incivility in an attempt to discredit arguments, nay facts, they dislike. Such tactics are those of a coward.

I’m with you that disagreements never automatically equate to incivility. 

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This has nothing to do with optics or having such an open mind one’s brain falls out. 

 

Nobody said all sides of a civil debate deserve equal weight. I could civilly debate a KKK member all day and give zero weight to his assertions because they aren’t equal in my head. 

 

You’ve turned civility into a bad word incapable of having boundaries or critical thinking. 

 

Disagreements don't automatically equate to incivility and incivility does not discredit arguments, reasoned debate does. Civility also does not equate with cowardice. That said, it was and remains a strawman argument. It is also moot as civility here in the context of CA is and remains a judgement call made by CC, so if (edit) anyone has concerns perhaps best to talk to him.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, crenca said:

 

And I don't get how you have been allowed to start yet another civility debate.  Like I've already said Mansr's post was a good example of a reasoned and civil speech. Yet you called it "absurd", "embarrassing", and have taken us off topic.  What's civil about that?

 

You started the civility debate and to preach your idiosyncratic views on the topic. I was discussing extremism and also generalizations, not civilty. If your civility sensibilities were offended by my choice of words you can always complain to CC. Otherwise drop the strawman argument and stop trying to make everything about your notions of civility.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Okay, I'll concede the point.  What was "extreme" about Mansr's post? 

 

Over generalization seems harder.  It's just a forum and a comment box - generalizations are always part of it, as terms/definitions are assumed in the flow of the conversation.  But what in your opinion was overly generalized about Mansr's post?

 

It has already been discussed a few pages back. I stand by my opinion. I also note that CC has requested to get back to the topic at hand

33 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ok let’s continue the topic at hand. As long as everyone is respectful I’m cool. 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, wdw said:

53 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You started the civility debate .....

 

No great claim to fame but it was I...

 

I meant in the context of this thread

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

It is odd isn't it.  The trade publications have done a good job of selling the idea that they are just a bunch of fun loving audiophile guys like the rest of us.  

 

If that is true, how could they also be so called "journalists" as well?

 

In my opinion they actually are in the main just a bunch of hobbiests who have parlaid a bit of writing skill into a sales job. So the question remains why would anybody listen to them when it comes to technical matters or any issue outside of a very narrow subjectivist "sounds like" review?  What do they know about business, digital, software, DRM, electrical engineering, math, science, or really anything of substance?

 

And then when they all mysteriously come to the same conclusion about the sound of MQA, in complete contradiction to the majority of consumers who at best can sometimes hear a small difference, well we're back to how they are really all just a bunch of salesmen...

 

 

 

I am led to believe that Stereophile publishes good measurements. I have no problem with the writers being audiophiles or expressing subjective opinions. I agree they are there to sell something but that is not exactly surprising IMO. As for "journalists" it depends on how you define the term. Not all journalists are investigative researchers wanting to uncover the truth. This is a hobby after all. Opinion pieces are permitted.

 

The problem however as I see it is the proliferation of "fake news" to serve an agenda, and not just confined to audio.  People keep on talking about the Trumpian era but AFAIK he just gave it a name. Fake news was around before Trump. newspapers notoriously have been associated with certain political views.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

I think we're finally on the same page. 

 

I'm not so sure.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

13 minutes ago, shtf said:

I think we're finally on the same page. 

 

I'm not so sure.

 

4 minutes ago, wdw said:

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I'm not so sure.

DOH!

 

DOH?

Ok let me clarify. I am led to believe by posters here on CA that Stereophile has good measurements. I am not led to believe that by Stereophile. I say led to believe because I place less importance on them than some, or at least their interpretation. So far I have found not a lot that I am on the same page with shtf whether his view that electricity is just another vibration or most of his other posts.?

 

So, Does or does not Stereophile have good measurements?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

21 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

 

 

"Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested".....

 

Ear tests appear to be in the OP description. Comparing that to audio measurements would not appear off topic IMO.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

17 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Comparing that to audio measurements would not appear off topic IMO.

 

Right, except your post was asking if Stereophile had "good measurements"

 

Yes, exactly. This thread concerns "journalists" , particularly those in mainstream publications "extolling MQA". Thus the relevance of Stereophile and its measurements. Eg Crenca said

19 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 So the question remains why would anybody listen to them when it comes to technical matters or any issue outside of a very narrow subjectivist "sounds like" review?  What do they know about business, digital, software, DRM, electrical engineering, math, science, or really anything of substance?
 

 

So, my question remains. Does or does not Stereophile provide good measurements? I suspect, but do not know for fact, that satisfactory measurements of MQA have not been forthcoming in a way that would support the superiority of MQA.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

If they figured stealth DRM was a big moneymaker, it would be malfeasance on the part of corporate leadership not to get into it in a big way, with a tool they controlled.

 

I have always found the area of DRM rather curious. Hackers will probably get around it and legitimate purchasers only stand to be inconvenienced by it. Perhaps the end to end nature of MQA has more appeal to those that own the material in that there are more steps to crack , software and hardware components?