MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[John_Atkinson]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

Look folks, there is a reason that Mr. Quint is speaking like this and @John_Atkinsongave him an upvote. 

 

I gave Andy Quint an upvote because I agree with what he said regarding the nastiness expressed on this forum expressed toward Marjorie Baumert. I see that Chris Connaker has also said the same thing.

 

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

Yes she should step up in her role of director and give Chris the apology he deserves...

 

Why does Marjorie need to give Chris an apology? Yes, she gave him the space and time for his presentation but having watched the video, he failed to control the narrative. People will always try to interrupt, but the presenter has to deal with it. All he needed to say was that there would be plenty of time for a Q&A after his slide show. That's what I did in my presentation Friday afternoon, which included some discussion of MQA - ask RT66indierock, he was there - and things didn't spin out of control like they did in the Chris in the Middle event.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

[John_Atkinson]

45 minutes ago, wgscott said:

He "failed to control the narrative."  WTF kind of linguistic gobbledegook is that?

 

I do a lot of public speaking -  there are ways of dealing with interruptions (though I'm glad RT66indierock didn't bring his blue laser to my own presentation.) With all due respect, Chris appeared to be out of his depth as the presenter of a seminar. He wasn't able to control what was happening and let things get away from him. The fact that he shut it down at 42 minutes into the planned hour was disappointing. That wasn't Marjorie's fault or even the MQA guys' fault. That is down to Chris.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

12 hours ago, jtwrace said:

You should be ashamed of your MQA folks acting like they did...

 

For the record, I have no connection with MQA other than reporting on it. They are not my "folks." Please put your conspiracy theories back in your pocket.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

15 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

You taking a stand against Chris and Computer Audiophile puts you in that category.

 

Please provide a link to where I have "taken a stand" against Chris Connaker and Computer Audiophile. Yes, I criticized the way Chris handled the MQA in the Middle presentation at RMAF because of the demands other CA posters made that Marjorie Baumert apologize to him. So what? I think you are confusing me with someone else.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

if Chris wrote an article about MQA for your publication you'd consider publishing it?

 

Of course not. Chris has his own outlet for his opinions right here. His contributing to Stereophile is as in appropriate as my writing for The Absolute Sound or SoundStage. If you want to read my opinions on MQA, you have to read Stereophile, as distasteful as some here find that.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

More to the point, would Stereophile be willing to publish an article critical of MQA, that relied on objective facts and data, rather than opinions and innuendo?

 

 

 

Why not? I have published letters very critical of MQA, and have expressed my own criticisms and reservations. However, the author would not be able to hide behind an anonymous handle or a pseudonym. And they would have to fully disclose their professional affiliations.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

Unless that pseudonym is Sam Tellig.

 

This has been discussed before on CA. The agreement with Tom Gillett that he would write under the the name "Sam Tellig" was negotiated 2 years before I became Stereophile's editor in 1986. Though it made me uncomfortable, I honored that agreement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's not get off on that pseudonym tangent again. If 2+2=4, it doesn't matter if Dilbert or Homer Simpson says it. 

 

It's not a tangent as far as Stereophile is concerned, Chris. It's a matter of policy. You're okay with people using pseudonyms, which is your right as owner of this site; with the exception mentioned above, I am not, and this is my right as the person responsible for everything published on Stereophile and on its website.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

38 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

Yet you said you the below that you did honor it so you clearly didn't feel that strong about it.  Right?

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I was asked to honor the preexisting agreement that Tom Gillett would continue to contribute to Stereophile using a pseudonym. I gave my word to Stereophile founder, J. Gordon Holt, and Stereophile's then-publisher, Larry Archibald, that I would do so. When Tom Gillett resigned at the end of 2014, that was the end of my commitment.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

You and [Stereophile] profit indirectly from MQA.

 

I don't profit from MQA personally, either directly or indirectly. But I assume that you referring to the fact that Stereophile accepts advertising from companies that feature MQA in their products. It is fair, therefore, to point out that Chris Connaker also accepts advertising from such companies.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John_Atkinson]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

You've had a long long time writer who hid behind a fake pen name his whole career.  Tom Gillett I believe it was. Used a pen name of Sam Tellig.  Something most reading your mag didn't know for more than 20 years.

 

Read postings from earlier today in this thread and enlightenment shall be yours.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

1 minute ago, Hugo9000 said:

The idea would be that there should be a "Chinese wall" between the editorial and advertising sides of a magazine to prevent any conflicts of interest or appearance of impropriety. 

 

My wife was Audio magazine's top salesperson when we first met and strongly believed in the idea of the Chinese Wall. We never discussed specific advertising or editorial matters all the time until she retired in anything other than the past tense. For example, "Your Velodyne review just lost the magazine $50,000 worth of advertising"  -

see https://www.stereophile.com/content/velodyne-df-661-loudspeaker

- to which I responded "Cheap at twice the price!"

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

JA is not a journalist...

 

The INS thought so when I came to the US. Perhaps you'd better write them to let them know about the error. :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Oh dear, I'd best be more careful with future reviews."

 

Never been careful when it comes to upsetting advertisers. Again, watch the video of my RMAF presentation when it is posted to YouTube.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

49 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Basically, the idea is that he won't discuss advertising with manufacturers, as that isn't his department.  Manufacturers or other advertisers such as equipment dealers, likewise, are expected not to talk about advertising with the magazine or not in relation to product availability for reviews, loans, pricing accommodations, or anything along those lines.  Anyway, he can chime in if he wants. 

That's correct. If a manufacturers starts to talk advertising, I shut him down and redirect him to our publisher.

 

Quote

I think it's a common enough concept with magazines or television programs that have to balance editorial content with selling advertising.  It's not a legal concept, rather an editorial policy that is adopted (or not) by choice. 

 

See my essay at https://www.stereophile.com/content/great-wall-china-0

 

Quote

Obviously, there are those out there that are shameless with quid pro quo, and it normally comes out eventually to readers or viewers.

 

One would hope so. People in the industry know who the bad actors are, but I am concerned that readers sometimes don't seem to care. See Srajan Ebean's essay on why 6 Moons operates on a pay-to-play basis at http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/why/why.html

where he writes "From mid July 2014 on . . . manufacturers who want a review from us commit upfront to at least a small one-month [token] ad."

 

For comparison, no-one has to advertise in Stereophile to get coverage, which means that around 50% of the products we review or are featured in "Recommended Components" are from non-advertisers. This has been a source of friction between me and the various corporate bosses to whom I have reported over the years - again this is something I discussed in my RMAF seminar last Friday -  but I am not going to change my fundamental belief regarding the necessity of a "Chinese Wall."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

[Stereophile] and the other industry organs that masquerade as consumer magazines are not journalism

 

So much anger; so little thought or actual knowledge!

 

My fundamental instruction to would-be writers: don't write what you don't know.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

I wonder where he got the information that early provided samples to reviewers had cross-talk cancellation in them?

 

Perhaps he made it up. I have some of the original files that MQA provided reviewers in 2015, along with their PCM equivalents. When I have a  spare minute, I will take a look at the difference between the channels of both files, which should reveal any truth in Mr. Carver's assertion.

 

On the subject of crosstalk cancellation, see my review of the no-longer available BSG Signal Completion Stage and my comments on Blumlein Shuffling: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bsg-q248l-signal-completion-stage

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

7 hours ago, Currawong said:

Would you consider making the originals and MQA versions available to the public to listen to and examine?

 

Sorry, but no. The MQA versions were provided under the condition that I would not share them without permission. The originals you can purchase, of course. But as Chris Connaker appears to have the same files, perhaps he would be amenable to your request.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

15 minutes ago, psjug said:

Would it be a violation to give us a short L and R difference file?

 

I have prepared difference files for 3 original PCM files, chosen at random. Next will be to prepare difference files for the decoded MQA versions, but that won't be until next week as I am fully occupied finalizing the January issue of the magazine right now.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

On 10/21/2018 at 10:19 AM, Kyhl said:

Have you asked for permission to share the files?

 

Why would I do that for anonymous posters on an Internet Forum?

 

As I said, I understand Chris Connaker has the MQA files that Bob Carver was writing about and the original PCM versions. He might be more amenable to sharing them with you.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

Centralized top down publishing and control went out with the old AT&T in the 1990's.

 

Really? Yet Stereophile continues to thrive in the Internet Age. Obviously we didn't get the memo ?

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

You aren't the editor here, you are an individual with an opinion and a voice.

 

Of course. But I don't see any reason why I am obliged to send people I don't know on a site I have connection with the results of my hard work just because they demand it of me. As I wrote earlier, if posters to CA want to try the MQA files that Bob Carver was discussing, I would have thought that Chris Connaker would oblige. This is his site, after all.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, semente said:

free online viewers are numerous enough to justify advertising which is almost certainly the main source of income for the magazine.

 

That's how you thrive in the internet age.

 

That was the thrust of a presentation I gave to Stereophile's then-owner's senior management in 2005.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

19 hours ago, Shadders said:

As an aside, i pay £10 for a newly released CD. It probably costs 50pence to make in its entirety. Why are the labels losing money on this ?

 

As the proprietor of a small record label, I can assure you that other than bestsellers, the price of the physical disc is a relatively small fraction of the cost to release a recording. See my essay on this subject at  https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/578/index.html

where I wrote "when you factor in copyright fees, artist royalties, amortization of the project's upfront cost over the expected sales volume, and marketing and promotion costs, the manufacturing cost of the disc is basically insignificant."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Audio isn't a sequence of dirac pulses.

 

No, but: https://www.stereophile.com/content/zen-art-ad-conversion

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile