MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[christopher3393]

54 minutes ago, cookiemarenco said:

OOOOPSSSS!  I meant... thank you, Chrisopher3393!

okay... I have to go mix a record now...  I mean fold laundry. 

You boys are a lot of fun, but I gotta go 

 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

 

Sorry, Cookie. Didn't mean to drag you into this. I appreciate the work you do.

[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

 

[crenca]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

Exactly right.  It has nothing to do with whether someone is a great person or not.

 

Instead, it is the basic condition for journalism.

 

JA is not a journalist, he is a subjectivist.  So sharing the bed of his advertisement director is not problem, because everyone knows who she is (it even helps, easy to find her, etc.)

 

A pseudonym is a big problem for him and the Old Guard, because they can't see him or her.  How can you know the truth unless you can judge the man (or women) who is speaking it?

 

The truth of the matter (any matter) is not based in reality, but the subject...

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

For example, "Your Velodyne review just lost the magazine $50,000 worth of advertising"

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

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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

 

 

I hear ya.  My wife is a physician and she never discusses her patients with me (HIPAA and all that), no matter what kind of day she has had.  Instead she just keeps it all bottled up inside like a normal person...

[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

[Hugo9000]

14 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Even if true (I didn't know if he was married or not, nor did I ever care as a subscriber or otherwise lol), there is often a firmer "Chinese wall" between married people than between coworkers, so that may not be bad in itself, except for an appearance of impropriety!

 

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm not sure I see a problem with this assuming it is true.

 

10 minutes 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.  (To prevent accusations or suspicions of "bought" reviews:  "Here is your glowing review in exchange for your lovely new ad!")

 

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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

 

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, as you can see in my first post on the matter, where I just highlighted the significant portion above!  Of course, it was a joke about married couples who don't communicate, but the jokes that get the best laughs are rooted in truth, aren't they?  If not, nevermind, as I'm more into drama and romance than comedy, so I very well may be wrong on what's funny.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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

 

Nah, they are bureaucrats and the distinction would be lost on them...though to be honest, their world makes more sense than Audiophiledom  

[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

 

[Hugo9000]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

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

See, I think that comment is hilarious, but then as I said, I'm not sure that I'm a good judge of humor!

[christopher3393]

23 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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

 

Hi John. Do you believe that there are serious criticisms to be made of the piece published here by Archimago? I respect your editorial position for Stereophile, but really don't understand why there is a professional or ethical issue in critiquing an "anonymous" piece. A number of other s have taken up your position, or something like it, and it leads one to wonder how genuine this obstacle is. The lack of critical response to this piece is a substantial  lacuna in this debate, and it raises all sorts of suspicions and obstacles to further meaningful discussion.

 

I'd like to add that, while I understand that constructive criticism can be made regarding how Chris did not clearly and firmly demand and enforce Q+A being held off until the end(and this is very easily corrected), I still wonder a firmer position would have been honored in this case, and if the Q+A would have been clearly hostile anyway (perhaps even more hostile than it was). I have seen several industry members  that have shown no compassion in their blaming Chris for how the seminar went. I did not see the fundamental respect and good faith that civility calls for. Nor have I seen a serious response to his presentation. Chris' decision to end the session early is completely understandable given how he was mistreated. Now he deserves a substantive response from the MQA execs present and from the audiophile press, imo.

 

Thanks for your patience.

 

btw, it is not hard to find out who Archimago is if you follow his blog and his posting here. I often disagree with him, but his is a substantive voice that calls for substantive critique. I hope that the audiophile press does not fail to provide that.

[adamdea]

 

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes, it's the same spectrum mirroring due to poor anti-imaging filters. In both cases, everything to the right of the notch is pure distortion.

 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Here's the identical Bruno Mars track.

Thanks both- am I right in thinking that in the case of the Beyoncé and Bruno Mars tracks they are just 44.1 recordings which are lazy upsampled by MQA to 24/96?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Thanks both- am I right in thinking that in the case of the Beyoncé and Bruno Mars tracks they are just 44.1 recordings which are lazy upsampled by MQA to 24/96?

That is correct.

[adamdea]

Just now, mansr said:

That is correct.

And the gap is because they were conventionally brickwalled at 20 kHz or so when originally produced? 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, adamdea said:

And the gap is because they were conventionally brickwalled at 20 kHz or so when originally produced? 

Exactly.

[lucretius]

1 hour 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.  (To prevent accusations or suspicions of "bought" reviews:  "Here is your glowing review in exchange for your lovely new ad!")

 

A Chinese Wall seems unreasonable.  JA would have to refrain from picking up Stereophile for fear of discovering the advertisers and he'd have to refrain from talking to folks in the industry for fear they may be advertisers, and he'd have to refrain from talking to subscribers and "audiophiles", etc. This is absurd.

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, adamdea said:

 

 

Thanks both- am I right in thinking that in the case of the Beyoncé and Bruno Mars tracks they are just 44.1 recordings which are lazy upsampled by MQA to 24/96?

A total mis-characterization of the MQA process.  They have been de-blurred correcting deficiencies of the original ADC filters, and authenticated to be of better quality.  That such an "improvement" includes adding ultrasonic noise, distortion, and aliasing not present in the original might be surprising, but just ask Bob and we can trust this is better and the way it should be.  Not that asking Bob has gotten us answers about these matters as he sidesteps such questions.  But come on.....who you gonna trust if you can't trust Bob?  He used his real name. (well okay his real name is Robert as Bob is just a nickname, but still his credibility is simply too high to ignore no matter the facts)

 

Or ask Beyonce and Bruno about their feelings when they heard the MQA versions and signed off on it.  I'm sure as big an improvement as it was there are interviews somewhere in which the subject is discussed.  

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

A Chinese Wall seems unreasonable.  JA would have to refrain from picking up Stereophile for fear of discovering the advertisers and he'd have to refrain from talking to folks in the industry for fear they may be advertisers, and he'd have to refrain from talking to subscribers and "audiophiles", etc. This is absurd.

That's why third-party ad brokers, like Google, are a good idea.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That's why third-party ad brokers, like Google, are a good idea.

Except they don’t pay enough to eat at the soup kitchen. 

[adamdea]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Exactly.

Ok so to summarise these tracks tell us 

-that MQA master tracks may only be upsampled 44.1

- that the upsampling is quasi nos ie with little or no filtering of images 

-(semble) in these instances there is no deblurring of the 44.1 files as the impulse response of the original anti alias filter at 20-22 kHz is undisturbed (or has it been apodised and replaced with a minimum phase brick wall?) 

[Hugo9000]

22 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

A Chinese Wall seems unreasonable.  JA would have to refrain from picking up Stereophile for fear of discovering the advertisers and he'd have to refrain from talking to folks in the industry for fear they may be advertisers, and he'd have to refrain from talking to subscribers and "audiophiles", etc. This is absurd.

JA himself has discussed it, which is why I mentioned it.  I've never heard of anyone meaning it as literally as you're taking it.  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.  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.  Obviously, there are those out there that are shameless with quid pro quo, and it normally comes out eventually to readers or viewers.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

On the internet, there are things like third-party ad brokers as Mansr mentioned, which can avoid the issues of possible bias.  Or, one could seek companies like Rolex or other upscale products to see if they are interested in advertising in a HiFi magazine or on its website.  How many audiophiles play golf, or are interested in photography, or other hobbies that have expensive gear?  A bit of research, and the right ad sales reps, and it might be feasible to carry zero ads directly related to audio, since the old model of subscriptions paying the full cost of running a magazine doesn't seem to work any longer.

 

Although, even then, there is always a possibility that a manufacturer will simply pay in some way other than advertising in order to get a positive review.  And, of course, the possibility that some readers will suspect such shenanigans whether or not it actually occurs.  So it all comes down to whether readers trust the editors and writers, no matter what the magazine's (or website's) stance may be on advertising.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Except they don’t pay enough to eat at the soup kitchen. 

The idea is still good. If the advertisers don't have control over where their ads are displayed, there is no incentive to please them.

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

The idea is still good. If the advertisers don't have control over where their ads are displayed, there is no incentive to please them.

 

I do not follow.  Where the ads are displayed is of fundamental importance.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Ok so to summarise these tracks tell us 

- that MQA master tracks may only be upsampled 44.1

A lot of MQA tracks are made from 44.1/48 kHz masters. When I checked over 100 tracks on Tidal last year, nearly were thus.

 

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

- that the upsampling is quasi noise with little or no filtering of images

Right.

 

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

-(semble) in these instances there is no deblurring of the 44.1 files as the impulse response of the original anti alias filter at 20-22 kHz is undisturbed (or has it been apodised and replaced with a minimum phase brick wall?) 

That's impossible to tell without access to the original.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

The idea is still good. If the advertisers don't have control over where their ads are displayed, there is no incentive to please them.

If it only worked that way. Advertisers can target specific phone numbers / people, zip codes etc...