MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

This is targeting an audience, regardless of which pages they are visiting. Does Google allow advertisers to blacklist specific sites?

[Ralf11]

19 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

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.

 

Correct.  It is very easy to implement.   IT is a policy, but one that is taught in the ethics classes at all Schools of Journalism.  And, AFAIK, all journalism majors are required to take an ethics class.

 

But Stereopile and the other industry organs that masquerade as consumer magazines are not journalism

[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

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, lucretius said:

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

The broker chooses when to show your ad based on your indicated target demographic. If I slip up with cookie blocking, I quickly start seeing ads for obscure Analog Devices components on totally unrelated sites.

[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

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

This is targeting an audience, regardless of which pages they are visiting. Does Google allow advertisers to blacklist specific sites?

Oh yes. 

[Ralf11]

"

So much anger; so little thought or actual knowledge!

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

"

 

 

sorry if the truth hurts

 

but I have no anger towards you or your rag; both are meaningless

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

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

Please post that in your office in 18-inch type. We can call it "the writing on the wall."

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Oh yes. 

What's in it for them? Anyway, the concept with that feature removed would eliminate some incentives to write favourable reviews, and that would be a good thing.

[Hugo9000]

34 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Correct.  It is very easy to implement.   IT is a policy, but one that is taught in the ethics classes at all Schools of Journalism.  And, AFAIK, all journalism majors are required to take an ethics class.

 

But Stereopile and the other industry organs that masquerade as consumer magazines are not journalism

I suppose I'd call them "professional fanzines" or something like that, or "hobbyist magazines."  Do any of these specialty magazines even claim to be consumer-oriented or consumer advocates or similar, other than Consumer Reports or Cook's Illustrated?  Informative writing is nice, as is entertaining writing, and I don't think anyone should feel denigrated for being referred to as an entertainment writer rather than a journalist.  That's not how I personally mean it, anyway.

 

However one looks at it, I would expect honesty and integrity or I wouldn't bother reading or subscribing, whether it was a fanzine dedicated to Angelina Jolie with a readership of 113 people living in their mothers' basements, or some glossy and gorgeous magazine with millions of subscribers.  I wouldn't call most writers at newspapers these days journalists, I suppose, so I don't really worry about whether or not a writer at a hobbyist magazine is a Journalist-with-a-capital-J, but that's just me.

 

Edited to add:  I'm not implying anything about fans of Angelina Jolie, or anything against anyone who lives in a basement, so I hope no one will take it that way!  I like some of her films a lot myself, and my own mother has a lovely and spotlessly clean basement that would be preferable to some apartments I've rented in the past, although it smells just a touch musty, which is pretty much unavoidable where she lives, due to the water table, etc.

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Please post that in your office in 18-inch type. We can call it "the writing on the wall."

 

Wow, as the kids say OMG!

 

Truly, your technical incompetence and and unwarranted enthusiasm for MQA reveals that you are a "do as I say and not as I do kind of guy"...

 

[Brinkman Ship]

If anyone is interested, here is the Stereophile media kit. I must say, nicely laid out.

 

http://www.avtechmediausa.com/mediakit.stph.pdf

[beetlemania]

A few points here:

a. @crencaRidiculous to request that Marjorie Baumert apologize to CC. None of this is on her. Should we blame Eisenhower if you have a dispute while traveling an interstate?

 

b. @John Atkinson CC *did* request that questions be saved til the end. This happened not long after the mqa rep started his interruptions. And I continue to be mystified at your steadfast commitiment to this nonsense technology that pretty well abuses consumers and artists. Just guessing here but it seems to me that your personal files received extra attention (thus, your sonic conclusions are suspect) and that you have undue admiration for Bob Stuart (maybe ask John Curl). Finally, I’m digusted that JVS would withold full sonic rating for a recording because it is unavailable in SACD or MQA format. That’s crap!

 

c. @everybody The mqa crowd has nada, zilch, zero. I could only stomach the first 15 minutes of the video but they had no answer for the debunking of their lossless claim. And rather than refute archimago’s article re: added noise with data they could only drone on about his anonymity. That’s some weak sauce, trumpian levels of distraction, obfuscation, and belligerence. 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Ridiculous to request that Marjorie Baumert apologize to CC. None of this is on her.

Although it's not her fault, she should still make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable at her events. There is nothing remotely controversial about this. Has anyone made sure she is aware of what happened?

[beetlemania]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Although it's not her fault, she should still make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable at her events. There is nothing remotely controversial about this. Has anyone made sure she is aware of what happened?

Isn’t she voluntarily hosting RMAF? I can’t imagine how much work that is. And she needs to also worry about people who cannot display common courtesy at seminars?

[Ralf11]

I dunno about "should" but it would be a nice gesture on her part.

 

Also, the out of control monkey gallery cast a bad light on RMAF, so it might help RMAF if she disavowed their behavior.  It would be nice if audio shows continued, despite the small rooms...

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Isn’t she voluntarily hosting RMAF?

How is that relevant?

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Isn’t she voluntarily hosting RMAF?

No. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

“Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.”

Steve Jobs, February 2007

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

“Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.”

Steve Jobs, February 2007

He's dead. Ancient history. He also hated the idea of large phones, small tablets, and laughed all the way to the bank, listening to CDs and LPs, while selling lossy slop from his iTunes store.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

He's dead. Ancient history. He also hated the idea of large phones, small tablets, and laughed all the way to the bank, listening to CDs and LPs, while selling lossy slop from his iTunes store.

While I am no fan of Apple, they have done a few good deeds. Apart from being the major force in ridding music downloads of DRM, they also brought about the demise of Adobe/Macromedia Flash in favour of open standards. It is a very weird company.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I only post that quote because over ten years later it could be relevant once again. Yes, we live in a crazy world. 

[Lee Scoggins]

10 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I believe things are much simpler than this.

 

Lee believes that, despite his day job as a business consultant, he is part of the industry and he wants others in the industry to see him as a fellow insider.

 

He is waving the MQA flag in the hopes that his "friends" in the industry will see him as one of their own.

 

In other words, he doing this so that the "cool kids" will like him and let him come to their parties.

 

 

I don't believe I'm an industry insider nor am I trying to be.  I simply write part-time for an audio magazine.  

[Ralf11]

that stmt. is hard to reconcile with your behavior - both on here and elsewhere

[The Computer Audiophile]

Seems like this page could be updated quite a bit as well. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated