Thuaveta

And also this beauty. If you don't find this brilliant, it's because you're not listening to it on $20k of gear like any neurotypical individual would.

What about this (or was there a further episode) ?

Or, as Team MQA would put it, one can easily loose one's shoe... Or, maybe more worrisome, do you simply feel you wouldn't be speaking from a place where you could ask those questions ?

Exactly. Same can often be said about subjective evaluations of MQA releases themselves, of course... Are people hearing improvements from MQA, or do they just prefer the (louder ?) remasters ? Dollars to donuts a serious study would demonstrate it's the latter.

It's explained: "MQA mode" bypasses Android's audio pipeline, it's just that one has to take the time to read the text between the pictures: "This shows that the Android audio pipeline is limited to 16 bits so best to avoid it if you can. Fortunately the LG player does that and therefore, there is no need to buy USB Audio Pro (unless you like its interface better)."

I'm probably a bit incompetent with search, and my reading comprehension seems to be fast going down the drain, so would you mind making things easy and linking to the measurements you're talking about ?

Everyone should find someone who looks at them the way he looks at BS.

Something around a stop more, yes - the tin said ISO 50, but in practice, you were better off giving the negative a bit more light to build density, which'd result in a light(er) positive. I'm not aware of anyone trying to conserve Type 55 positives, IIRC, and I haven't shot one in maybe 20 years, they were so unstable they came with a foul-smelling sponge thing to clear the chemicals (and the negative was quite beautiful, but very fragile). Only if you also believe the act of hearing a tree fall in the middle of a forest makes you into a falling tree.

You mean the guy whose most famous photograph is of Duchamp's urinal ?

"talent" has little to do with it. Some, but little. With contemporary art, technique, even less. Click here if you'd like to learn (a little bit, that's just the very tip of the iceberg) more. (picture by Wolfgang Tillmans)

Not quite, IIRC: they did both, but the negative liked to be overexposed.

The loss of advertising income in the printed press between 2000 and 2014 is $40 billion / year (or about 2/3rds) in the U.S alone. It's gotten worse since then.

I'm as critical of @John_Atkinson as anyone in their right mind should be, but this is simply unfair. Nothing I've seen of his writing (or Jim Austin's) necessitates Stereophile's writers being on MQA's payroll either directly or indirectly: this can all very well be incompetence, sloth, or many other factors, including wanting to give a hand to an old friend. The same can apply to the rest of the field, where the problem is made worse by it often being either dealers or amateurs who've made a second career that helps fund (through gear loans and rebates) an expensive hobby (often by teaching themselves synonyms of "so many unicorns descended from the heavens when the product entered my living room that even my wife noticed"). I still do think there's been no proper addressing of @crenca's questions earlier, and those are some I'd love answers to:

Are you paid to do this ? Because they just posted a job for someone to do pretty much just that...

Mea maxima culpa: the April 2015 and December 2013 reviews are identical. The rest of the points - first and foremost that when you call an industry flak a member of your magazine's family, you have no place lecturing on ethics, and that there's a degree of permeability between the roles that is problematic (to atone, and lay off Stereophile a bit and snipe one at the competition, Srajan Ebaen's pre-6moons overlap between Soliloquy and Soundstage! comes to mind here) within the industry.