Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
John Atkinson casually mentions MQA in the latest issue of Stereophile. Just thought you'd want to know.
You sure it wasn't in passing?
Keep us posted for when any casual/passing aspect gets upgraded to at least semi-concerned or better.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
If this is a grammar thing you're trying to get at here, casual mentions and passing mentions are equally correct and welcome. If you disagree, I'd find a grammar beef way more interesting than another round of MQA bitching and moaning.
Get instant alerts anytime MQA is mentioned anywhere in the known Universe.
> John Atkinson casually mentions MQA in the latest issue of Stereophile.
Please don't feed the troll :-)
Isaac has made a fairly strong case that Stereophile is evangelizing and promoting MQA, by referring to the Stereophile articles themselves, and conveying his displeasure about that, with reasons.
I could understand a little better if the Stereophile articles were opinion pieces, but they don't read like opinion pieces, opinion pieces don't normally read as gushy adulation, but rather as evidence based judgment. Well written opinion pieces generally present the different sides before expressing a conclusion.
So, I guess the question is: for what reason is Stereophile writing about MQA in a way that, to a fair reader, seems indistinguishable from an advertorial? Why is Stereophile allowing itself to be co-opted by MQA marketing?
> for what reason is Stereophile writing about MQA in a way that, to a fair
> reader, seems indistinguishable from an advertorial?
We report what we hear and measure in specific comparisons. No problem if
your own experience of MQA in such comparisons is different from ours but
that doesn't mean we are writing "advertorial." That's your projection.
Thanks for the reply, appreciated.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the pieces are advertorials, I understand that Stereophile doesn't accept sponsored content. Only that to this reader they are indistinguishable from advertorials, which I think is unfortunate.
> Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the pieces are advertorials...
> I understand that Stereophile doesn't accept sponsored content.
We don't usually. But we have done infrequently and then under the
guidelines from ASME, the American Society of Magazine Editors, which
include that such advertorials be marked "Advertisement," that they not
be written by the magazine's editors or writers, and that they not be
prepared by the magazine's production staff. I will leave it to the
inmates to decide if other magazines observe those guidelines.
> Only that to this reader they are indistinguishable from advertorials,
> which I think is unfortunate.
As I said before, we are reporting our own reactions to the comparisons
that were performed at the LAAS. I certainly don't regard it as my
responsibility to include either the negative opinions of people like
Isaac Garvey or the unfounded opinions of those who have never
performed such comparisons in our show reports.
1. Publish a Magazine
2. Compose Music
3. Conduct Music
4. Play Music
5. Record Music
6. Distribute Music
7. Listen to Music
8. Review Music and Equipment
9. Anything Else
10.---------- ( you fill in the blank )
No one is suggesting that. Maybe the best way to publish a magazine is to publish articles like the one that Issac referred to, that read like evangelical, promotional pieces, rather than, say, the authoritative pieces that Charles Hanson has been contributing about MQA in the AA forums. I'm sure that "many here" can tell the difference, and realize they are not equal.
Charles's posts are interesting but there is a chance they are primarily intended to cast MQA in a poor light because if it became ubiquitous it could negatively affect his business.
...which tells you exactly the following:
-As a CONSUMER of music, and he is a die hard music fan, he finds the idea of MQA appalling.
-As and ENGINEER, he finds it to be charlatanism, and vaporware. He has clearly illustrated this.
-As an industry participant he finds it an offensive scheme to extract fees and royalties.
He could EASILY send his gear to Meridian to take apart and provide the MQA certification. He could easily right Bob Stuart a check.
But why should he and other industry players bail out a company who has been bleeding money and is looking for a quick fix?
to imply his comments are just coming from the possibility that MQA might cost Ayre biz in the future is a stretch too far for me.
I didn't imply anything, I stated it :) - as a possibility. It is important because Charles is, rightly, held with high esteem on this board and across the industry so his thoughts count. He could sway opinions. I did ask him about his intentions and if would ever consider adding MQA to his products in an earlier thread and got a very diplomatic non-answer that made me wonder why not just give a straight answer?
I don't know enough about digital audio to refute anything posted about MQA but in the past I have read misleading information from Charles relating to technologies that run counter with those used by Ayre's. So I am a little cautious.
Did you ever consider that instead of Charles pointing out the obvious issues with MQA that it should be members of the PRESS???
Instead it has been one big circle jerk.
Have you have those socks that were blown off yet?
old news brah.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: