|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.52.248.199
In Reply to: RE: Dear Jim Austin, posted by 4everyoung on November 15, 2017 at 07:46:53
>Shouldn't we at least wait until the MQA series is published before burning
>Jim Austin at the stake?
It's a debating tactic called "framing." As Charley Hansen did in a posting
a few days ago regarding the forthcoming listening tests of MQA at McGill
University, you try to delegitimize the work ahead of its publication.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
Sorry John I'm not using that tactic.
I'm saying if Jim doesn't understand the technology on October 21, 2017 he is not competent to write about it. And if he became competent between October 21, 2017 and when he submitted his first article to you. I would like to know how he developed competence in MQA.
Next I'm saying if Jim doesn't look at both sides of the technology then his series is scope limited.
> Sorry John I'm not using that tactic.
Okay, so what specific criticisms do you have to make about Jim's first
article examining MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of
Stereophile?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> Okay, so what specific criticisms do you have to make about Jim's first
> article examining MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of
> Stereophile?
4 days later: "crickets"
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
While you're waiting, let's talk about your "musically perfect..., across the board" endorsement on the Vandersteen 7A's at CES 2014.
Your continued silence leads me to believe that you knew then just as you know now such an endorsement was outlandish, nonsensical, and just plain absurd.
In fact, I seriously doubt the most naive among us would dare make such a nonsensical claim, yet there you were and there you are.
> While you're waiting, let's talk about your "musically perfect..., across
> the board" endorsement on the Vandersteen 7A's at CES 2014.
> Your continued silence leads me to believe that you knew then just as you
> know now such an endorsement was outlandish, nonsensical, and just plain
> absurd.
Please do not put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I know other
than from the words I choose to write.
Look, I have no problem with you criticizing what I write. But as this is
such an issue with you and has been for nearly 4 years, I can only assume
that what I wrote is at such odds with your own opinion that it has become
an obsession for you. So what did _you_ think of the sound in the Vandersteen
room at the 2014 CES? But if you _weren't_ in the room, why are you obsessed
with this?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
... when it comes to audio playback performance.
Rather than those of a seasoned savvy audio professional or enthusiast with average or better listening skills.
And yes I do have an idea what you know other than what you write as you make it clear by your posts you know very very little about real performance. Unless of course your words are cheap and meaingless. Which IMO are exactly that.
For example. If you had a clue what you're talking about performance-wise you would have realized that I need not have listened to the Vandersteen room myself to realize your words endorsing the Vandersteens were meaningless. For one thing, the technology does not exist that would allow any speaker to compensate for or correct the many and significant shortcomings and distortions in every other part of the playback vineyard. Hence, your Vandersteen performance claims are an impossibility and therefore nonsensical. Unless of course, every other part of that system was also "musically perfect..., across the board." In which case, if you had any credibility you would have credited the entire playback system instead of just the speakers. BTW, it is my experience that those who know very little about playback system performance and/or have very limited listening skills are the exact same who attribute all sound to the speakers. Almost as though nothing else matters. Sound familiar?
Another example regarding your MQA endorsement. It's a given that you've never "experienced a birth of a new world" so that alone implies you know not what you speaketh in this endorsement. But like your endorsement of the Vandy's, once again the technology does not exist for a format to compensate or correct for the shortcomings of every other part of the audio playback vineyard. And as you admitted in a recent thread below, you apparently never performed any due diligence when you supposedly first auditioned MQA but now 3 years later you intend to perform due diligence after listening to all the complaints in this forum.
My advice is, give it a rest, John. We all deserve it, including you.
JA,I don't believe that the January "2018" issue of Stereophile has been released yet. Did you mean some other year?
Oh, I get it, you're trolling rt66indierock.
Edits: 11/20/17
> I don't believe that the January "2018" issue of Stereophile has been
> released yet. Did you mean some other year?
> Oh, I get it, you're trolling rt66indierock.
"rt66indierock" denied that the negative comments about Jim Austin and his
article were an example of "framing" the argument ahead of the article's
publication. So I was gently pointing out that as the article he was
criticizing had yet to be published, "framing" was all he could be doing.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> > I was gently pointing out that as the article he was
criticizing had yet to be published, "framing" was all he could be doing. < <
And precisely what is "wrong" with framing? I used to be extremely frustrated that one political party was expert at framing the issues to their advantage, while the competing party was completely oblivious and would constantly "lose" in public debates - causing many to vote against their own self-interests. (Currently I don't give a hoot as I believe that the entire political process in this country simply reflects the outward signs of a failed system.)
It's not hard to spot framing, which is pretty much the basis for all advertising done in the last 100 years in this country. What I find to be far more frustrating is simple evasion. How many times have you seen any politician actually deliver a straight, unambiguous answer to a "yes or no" question? (And if by some miracle they actually do so, it is always less than 12 hours before they begin to "walk back" their previous answer. YMMV,
> And precisely what is "wrong" with framing?
In this context, it means the "framer" is closing their mind to the possibility
that the forthcoming article may have legitimate information that they would
actually find relevant, perhaps even persuasive.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
In the Critics Corner thread "What Happened in the Last 30 Years?", in response to Charlie Hansen's response to you posting the following: "starting with Stereophile's January issue, Jim Austin will be on-by-one examining the technical claims made for MQA.", you wrote:"Please note that I have been studying the criticisms you and others have made about MQA since they were made. I have also been studying the MQA patents and papers, talking to others as well as you and reading as much as I can on the work of Turing, Shannon, and others on information theory.
In what I believe is /not/ an uninformed opinion, I think the vast majority of the criticisms made of MQA are not based on facts; are based on societal and financial factors that I don't regard as relevant; are commercially self-serving; are based on circular reasoning; or are nothing more than uninformed conspiracy theories. In other words, I am not convinced that you or others have yet made any kind of case that would cause me to question my own opinions."In the context of the Jim Austin's forthcoming article in Stereophile magazine, just as you concluded that rt66indierock was "framing" the article to try to delegitimize the work ahead of its publication, one could also conclude that you were "framing" the article to delegitimize any criticism of the work ahead of time.
So, one could conclude that your criticism of rt66indierock using a debating tactic called "framing" is an example of, oh, what's the word I'm looking for, oh yeah, HYPOCRISY!
As a reminder of what the stakes are regarding the MQA audio format, let me remind you what the company's ambitions for MQA are as stated by MQA's Spencer Chrislu (SC) to Jim Austin (JCA) on Stereophile.com. And I quote:
"JCA: What are the company's ambitions for MQA? Do you hope/expect that all digital music will someday be MQA encoded?
SC: Well, that's the goal!" (Link below)
HOPE/EXPECT THAT ALL DIGITAL MUSIC WILL SOMEDAY BE MQA ENCODED!
(Yes, ALL!)
This is why we are concerned, why we care, why we must ask questions and why the questions need to be answered. We want to get this one right. The stakes are too high to get it wrong!
Edits: 11/21/17 11/21/17 11/21/17
Thanks for the link. That is truly scary. Talk about an organization obsessed with power, control, and money. Where does music fit in to their equation? Or the artist? Or the end user?
Equally scary to me was the way that the interviewee would repeatedly (and presumably knowingly) lie to promote his money-making scheme. Those are simply not the kind of people with whom I enjoy doing business.
It will be interesting to see if Jim Austin's January article on MQA will have anything to do with music. Better yet, MQA's playback performance and any comparative listening sessions.5 or so weeks ago, Austin stated that he's trying to get his hands on all the MQA reading material he can to understand the technology so he can make an intelligent decision about MQA's value. Yet, he never mentioned that he intended to "listen" to any MQA-related materials.
2 or so weeks ago, Atkinson in response to you, said he was going to take your concerns and the concerns of others in this thread and perform due diligence and listed a handful of things he intended to do regarding MQA. Yet, he too never mentioned that he intended to "listen" to any MQA-related materials.
It just seems too coincidental that Stereophile seemingly routinely overlooks their entire purpose for existing - to review a product or technology's audible performance. But apparently that's too difficult.
And then when Atkinson endorses a product or technology for its musical performance, it's an unbelievable nonsensical over-the-type hyperbola that makes no sense to anybody.
All over the map, no consistency, the name calling, the straw man arguments, the obfuscations, the obtusity, the alligations of wrong motives toward others that they themselves may well be guilty of, etc, etc. I just don't get it. Well, I do actuallym get it, but still I just can't believe they are so in-our-faces with their seemingly dime-store psychology and this carelessness for audible performance.
Go figure.
It all just makes me think matters in the industry are far worse than I thought they were 6 weeks ago.
But again. I really do see MQA as a blessing-in-disguies to help expose all this crap. If it weren't for MQA, we'd be in for another 10 years of them getting away with this behavior and the industry would just become that much more dumbed down.
Edits: 11/26/17
> It will be interesting to see if Jim Austin's January article on MQA will
> have anything to do with music.
I have already said on this forum that Jim's forthcoming articles will
examine MQA's technical claims.
> Better yet, MQA's playback performance and any comparative listening
> sessions.
See the link below.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> > In this context, it means the "framer" is closing their mind to the possibility
that the forthcoming article may have legitimate information that they would
actually find relevant, perhaps even persuasive. < <
Is it possible that now you are framing Jim's forthcoming article? And even more disturbing is the possibility that Stereophile has already decided that it is their job to persuade people to like MQA. I suppose that all journalism is supposed to persuade readers to accept the POV of the writer. Then the reader needs to be on guard as to the motivations of the writer. Which seems to be the question at hand vis-a-vis Stereophile and MQA.
I think Rt66IndyRock's requests of Jim were made in the context of what would be required for Jim's article to be perceived as objective, and not simply to reach a foregone conclusion.
... by your own participation.
At this point, I don't think any amount of legitimization will help to revive this moribund project - short of you publicly acknowledging some resemblance of neutrality, and giving space on your pages to some of the vocal opponents of MQA.
Not gonna happen I guess.
> At this point, I don't think any amount of legitimization will help to
> revive this moribund project . . .
Like I said, "framing."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I can't tell you guys how good all this stuff makes me feel about my recent listening being almost exclusively limited to vinyl (and mono vinyl at that mostly). I have no idea whether MQA sounds good or whether it is the latest example of Wizard of Oz hocus pocus (Heavens to Betsy!). But why is so much blood (sort of) being shed about this MQA stuff? Isn't life too short for this?
nt
You could be right re: framing but I also see legitimate questions in the OP.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: