|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
45.72.194.15
In Reply to: RE: Dear Jim Austin, posted by 4everyoung on November 15, 2017 at 07:46:53
People should be giving feedback on the text, not the deficiencies, real or imagined, of the authors. If, purely hypothetically, someone were to pen that MQA represented "the birth of a new world", it would be fair comment to characterize that text as nonsensical hyperbole, and give reasons for asserting that. But the invective that gets hurled at authors, Jim Austin comes to mind, makes me cringe. It advances no argument, rather, it distracts from the argument, and causes the gentler souls among us to withdraw from the discussion.On the internet, bad social behaviour is often attributed to the anonymity where people say things to anonymous others that they would never say face to face. But what I don't get is that high end audio is a small world, and at least some of the sources and targets of the animosity in this forum must know each other from the industry, shows, and the like. It's not necessary, it's not helpful, and it's just bad.
Just focus on the text. After it's written, of course.
Daniel
Edits: 11/15/17 11/15/17Follow Ups:
You are correct, people should be focusing on what is said by an authors, rather than focus on the authors themselves.And for most, that's exactly what's been going on for nearly 3 years now. But after 3 years, many are still unable to find any meat and potatoes regarding MQA's "godsend", "experiencing the birth of a new world", holy grail-type of performance levels claimed by these authors who refuse to rescind or retract their claims while more and more people with substance continue to come forward asking, what the frick is going on here with MQA?
Some are confused more than ever because even after all this time there remains more questions than answers. Those authors seem to be dodging many of the questions, while passively trying to let their claims stand, I assume hoping others won't notice their lack of stability or potential hypocracy.
Perhaps it's because many thirst for more and better performance, but IMO many have given MQA, Stuart, and others the benefit of doubt far too long already.
So now comes the check and balance phase and accountabilty phase. You know, the phase where the masses can no longer take such claims at face value and must now start to dig deeper and beyond the initial claims. Now those who have a dog in the fight (everybody who listens to music) or even those who simply care about real performance must now start to ask the uglier questions regarding the authors' listening skills, their ethics and morals, their credibility, and yes, even their potential motives.
And since MQA is attempting to introduce a new standard that will potentially affect every last listener financial-wise and performance-wise, it makes all the sense in the world for many to stop taking these outlandish performance claims on their face and try to get to the real reason MQA was created and why the potential sell-out by those with potential influence in the "high-end" audio sector.
There's potentially billions of dollars at stake here. And since we're talking from a "high-end" audio perspective and we're in a "high-end" audio forum and since "high-end" is supposed to imply performance, and those few backing MQA have essentially claimed it to be the performance holy grail and MQA being all things to all people, IMO, every last aspect of these authors and their publications and their historic claims of other products should all be brought into question.
And IMO rightfully so as I've tried warning others about MQA since I first read about it over 2 years ago that this was perhaps the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the "high-end" audio community. And I'm confident that anybody worth their weight in any sector of the music industry will eventually concur. If they're not already doing so now.
More importantly, some (including me) believe that this is far from the first time such hoaxes have been attempted by those in positions of influence on the "high-end" audio community. But that it took something so outlandish as MQA and its performance promises to bring this tom-foolery to light.
So from my perspective, although MQA is potentially damaging to the industry should it succeed (or not go away), I see MQA as a real blessing because it has the potential to expose much more than just MQA.
Holding leaders or those in positions of influence accountable is never pretty. But it sure can be enlightening.
Edits: 11/20/17 11/20/17
Excellent summary of the situation and ultimately the deeper implications of MQA & what the press have opened up!
Good job Stehno.
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Thanks, Archimago. It's much appreciated.
There's far more going on here regarding MQA than meets the eye. In fact, I have every reason to suspect the following:
1. That many of us in this hobby lack solid listening skills anymore. As such, that makes "high-end" audio very vulnerable to anybody wanting to make a buck or continue a certain lifestyle.
2. That many who care about real audio performance got lazy and stupid years ago and stopped holding those in postions of influence accountable for their actions / words.
3. That those in positions of influence got lazy and stupid and especially arrogant and thought nothing about trying to pull the wool over the dumbed-down masses with their outlandish performance claims of MQA. And they were certainly arrogant enough to think they'd never be held accountable for their words.
For example. Look at Atkinson's claims on the Vandersteen 7A speakers he heard at CES 2014 when he claimed the speakers (and nothing else) was "musically perfect..., across the board." And nobody batted an eye. Sure enough Vandersteen used Atkinson's endorsement in his advertisements and about 9 month later when I got wind of that endorsement in this forum I called Atkinson out and even accused him of eating his favorite ice cream when auditioning the Vandersteens and he pretty much ignored my questions then. Perhaps it was just coincidence but I thought I noticed within a few months after that, that Atkinson's endorsements were no longer in the Vandersteen 7A advertisements. And to this day as illustrated in numerous threads below, Atkinson still refuses to address my questions to him on his outlandish endorsement of the 7A's and even called me a troll.
Some of us know "high-end" audio has been in seriously floundering for years, even decades. And I would attest that it's first and foremost because:
1. So many of us lack basic listening skills and we entrust performance to those in positions of influence.
2. Many of those in positions of influence lack basic listening skills and count on the fact that most of their readers do too.
And if I'm even close to being accurate here, then that creates an environment where those in positions of influence can get away with almost anything without fear of ever being held accountable.
And I think the best proof and evidence that my speculations are true, are the outlandish and crazed Stereophile and The Absolute Sound endorsements for MQA and just one of many other examples are Atkinson's outlandish and crazed endorsement for the Vandersteen 7A speakers.
BTW, I checked out your website and it seems rather thoughtful from what seen thus far. I perceive tho art an audio animal. :)
Yup. Numerous astute observations, Stehno...As for the upcoming MQA articles on Stereophile , let's have some fun. I asked a few questions and Crenca provided his answers on Computer Audiophile:
1) Will Austin actually talk about facts as opposed to his own subjective impressions?
A: Only the "facts" of so much of audiophiledom, the assertions of this or that product/company. For example he will use terms like "Hi Res" without any definition, not bothering to explain that MQA is in fact a lossy facsimile of actual Hi Res PCM. Bit depth will be something "perceived", and math will have nothing to do with it.
2) Will he just call up a bunch of people to interview as if having a bunch of voices on the "pro" side carries much weight in the face of objective analysis?
A: Yes, but he will also glue bits and pieces of these interviews together in what appears to be a coherent and believable story of MQA. He is a storyteller first and foremost, and has to tow the line of his pro-MQA, anti consumer publication
3) Will he bother presenting the opinions of those who voice objections against MQA?
A: Yes, in a negative light and then he will repeat the unverifiable marketing verbiage of MQA. What else can he do? How MQA really works is behind the black box of IP/DRM.
4)Will he/Stereophile create their own diagrams and illustrations independently or run images and ideas fed to them by MQA Ltd. / Bob Stuart?
A: No, only MQA supplied information of any kind. What other kind of information is there besides pro-consumer based reverse engineering? As a likely NDA signor (and certainly working for those who are) he is not even allowed to do otherwise.
5)Will they actually bother to do their own blind testing with some kind of controls?
A: NoLet's see if this upcoming series on MQA plays out as expressed above based on expectations. (Clearly, many of us do not have high expectations...)
I am of course totally open to Stereophile / Austin actually bringing something new to the table. Surprise us, Stereophile . Time for journalistic independence and demonstration of critical thinking in the face of the facts out there about MQA.
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Edits: 11/20/17
If someone says they don't understand the technology I believe them especially when they say on the gearslutz site July 5, 2017 they find "the technology plausible and intriguing," "I like the way it sounds," and "listen to MQA." If you look at Jim Austin's writings and posts about MQA he supports MQA but consistently says things like "I haven't made of my mind yet." He opens himself up to criticism by saying he doesn't understand the technology, hides his support for MQA when everyone who opposes MQA know there are only two members of the press who have opposed it openly and calls a manufacturer an "idiot" who said the path MQA Ltd followed was barking up the wrong tree to improve digital playback. I don't have problem with what supporters of MQA write about it but be honest about your support. There seems to be little doubt that what Kal Rubinson wrote about MQA is a critical as Stereophile will ever get. And yes my letter does advance an argument because Jim has been consistently critical of the arguments by those who oppose MQA. A personal favorite is "Much of what I'm seeing in this thread-(deleted refers to a poster)- suggests that critics have not done their homework." If you criticize people saying they haven't done their homework then it is fair to expect Jim to do his homework. And since he doesn't understand the technology I offered him some assistance by pointing out some topics that should be fairly addressed in his series.
I find it funny you can't say John Atkinson penned MQA represents "the birth of a new world." Is that being a gentle soul or are you too weak to criticize him? I criticized John in the comment section of Listening 166 but I didn't hide. I introduced myself on the first day of RMAF 2016. It turned out to be my reentry point to the technical side of high end audio because a lot of speaker designers agreed with me. I'm sorry Daniel but I don't find the advice in your post of much value because I personally haven't said anything online about MQA to anyone I would not say the same thing to face to face. The only difference is face to face I ask questions. You should hear things audio journalists have said to me face to face.
One of two things will happen: Mr. Austin will embrace MQA and readers will say he did so because Mr. Atkinson did same; or Austin will claim he hears little or no difference between MQA and other formats, in which case his "tin ear" will support Mr. Hansen's harsh criticisms--which would make for delicious irony. Who knows, perhaps Mr. Austin will one day wind up working for CH. ~;)
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: