|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.153.249.86
In Reply to: RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? posted by John Atkinson on November 21, 2017 at 04:15:45
>> 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,
Follow Ups:
> 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.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: