Jim Austin

Have Stereophile writers claimed that MQA is lossless since I performed (and wrote up) that analysis? If so, I'm not aware of it. On the broader issue of MQA's subjective value, every writer is entitled to their own opinion. You will find many conflicting (but mutually respectful) opinions in our pages, on many topics. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

I addressed this question years ago in Stereophile. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

I'm sure you understand that this is ambiguous at best, regardless of what Posner may have written. We'll leave it to our lawyers to determine. Meanwhile, regardless of legalities, your refusal to cooperate has been noted. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Chris, if you can't figure out how to remove the image from appearing on your site, then you are the one who is out of your league. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

You certainly have a novel interpretation of the Fair Use doctrine, if that is your claim. But that isn't it, is it? Your claim is that the actual data is stored elsewhere--a weak claim indeed. It's probably not worth our time, but I will check with our attorneys. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Apparently you know less than you think. I had no communication with MQA, in either direction, between the GoldenSound post and the time this AWSI was completed. Now, posting this here is a violation of our copyright. Take it down please. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. It is impossible to audit every bank account. But it is quite easy to get to know a writer and assess his (or, regrettably rarely, her) character and establish trust. That's something that isn't possible on the Internet, especially with respect to anonymous posters. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Yes, unequivocally. And as for advertising, I don't think there's been any of that either, although I don't pay close attention. I did notice an MQA logo on an old ad recently, but I think that was for a manufacturer whose products incorporate MQA and not MQA itself. Jim Austin,

There you go--doubling down on spreading rumors. Here's a great explanation of why so many posters wish to remain anonymous. I say this quite realizing that many here will jump to your defense, simply because they agree with you. If you had posted anonymously, the taint on your character from engaging in such unprincipled behavior would be only online. No one would be able to link the online taint to the real you. But your identity is known, I believe. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Sometimes I think you're smart, and then you write unaccountably really dumb things, like this. Makes me think you really haven't thought through this anonymity thing. And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway? Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions. Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Are you seriously suggesting that criticism shared by an anonymous poster is just as valid as that of someone who stands up and stakes their actual, personal reputation on what they do and say? It's not as if every statement Archie every made about MQA was amply supported by data. Even if they were his personal motives--which are unknown--cannot be evaluated. There is, after all, just one person there. And let the record show that no one who speaks for Stereophile--indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no one who writes for Stereophile--has ever defamed Archimago. (I see now that JA has already made this point.) Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Are you willing to go on record saying, then, that the rumors you repeated did NOT involve Stereophile writers? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Seriously? Um--yeah. It carries its meaning with it, Mans, doesn't it? How can that not be obvious to you? Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

You seem like a smart guy. So you can understand that this "saying" you've carted out, which I've never heard before, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, you will hit random dogs, and the ones you hit are likely to yelp. It's a little different with people, some of whom care about their reputations. That's why you shouldn't toss stones without cause, at dogs or at people. It's also worth considering that by posting scurrilous accusations on the Internet, you're effectively tossing stones from behind a tall fence--an act of cowardice. (I'll say it again though: To your credit, it least you don't cower behind a pseudonym.) Without evidence, you cannot know whether the rumor you reported is true. If you don't know if its' true, you shouldn't repeat it--your mother taught you that much at least, right? Provide evidence or delete your post. To do otherwise would be to further expose a serious lack of character. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile

Perfect. This forum permits potentially defamatory (though safely nonspecific) posts, then the moderator pretends (by implication) that it's those on the other side of the debate who are being "post-factual", all while posing (i.e. at audio shows) as some sort of impartial observer. When did it become OK to post second-hand (or third-hand), nonspecific allegations that defame a whole category of professionals? At least (in contrast to a great many other MQA critics) mansr doesn't post such pathetic accusations anonymously. At least as far as we know. Show some character. Provide evidence or delete your post. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile