Popular Post Brinkman Ship Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2018-axpona-show-report-digital-and-personal-electronics/?utm_source=The+Absolute+Sound+List&utm_campaign=4b535a6c2d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_844faeddad-4b535a6c2d-109080993&mc_cid=4b535a6c2d&mc_eid=7e57b16115 "Since MQA was announced I’ve attended more than a half-dozen public demos in addition to the many hours I’ve spent listening at home on my own systems. At AXPONA I had a chance to partake of another demo, courtesy of Peter McGrath in the Paragon Audio room, with the Wilson Audio Alexandria XLF loudspeakers. Actually, I attended the demo twice. The first time I sat in the prime listening seat while during the second session I sat in the seat directly next to the prime listening seat. McGrath’s demo, using his own stunningly good recordings, codified for me two vital details about MQA demos and MQA listening in general: My first truth, which I have found universal, is that if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space. MQA can’t make a badly mixed studio recording sound good. My own live concert recordings with the purist sonic characteristics have sounded better when encoded into MQA. Peter McGrath’s magnificent recordings were also improved by allowing an easier listen into the mix and more readily identifiable soundstaging. Peter called it “more human.” To hear MQA’s subtle but powerful differences you must listen to a good recording of Mahler or Mozart, not Metallica. The second and equally important detail about MQA A/B listening comparison tests is if you are not in the prime listening position, which is the one that triangulates most precisely with the transducers used during the listening session, you are not in a position to judge MQA sound quality properly. When I was even one seat to the side of the central listening position the effects of MQA were vastly reduced to the point where they were almost nonexistent. I have been in sessions where even professional recording engineers (and audio reviewers) have made dubious (and IMHO downright wrong) assessments of MQA’s sonic effects based on a group session where almost everyone in the room is in a bad seat (which is any seat that is not properly triangulated with the transducers). In all the other seats you might as well be listening through a Dixie cup and a string—really. So, if you have an opportunity to participate in a group listening session evaluating MQA, unless you have THE SEAT, i.e. the sweet spot, your opinions are not going to be correct and you won’t be hearing any of what I have come to believe are fundamentally profound (but subtle) sonic improvements that MQA-encoded files can have over the original WAV (or even DSD) masters. Let the flames begin…" So it has to be a "phase correct' REAL instrument or instruments in a REAL acoustic space and you have to sit in THE SEAT... Yup, that's it. Everyone has gotten it all wrong these last 4 years, because they all been sitting in the wrong seat... pedalhead, mcgillroy, MikeyFresh and 4 others 2 2 3 Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 This is what happens when you apply pressure and keep it on. So lets see if my music comes through a Fender Amp there will be no MQA benefits good to know. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted April 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2018 What nonsense. I listened to that demo. Well, if you got over the MQA nonsense that!t McGrath spewed, you got to hear the higher MQA with the fuzzy high end. MrMoM, johndoe21ro and MikeyFresh 1 2 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Popular Post new_media Posted April 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2018 This is up there with Steve Jobs' "You're holding it wrong." Ran, buonassi, lucretius and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment
esldude Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 Some reports for this demo were there mqa playback was obviously louder. Maybe that was only in the wrong seat where phase didn't line up properly. MrMoM 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post Indydan Posted April 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2018 To get the full benefits of MQA, the following must be done: -You have to remove your shoes and socks; -Listen to MQA music 3 days after the quarter moon; -Eat lots of fibre and green vegetables, but NO apples; -Listen to classical music performed by a symphony orchestra NOT a philharmonic; -If a tenor saxophone is used in the music, a piccolo must be playing, but if a harp is also playing, an alto saxophone must then be used; -No cats must be in the listening room. The purring from a cat reblurs the deblurred MQA files. Unless you have followed all of these guidelines, you have never heard the full beneficial effect of MQA. buonassi, asdf1000, Fluffytime and 6 others 4 5 Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted April 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2018 Quote My first truth, which I have found universal, is that if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space. MQA is not phase correct. It's leaky filters are not phase correct. Quote My own live concert recordings with the purist sonic characteristics have sounded better when encoded into MQA. He just likes the audible effects as documented here:http://www.iar-80.com/page170.html including: - high frequency content of non-periodic sounds such as transients being erased / softened by MQA - added ultrasonic and HF garbage, which some may like - out of phase content, because MQA's minimum phase filter which is not phase correct Quote The mere addition of random incoherent phase versions of a recording's signal, to the original accurate recording, boosts the human ear/brain's perception of rich ambience and space (the well-known Damaske effect). MQA messes up the phase, and also adds aliasing, thereby triggering the well-known Damaske effect. Quote Similarly, MQA softens, eviscerates, or completely erases virtually all transient attacks, which is especially pernicious and noticeable when the attack transient is naturally hard, e.g. the "t" of a triangle ting, or the "t" sound formed by a singer's tongue and teeth. Some naïve listeners might subjectively prefer all their sounds to be softened, or even have the naturally hard transient attacks be completely erased. Such naïve listeners might well prefer the sound of MQA to other competing systems that reveal the truth about real sounds, so they might well erroneously pronounce MQA's sound to be superior precisely because of what is in fact MQA's gross distortion and reconstruction failure here, with all brief transient attacks. The second sonic contrast we noted was that MQA's high frequencies had a much more airy, open quality, whereas PCM's high frequencies sounded more closed in. They were surely different, but that does not answer the crucial questions of which is better, and why. One sonic clue was that MQA's high frequencies were also soft, defocused, diffused, phasey, and fuzzy smeared (not articulate, individuated, or coherently focused). This suggests that something was wrong with these high frequencies (perhaps the same factor producing their airier, more open quality). tmtomh, Rt66indierock, esldude and 2 others 4 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post franz159 Posted April 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 22, 2018 On 4/21/2018 at 5:32 AM, Indydan said: To get the full benefits of MQA, the following must be done: -You have to remove your shoes and socks; -Listen to MQA music 3 days after the quarter moon; -Eat lots of fibre and green vegetables, but NO apples; -Listen to classical music performed by a symphony orchestra NOT a philharmonic; -If a tenor saxophone is used in the music, a piccolo must be playing, but if a harp is also playing, an alto saxophone must then be used; -No cats must be in the listening room. The purring from a cat reblurs the deblurred MQA files. Unless you have followed all of these guidelines, you have never heard the full beneficial effect of MQA. No cats must be in the listening room. The purring from a cat reblurs the deblurred MQA files. This made my day! johndoe21ro, buonassi, Brinkman Ship and 3 others 4 2 Link to comment
Popular Post miguelito Posted April 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 22, 2018 My take after listening to a lot of MQA at home (full decoding with dCS Rossini): 1- The impact of MQA encoding can be good - there are a few recordings where it sounds “better” than other versions including high res. Quotes because it mostly sounds different but I prefer the MQA version. Example: Keith Jarrett’s “Koln Concert” - I have just about every version out there including the 24/96 one. But I think this is the case because MQA puts some EQ or similar in the mix, to be honest. Fine, no problem with that, I do enjoy the MQA version better. Just want to be clear what I think is the source. 2- If you really have to be at the sweet spot to hear anything meaningful - and this with really high end equipment - what exactly is the point of MQA in the first place??? 3- The cases where MQA is better, and there are many (eg Amy Winehouse’s “Back to Black”) are mostly cases of remastering the original recordings. No issue with that, but again it is not about MQA but about remastering carefully. BTW, the vast majority of the ~8k albums in MQA out there where processed in bulk, and frankly don’t sound any better for the most part. MikeyFresh, johndoe21ro and lucretius 1 1 1 NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul system pics Link to comment
Popular Post Ajax Posted April 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 22, 2018 Mark Waldrep from AIX Media Group does not hold back on what he thinks of the article and MQA in general. "Do You Hear What I Hear? AXPONA Part III was heartened to learn from several other vendors that MQA is not a regular topic of conversation and audiophiles aren't asking whether this or that DAC will include this completely unnecessary technology. But I do continue to read discussions and comments posted by advocates for MQA. Steven Stone's recent 2018 Show Report contains a rather curious section that narrows down the conditions under which MQA encoded music sounds best (if it's supposed to sound different from the master at all!). His first universal truth is "if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space". Apparently, he liked the MQA process on a variety of Peter McGrath's recordings as played in the Paragon Room through Wilson speakers at the AXPONA show — but only if you sit in the "prime listening position". If his assessment is correct (which is highly doubtful), virtually all of the MQA albums being streamed on Tidal won't benefit from the MQA process because they were produced in the confines of a recording studio. Additionally, listeners have to sit in a single location in order to maximize the sonic benefits accorded to MQA processed material. Wow.As the purveyor of recordings made using high-resolution PCM (at 96 kHz/24-bits) in acoustically rich venues that are indeed phase coherent, my catalog would be a prime candidate for MQAing, right? As I've stated before, the inventor of the technology and others in MQA employ have offered to process some of my tracks and let me experience the "magic" that MQA can impart on my otherwise high fidelity tracks. I uploaded 12 tracks to a mutually agreed on FTP site almost 4 years ago and despite repeated requests haven't heard back from the company about when I can download the MQA tracks. I suspect that the MQA versions will sound different than my high-resolution originals — and I would consider that a degradation of their fidelity — and a violation of the tenants of the process as explained to me by the inventor. All this talk about MQA's "sonic improvements" or its ability to deliver "more readily identifiable soundstaging" or whatever people say they like about it, contradicts the intended design goals of the technique. Robert Stuart told me that the process shouldn't enhance the sound of an original master. It's primary job is to maintain more of the original fidelity through each stage of production — and reproduction. The idea is to lose less fidelity along the way. So those that hear and value the euphonious effects of MQA are actually arguing against it. No change from master recording to reproduced output would be ideal — and imperceptible.As far as I can glean from all of the articles, technical papers, patent applications, and conversations I've had, the advantages of an MQA-encoded file apply only to real high-resolution music recordings when streamed through a bandwidth limited network (wired or wireless). It was not designed to be a sonic enhancement process but rather a bandwidth saving technology — and it does manage that trick although there are other "open source" methods that accomplish the same thing. The record companies that have submitted to the hoax that is MQA don't have catalogs of high-resolution audio with ultrasonic frequencies in need of origami folding. This is my biggest complaint about the MQA myth. If the trick of folding ultrasonic content under the in band content is key to its "better sound" then there better be meaningful amounts of ultrasonic content in the original tracks. The fact is there isn't any and even if there were, your system and ears couldn't process it. The CEA/CTA and its associated member companies continues to promote "hi-res" music as the next big thing in music — they don't realize that taking old content and wrapping it in a large bit bucket doesn't do anything — but it is good for commerce.One recent FB comment dismissed my dislike of MQA by saying that I just don't have adequate equipment or that my hearing is incapable of experiencing the fidelity improvements of MQA. Once again, it's a personal failing that I can't hear the difference. This regular subjectivist retort is tired and completely false. The MQA process is a business that hopes to dominate streaming music by promising the removal of "time smearing" and other digital artifacts for a very limited catalog (maybe 2500 high-resolution titles) for individuals sitting in the "sweet spot" for those with great hearing who happen to own state-of-the-art systems. How is that a real business proposition?" miguelito, johndoe21ro, Nikhil and 8 others 8 3 LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650 BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers Link to comment
james45974 Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 Seems like there was barely a whimper of MQA from Axpona, at least the coverage of the show that I have read. MikeyFresh 1 Jim Link to comment
miguelito Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 The number of MQA album releases over time has slowed down massively. About 150-200 per month. NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul system pics Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted April 22, 2018 Author Share Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, james45974 said: Seems like there was barely a whimper of MQA from Axpona, at least the coverage of the show that I have read. Oh, Master Shill Jason Victor Serenus managed to mention MQA through out his reports gratuitously. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post rickca Posted April 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 22, 2018 30 minutes ago, miguelito said: The number of MQA album releases over time has slowed down massively. About 150-200 per month. Let me know when it's zero. We'll throw a party. johndoe21ro, Rt66indierock, jvlata and 2 others 2 3 Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs i7-6700K/Windows 10 --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted April 22, 2018 Author Share Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Ajax said: Mark Waldrep from AIX Media Group does not hold back on what he thinks of the article and MQA in general. "Do You Hear What I Hear? AXPONA Part III was heartened to learn from several other vendors that MQA is not a regular topic of conversation and audiophiles aren't asking whether this or that DAC will include this completely unnecessary technology. But I do continue to read discussions and comments posted by advocates for MQA. Steven Stone's recent 2018 Show Report contains a rather curious section that narrows down the conditions under which MQA encoded music sounds best (if it's supposed to sound different from the master at all!). His first universal truth is "if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space". Apparently, he liked the MQA process on a variety of Peter McGrath's recordings as played in the Paragon Room through Wilson speakers at the AXPONA show — but only if you sit in the "prime listening position". If his assessment is correct (which is highly doubtful), virtually all of the MQA albums being streamed on Tidal won't benefit from the MQA process because they were produced in the confines of a recording studio. Additionally, listeners have to sit in a single location in order to maximize the sonic benefits accorded to MQA processed material. Wow.As the purveyor of recordings made using high-resolution PCM (at 96 kHz/24-bits) in acoustically rich venues that are indeed phase coherent, my catalog would be a prime candidate for MQAing, right? As I've stated before, the inventor of the technology and others in MQA employ have offered to process some of my tracks and let me experience the "magic" that MQA can impart on my otherwise high fidelity tracks. I uploaded 12 tracks to a mutually agreed on FTP site almost 4 years ago and despite repeated requests haven't heard back from the company about when I can download the MQA tracks. I suspect that the MQA versions will sound different than my high-resolution originals — and I would consider that a degradation of their fidelity — and a violation of the tenants of the process as explained to me by the inventor. All this talk about MQA's "sonic improvements" or its ability to deliver "more readily identifiable soundstaging" or whatever people say they like about it, contradicts the intended design goals of the technique. Robert Stuart told me that the process shouldn't enhance the sound of an original master. It's primary job is to maintain more of the original fidelity through each stage of production — and reproduction. The idea is to lose less fidelity along the way. So those that hear and value the euphonious effects of MQA are actually arguing against it. No change from master recording to reproduced output would be ideal — and imperceptible.As far as I can glean from all of the articles, technical papers, patent applications, and conversations I've had, the advantages of an MQA-encoded file apply only to real high-resolution music recordings when streamed through a bandwidth limited network (wired or wireless). It was not designed to be a sonic enhancement process but rather a bandwidth saving technology — and it does manage that trick although there are other "open source" methods that accomplish the same thing. The record companies that have submitted to the hoax that is MQA don't have catalogs of high-resolution audio with ultrasonic frequencies in need of origami folding. This is my biggest complaint about the MQA myth. If the trick of folding ultrasonic content under the in band content is key to its "better sound" then there better be meaningful amounts of ultrasonic content in the original tracks. The fact is there isn't any and even if there were, your system and ears couldn't process it. The CEA/CTA and its associated member companies continues to promote "hi-res" music as the next big thing in music — they don't realize that taking old content and wrapping it in a large bit bucket doesn't do anything — but it is good for commerce.One recent FB comment dismissed my dislike of MQA by saying that I just don't have adequate equipment or that my hearing is incapable of experiencing the fidelity improvements of MQA. Once again, it's a personal failing that I can't hear the difference. This regular subjectivist retort is tired and completely false. The MQA process is a business that hopes to dominate streaming music by promising the removal of "time smearing" and other digital artifacts for a very limited catalog (maybe 2500 high-resolution titles) for individuals sitting in the "sweet spot" for those with great hearing who happen to own state-of-the-art systems. How is that a real business proposition?" Wow. mcgillroy 1 Link to comment
crenca Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Ajax said: The MQA process is a business that hopes to dominate streaming music by promising the removal of "time smearing" and other digital artifacts for a very limited catalog (maybe 2500 high-resolution titles) for individuals sitting in the "sweet spot" for those with great hearing who happen to own state-of-the-art systems. How is that a real business proposition?" It's not, and was never the real business proposition. The real business proposition always began and ended with DRM... MikeyFresh 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted April 22, 2018 Author Share Posted April 22, 2018 Just now, crenca said: It's not, and was never the real business proposition. The real business proposition always began and ended with DRM... ...and keeping Bob Stuart's 40 year charade going... Link to comment
mcgillroy Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 Another great day for the MQA-PR brigades: Houston, we have an acclaimed recording engineer & label owner calling us a hoax... MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
firedog Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 It seems to be coming obvious that the MQA “magic” consists of dulling trasients, hiding low level detail, and softening the sound of recordings - all while adding artificial “space and air” to recordings. So many listeners like the sound - softened and more space seems more “analog” like and “audiophile“ like to them. MikeyFresh 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
james45974 Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said: Oh, Master Shill Jason Victor Serenus managed to mention MQA through out his reports gratuitously. Well, JVS is on my personal ignore list so I didn't read his reports MikeyFresh 1 Jim Link to comment
daverich4 Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 5 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said: Oh, Master Shill Jason Victor Serenus managed to mention MQA through out his reports gratuitously. Before slagging on someone the next time you might consider learning how to spell their name. Link to comment
miguelito Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 On 4/22/2018 at 10:05 AM, rickca said: On 4/22/2018 at 9:33 AM, miguelito said: The number of MQA album releases over time has slowed down massively. About 150-200 per month. Let me know when it's zero. We'll throw a party. To be clear, I am basing this on what I see in the TIDAL MQA titles file refreshed every month on meridianunplugged.com. We shall see where MQA goes. I think my recount, and certainly Archimago's, have been honest and fair. buonassi 1 NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul system pics Link to comment
Popular Post ARQuint Posted April 24, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2018 This thread provides an opportunity to comment further on an aspect of the vexed relationship between audio publications and their constituents in online communities—a subject I addressed in an editorial that appears in the current (May/June) issue of The Absolute Sound ("Audiophiles Online: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly".) I'm a faithful follower of Computer Audiophile, so I feel I have the right to participate; I'm claiming no special status as an audio writer. The term "shill" has been accurately defined (Wikipedia) as "a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization." As so defined, my colleague Steve Stone (or, for that matter, Robert Harley, John Atkinson, or Jason Serinus) is not a "shill", though a few of the less thoughtful participants on CA forums focused on MQA love applying the term to pretty much any industry person with a positive view of the technology. It's a classic ad hominum attack, questioning the motives and integrity of that person. It's noteworthy that the ire directed at MQA at CA has so easily morphed into a contemptuous dismissal of the established magazines. When it comes to assessing audio equipment, these publications, as well as strictly electronic outlets, and even some blogs that are basically one-man shows, all operate on a very well-established protocol. A manufacturer sends a product, a reviewer attempts to understand its design goals and listens to it for a length of time that varies but is always longer and more comprehensive than a non-reviewer customer could expect, and then writes about his conclusions, incorporating a variable mix of objective measurement and subjective impressions that employ a descriptive language developed decades ago in the pioneering "high-end" magazines. In case you haven't noticed, that's what goes on at Computer Audiophile. A professional journalist assesses a product in an informed and disciplined fashion and produces a cogently written piece that intelligent people will want to read. At CA, that obviously means Chris Connaker, though there may be others that CC compensates for producing content for the site. It's not hard to imagine Chris functioning very successfully as a reviewer for TAS or Stereophile—he is technically savvy and writes fluently and entertainingly. Manufacturers seek out CA, as they do Stereophile and TAS because the publication gets them in front of the customer base they need to be in front of, which is a function of the quality of the content. What strikes me as an illogical and contradictory aspect of the bashing of the established publications in several CA forums is the suggestion that the content in the magazines is merely a platform for advertisers—the possibility that hobbyists actually read the magazines for entertainment and informed opinion is dismissed. The irony, of course, is that tens of thousands of people actually pay to subscribe to TAS and Stereophile. To be sure, advertising dollars are necessary to attract decent writers and to make these enterprises at all profitable, but there is a significant base of income that comes from paid subscriptions. Nobody pays to read Computer Audiophile. All the funds needed to sustain Chris C come from advertisers. And that's where you, the enthusiastic, sometimes unbridled, and largely anonymous posters come in. Many enthusiasts come to the site to participate in or just observe the catfights, takedowns, and general mean-girl posturing that informs many of the forum discussions. Did "MQA is Vaporware" need to run 329 pages? Of course not—it became a repetitive, self-congratulatory echo chamber early on—but the number of views were manna for Chris. It's not a surprise to me that CA forums are so lightly edited, compared to the way that noxious reader comments are dealt with on the TAS and Stereophile sites. So, is Chris Connaker a "shill?" By virtue of the fact that he commissioned Archimago's thorough review of the MQA story, one could conclude that, like many in the industry, he's very skeptical of the benefit of the technology for consumers. On the other hand, he doesn't feel the need to ring in on the merits (or lack thereof) of MQA whenever the subject arises. Take Chris's piece last November on the Berkeley Alpha DAC MQA update. At the outset of the piece, Chris felt it was important to state up front that "…this article is neither a referendum on MQA, nor an endorsement or rejection of MQA." A disingenuous straddling of the fence? A look over his shoulder at the advertisers that have decided to include MQA in the design of their products? Later, Chris admitted "Of course I listened to some MQA material through the DAC but I purposely avoided using that in the review. The topic is too loaded and would distract from the real story that is the firmware update." Fair enough. But by passing on an opportunity to give an opinion regarding the effect of a modification to a top-of-the-heap digital product on SQ, was CC responding to the sensibilities of some of the manufacturers that pay the pills at Computer Audiophile—basically what the "MQA is Vaporware" crowd is so vociferously accusing TAS and Stereophile of? No, Chris Connaker is not a shill. But there's a real tension in play with Computer Audiophile. So much of the content is well informed, helpful to readers, and reflects a sense of a generous and inclusive hobbyist community. At the same time, a small number of intemperate and self-important forum participants are generating a lot of the views that Chris Connaker needs to show advertisers. He does need to keep those advertisers convinced that CA is a productive place to engage potential customers. The risk is that his wonderful site is commandeered by a tiny cadre of single-issue individuals who are very much in love with the sound of their own voices. Andrew Quint Senior Writer The Absolute Sound darkmass, Sloop John B, look&listen and 5 others 4 4 Link to comment
rickca Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 44 minutes ago, ARQuint said: Nobody pays to read Computer Audiophile. Wrong. Journalists check facts. 44 minutes ago, ARQuint said: It's a classic ad hominum attack It's ad hominem. Journalists use spellcheck. Ran 1 Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs i7-6700K/Windows 10 --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's Link to comment
Popular Post rickca Posted April 24, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2018 47 minutes ago, ARQuint said: A disingenuous straddling of the fence? Chris has retained his credibility and the respect of his readership. monteverdi and The Computer Audiophile 1 1 Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs i7-6700K/Windows 10 --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now