|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Really posted by John Atkinson on November 3, 2017 at 08:27:59:
... you're a magnanimous and objective guy with all the things you're gonna dive into regarding MQA. Shoot, you even had me for the first few senctences.BTW, that's an excellent idea and you're to be commended for wanting to take this on. That's showing due diligence.
But let me ask you this:
1. Where have you been these past 3 years since MQA was first announced?
2. Where was your due diligence when you were endorsing MQA and comparing it to experiencing the birth of a new world. Doesn't really matter much whether or not you implying from a performance or technical perspective. But since you hadn't performed any due diligence at that time, it's all kinda' water under the bridge now isn't it?
3. Most importantly, why in your to-do list above and below that includes most aspects of MQA, did you neglect to mention listening to MQA-formatted music? If MQA's performance claims hold little or no water, none of the other crap matters one iota, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by John Atkinson (R) on November 3, 2017 at 08:27:59In Reply to: RE: Really posted by Charles Hansen on November 3, 2017 at 05:27:43:
> I sincerely hope that it's not too little, too late to salvage Stereophile's
> reputation. I have privately been telling you the whole thing is a scam
> since January 2015, yet it seems like it took a public temper-tantrum to get
> any real action.Actually no. Having known you for more than quarter century and having a
deep respect for what you have accomplished both as an engineer and as
human being, I am actually embarrassed by your rantings.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 meantime, as you can see from the large majority of comments on
> this site, most now view Stereophile as an untrustworthy source of biased
> information.So it goes, Charley. As I assume you are aware from the years we have
known each other, I have never had a problem being judged on what I say
or write.John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Really? Ya' know, John, a lot of people reading this must think ... - stehno 11/4/1713:23:47 11/4/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
