Montreal Audiofest 2024

Moon by Simaudio, Estelon, Cardas Audio

Robert Schryer | Mar 31, 2024

All prices listed are in Canadian dollars.

I heard rarefied, potently musical sound (out-of-this-world sound? hehe) in the Moon by Simaudio room.

The system included, from Moon by Simaudio's North Collection, the Moon 891 network player / preamplifier with built-in DAC and MM / MC phono stage (starting at $32,500), a 300Wpc Moon 861 power amplifier (starting at $29,000), and a pair of the curvaceous, somewhat futuristic-looking (perfect for Moon products) Estelon XB Mkll Reference speakers ($64,600/pair). Cabling was by Cardas.

This system offered some of the most refined sound at the show, providing believable soundstage populated with lifelike images and a rich tonal palette. Struck piano keys from a 24/96 Qobuz stream trembled and reverberated like the real thing. Same with double bass strings. Judged solely by timbral and tonal verisimilitude, this system had very few peers.

COMMENTS

Show coverage

Submitted by teched58 on April 1, 2024 - 12:04pm

It's vexing that you refuse to do show round ups, which'd be a service to the reader.

Instead, you do dozens of two-paragraph stories, with scant content. But good SEO for the manufacturer.

Round-up show reports...

Submitted by rschryer on April 4, 2024 - 7:56pm

...are the most boring show reports in the world. I can't read them. I jump to the highlighted brand names to see if those'll interest me. They usually don't. Give me a report that makes me feel like I'm going room to room, like a visitor, meeting something special.

Plus, there's nothing wrong in promoting the audio industry. I hope everyone of good conscience does well in it. But it's also ignorant to think that our hobby and its future prospects don't rely also on its commercial viability.

Call the Wambulance!

Submitted by Indydan on April 5, 2024 - 4:55am

Wa wa wa! Someone crying because he does not like the format of free content!
Hurry and call the wambulance!

teched58, it's vexing that after reading

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on April 1, 2024 - 5:27pm

Stereophile magazine all these years (and maybe some others besides spending all your time on ASR) that you don't understand the business of magazines and blogs which like to write and report in "real time." I'd rather read these individual room reports than read a big long summation 2 weeks after the show wraps. Stick to trolling things that don't align your narrow audio philosophies instead of trying to impose your "audio Taliban" will on things.

Johnny Thunders still stuck in New Orleans

Submitted by teched58 on April 2, 2024 - 8:06am

I'm sure you understand the business of magazines better than I, since all I've done is write and edit for many years, in contrast to your eminent presence as a commenter. I will try to do better!

SP is lucky to have a lackey like you, who always jumps to their defense!

I may comment but I worked at a multiple million circulation

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on April 2, 2024 - 8:15am

mass market magazine for 16 years. Was also married to a magazine journalist as well. You comment but you only complain and find fault (the entire ASR crowd and their snickering holier than thou attitude turns my stomach.) I admire Stereophile and it's the only stereo magazine I will stick up for (I'm proud to be an advocate (or lackeyas you say) for something I and many others enjoy. I don't suscribe to others - though read their sites for their reviews but the level of writing is many notches below Stereophile - with the exception of Ken Kessler.

With respect to both our critic and our defender ...

Submitted by Jim Austin on April 2, 2024 - 8:35am

... in my mind, every post without a person to stand behind it--every pseudonymous post--loses a great deal of credibility simply because it shows that the poster is not willing to stand behind the opinion stated. I'm aware of the many rationalizations for pseudonymous posting, but I'm confident that few of our commenters are political dissidents or, say, civil-rights campaigners under threat of government or corporate persecution. Some do it to avoid career risk--but that's just another example of avoiding accountability. In my experience, the rationale (rationalization) for pseudonymous posting is usually little more than convenience: Some folks seem amused by posting nasty stuff online--I say that quite aware that no one here is being nasty, and that only one of you is even being critical--but doesn't want to be bothered by possible consequences.

I can't post this without thanking JohnnyThuder2.0 for the kind words.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

This is the way you attacked Archimago

Submitted by teched58 on April 2, 2024 - 8:44am

Pseuds or not doesn't change facts.

This is the same ad hominem attack used by you and others against Archimago throughout the MQA debate. When you can't win on the facts, you attack the messenger.

If you looked at the substance of my comments instead of reflexively protecting your football, you might see that I have something of a point in the value of show round ups.That you prefer vendor-keyworded blurbs is understandable in light of market forces.

A Ph.D. physicist who worked as a career columnist for Science magazine can't really believe that my comments are invalid just because I'm pseudonymous. Can he?

And how come you're thanking pseudonymous Johnny but attacking me? Inconsistent.

Is that the best you've got?

Submitted by Jim Austin on April 2, 2024 - 8:51am

In your post, you staked your argument in part on experience--experience you may or may not have. How easy is it to pretend you've been a journalist? Why should we believe you if you're not willing to put it out there? I truly have no idea.

As for MQA, there never was a debate. It was a disagreement between those who prioritize ideas and those who as a matter of conviction set that all aside and listen.

Okay, actually there was a debate, or two of them. Some people insisted that MQA didn't sound good, though most of them also had ideological arguments against he technology--still there was a disagreement between them and those who listened and liked what they heard. The second debate was over the ideas. It's still obvious to me that the most aggressive critics--and they were plenty aggressive--were wrong about some basic things. It's all now moot (and I'm fine with that, since I was never a particularly passionate MQA defender), and I'm not going to dredge it up (or continuing to dredge it up) again. Nor will I continue this discussion, since I have far too much to do.

I have occasionally been insulted in the real world by people screeching tires as they exited the scene. Call me old school, but I think of anonymous online criticism in much the same way. Unless your life is in danger, it's cowardly.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

Is credibility truly built on a name?

Submitted by Archimago on April 2, 2024 - 4:31pm

Hmmm... A little birdie mentioned my pseudonym came up here. Had to have a peek. :-)

No Jim, posters (like myself) may not be political dissidents, or civil-rights campaigners, or undergoing persecution. But what's wrong with exercising one's right to free speech or posting conclusions based on evidence, building experience and credibility over time that way? No need to be "anointed" by some magazine as a worthy reviewer or show reporter/journalist in order to have credibility, right? As far as I can tell, most reviewers and show reporters don't seem to have any professional background in audio technology, many (and I've met some) seem to have no ability to explain how things work, nor even seem to possess "golden ears".

There are very legitimate reasons for some of us to prefer not having our identities on display on the Internet or be tracked since we all have other responsibilities outside the audiophile hobby. For myself, I am a physician and wear a number of management hats, often dealing with the public so it's best to separate the hobby from the professional career where the name is used. I've been open about this for years and I think you'll see the consistency in my writings. So, even if a reader might not know my real name, they can see that there's a real person behind the name, one that engages in discussions and I hope shows the passion behind the pursuit. Isn't that what's most important? There are many audiophiles out there we can get to know this way, including some who frequent this website.

So much of audiophilia has been built on people's names as if this matters much - the name "Bob Stuart" should not automatically mean MQA was good, and "Mark Levinson" can be mistaken as discussed in the blog this week. In an age of social media where people desire their 15 minutes of fame, I think it's good to be anonymous and *not* desire credit other than allow evidence, logical debate, and objective results to form the pillars from which we build our worldviews whether it's audiophilia, or anything else for that matter!

I'm sure that educated audiophiles can make up their own minds based on the content rather than a name.

BTW: I'm not sure what "basic things" you found wrong with the arguments against MQA; but yeah, that's water under the bridge.

It seems to be "straw man"

Submitted by Jim Austin on April 2, 2024 - 4:56pm

It seems to be "straw man" day for me, but never mind that.

First, I think you'll agree that there is only one of you--not an audiophile "you" and a physician "you." To keep them separate is a fiction--perhaps a metafiction, since it's transparent, but it does obviously, by definition, reflect a lack of integrity, in the sense of integration. You are pretending to be something you are not--or to be only part of what you are. It's a meaningful point exactly because the separation of your online self from your offline self (and perhaps other online selves) is important to you. Whatever the excuse, you--the actual you--are avoiding accountability for what you write. The more essential it is, the more important it is. But let's continue.

what's wrong with exercising one's right to free speech or posting conclusions based on evidence, building experience and credibility over time that way?

Free speech has nothing to do with this, since the First Amendment does not guarantee you or anyone the right to post comments on Stereophile's website. It is true however that you have successfully built an online persona. Setting aside your continued avoidance of personal responsibility, that certainly does give you more credibility than some, and I'm quite willing to consider your reasoned arguments on their merits. But I think it's obvious that reasoned arguments have little to do with the discussion you stepped into.

No need to be "anointed" by some magazine as a worthy reviewer or show reporter/journalist in order to have credibility, right?

Right. This has nothing to do with being "anointed." It has to do with being a real, living, breathing human being willing to take responsibility for their words. Anyone who cares to can judge me by what I've written in Stereophile, the work I've done in science (competently done, but not important), and other journalistic work (at, for example, Science.) It's there for all to see. Someone who was determined could probably track me down and knock on my front door with a complaint.

But the main point to be made here is that not everyone uses anonymity in the same way. It can be toxic for those who aren't careful. It often is. It takes people who in their real, physical lives are probably decent and turns them into ugly, irresponsible trolls. It's just too easy to post crap without consequences. To your credit, I'd say that's something you have mostly or completely avoided (not that I've read a significant fraction of what you have written). Simply put, anonymous/pseudonymous posting, like other ways of evading responsibility, is or often is destructive to character, at least as manifested in the online (responsibility-evading) part of the split person. Hopefully it doesn't carry over too much to the offline, real-world part, though suspect it probably does to some extent.

Jim

On personas, integration, and integrity...

Submitted by Archimago on April 2, 2024 - 6:54pm

Much to be said but let's just focus on this:

First, I think you'll agree that there is only one of you--not an audiophile "you" and a physician "you." To keep them separate is a fiction--perhaps a metafiction, since it's transparent, but it does obviously, by definition, reflect a lack of integrity, in the sense of integration. You are pretending to be something you are not--or to be only part of what you are. It's a meaningful point exactly because the separation of your online self from your offline self (and perhaps other online selves) is important to you. Whatever the excuse, you--the actual you--are avoiding accountability for what you write. The more essential it is, the more important it is. But let's continue.

Of course there is only one "me". However, we all have the responsibility to present ourselves appropriately in the context of our environment. I don't know about your line of work, but it's normal to maintain a certain professional persona that extends to relational boundaries. Who I am at work among patients and certain colleagues should be different than the dad, husband, or friend at home.

So it is with the the pseudonymous Archimago - that's the guy who writes about audio with the occasional intersection into career life or family life as might be interesting for the reader; but never revealing too much. In the age of social media, I believe it's a sign of maturity that we can create such interpersonal boundaries that allow for different levels of self-disclosure in a complex world. Something I teach my kids to do.

Just because I don't use my real name in audiophile writings doesn't mean there's any "separation" of character here because this is all consciously done and integral to my intentions. There's no "pretending" because the expressions around audiophile beliefs are indeed genuine. My audio buddies know about my writings and they can tell you that it's in the same voice whether online or over a beer. Back in the day, Sam Tellig wrote interesting pieces for Stereophile, did I need to know he was actually Tom Gillett? In finding out his real name, did that change the trustworthiness of his articles? So as editor these days, aren't you being a bit hypocritical about using real names and seeing this as reflective of questionable integrity or even cowardice?

Integrity as in "moral uprightness", simply being honest with other fellow audiophiles and speaking truth even if it might be inconvenient is obviously a different matter. IMO, a more genuinely important matter. In the days ahead, may we reflect on our own writings on stuff like MQA - I'm happy to let other audiophiles and perhaps history be the judge of integrity.

Well this was never about you.

Submitted by Jim Austin on April 2, 2024 - 7:03pm

You could, if you chose, write something truly awful and, though your pseudonymous persona would suffer a reputational hit (a notion I have a really hard time wrapping my brain around), the executive in charge would almost certainly avoid responsibility. If you choose not to behave that way, it's to your credit. Many others do not act with such ... integrity. I never claimed that anonymity was a guaranty of bad behavior, or never intended to. Only that it often facilitates [edit] and encourages bad behavior. These are old-fashioned values I'll admit, but for me it goes back to where I started in this thread: To hurl insults without accountability demonstrates a lack of character.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

Wow

Submitted by T.S. Gnu on April 2, 2024 - 7:36pm

I’m unsure of what you might do or write online in an anonymous capacity, Mister Austin. I can honestly say that in certain online venues, under the cloak of anonymity, I have written as many truly awful things as I have desired — ZERO! NONE!

It brings to mind Penn Jillette’s answer when he was asked if it wasn’t for a belief in God, what would stop a person from murdering another. His answer was, “I don’t believe in God, and I have murdered as many people as I have ever wanted to — ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. If the only thing that keeps you from murdering someone is a belief on God, then you’re not religious — you’re an a$$-hole!"

So, Mister Austin, if your experience leads you to think that non-anonymity is an essential requirement for honesty and credibility then you might want to recalibrate your opinion of humanity, or…hang out with nicer people.

You do not seem to read well. (no text)

Submitted by Jim Austin on April 2, 2024 - 7:45pm

Reply to TS Gnu

Submitted by Laphr on April 6, 2024 - 11:14am

Why is it that gnats in audio comments like you always have that familiar, absolutely dimensionless woke audio thing going on? What passes for wisdom in your machinery is just woeful.

Re: Gillett/Tellig

Submitted by John Atkinson on April 3, 2024 - 5:52am

Archimago wrote:
Back in the day, Sam Tellig wrote interesting pieces for Stereophile, did I need to know he was actually Tom Gillett?

Noting that when Tom Gillett started writing for Stereophile in the early 1980s, he was working for several other publishers on promotional activities. He felt that writing under his real name would therefore be a conflict of interest and used the pen name Sam Tellig.

When I joined Stereophile in 1986, I wasn't happy with that, for the reasons mentioned by Jim Austin. But as this had already been established, I respected the byline usage.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

The Ethical Full Monty

Submitted by teched58 on April 3, 2024 - 8:22am

The (high) ethical standard JA1 has expressed for the readership having maximum transparency into who a writer is should also extend to equipment discounts and long-term loans.

Writers who've received or will receive discounts from vendors should be required to disclose those discounts.

Ideally, writers should be prohibited from taking any discounts or semi-permanent loans from vendors whose equipment they review.

Yet we know that this is common throughout the audio press ecosystem.

Your true colors come out w out much provocation.

Submitted by JohnnyThunder2.0 on April 3, 2024 - 2:30pm

Angry and jealous at writers who get discounts. A conspiracy of audio manufacturers out to pry hard earned money out of people. Someone that can't wait to sh-t on other's joy and tell us all how stupid we all are. What a nut ! Luxuriate in that fact and have a chuckle about all of us on ASR. You know better. You know what is better for all of us. Everyone else is a sucker or unethical. Read a little Jung and enlighten yourself on your skewed persona. And enjoy your evening listening to measurements troll.

Sorry, Johnny, No Anon Criticism

Submitted by teched58 on April 4, 2024 - 5:06am

I can tell by your prose that you were indeed a major magazine writer like you claim. That said, unfortunately, going by Jim Austin's rules I can't take your criticism seriously.

If you want to call me an unethical sh_t, or an Amir lover, it doesn't count if you do it anonymously. We need a name behind your post, to determine if your criticism is valid. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

Without your real name we don't know if you're a troll. Heck, you coulld be someone who works at an audiophile magazine and we'd never know it.

Amir lover

Submitted by Indydan on April 5, 2024 - 4:57am

You ARE an ASR Amir lover!
To lend credibility to my post, I will divulge my real name:
Dick Longstaff

I appreciate...

Submitted by teched58 on April 5, 2024 - 6:42am

...a man with a sense of online humor and an ability to cut to the chase! No wasted words.

In sum, you are a much better writer than Johnny T.

To Johnny Thunder

Submitted by Laphr on April 6, 2024 - 11:15am

about true colors you just nailed it, JT. Exact.

Reply to Jim

Submitted by Laphr on April 6, 2024 - 11:11am

Jim, has the magazine seriously considered a fully fleshed-out comments system like Disqus? The advantages are tremendous. Not least among them is a self-policing membership and an excellent threading structure.