MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

IF Bob has lied, and that lie is objectively verifiable, how is it "personal"?  In what sense are you using "personal attack"?  Are you saying that those who objectively lie should not be called a liar because it is not nice or some such thing, or do you mean something else?  I ask in all sincerity - not sure what your point is here...

 

I like when liars are called out. It makes the rest of us look better and keep our faith in telling the truth. However, bringing in Bob's wife and her familial money and conjecture that his companies have been bailed out by her money etc... is in very poor taste and a personal attack that, while not the same as saying he is a c-sucker, it definitely was mean as an attack. 

 

Taste is taste and I don't judge. I just consider it bad taste to bring up a guy's wife and the fact that her family has been monetarily successful, thus she must have bailed him out etc... Without being in the boardroom, nobody knows all the facts and reasons for anything. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, your original statement to Charles was not as "neutral" - at least it did not come across that way.  Besides why would you have such a "hope" if your concern does not rest on a certain narrative of the market, namely that MQA is the future and anyone inside the industry who dares questions it risks being frozen out for whatever reason (personal, business, etc.)?  The way I see it, Charles IS acting in his best interest (from a purely business point of view) but of course any action contains risks of the known and unknown kind.  Your perspective on all this business appears to discount the risk of both non-action (i.e. going along with the MQA narrative) and what happens to all DAC manufactures when their products become mere hardware placeholders for IP protected magic box that is MQA.  

 

In any case, I hope it gets very very complicated and "difficult" for Charles and everyone else.  MQA is hoping we all see this as easy and beneficial (beneficial to BOTH "the industry" and the consumer) and simply lay down for the narrative that they wrote and so much of the industry (particular the trade publications) mindlessly regurgitate.  They are also hoping that the anxiety of being left out will freeze manufactures into not moving towards their own interests or that of their customers.  They might actually pull this bold move off and be handsomely rewarded for it, though I don't think so.

 

In other words, I hope more and more manufactures start making you nervous

 

I don't have "such a hope," it was more of a figure of speech. I hope, yes. But don't have "such a hope." I hope that comes through as I intend, but won't be surprised if I didn't make my point.

 

I never said "anyone inside the industry who dares questions it risks being frozen out for whatever reason" or anything like it. Talking about Bob's wife on a public forum is different from a manufacturer like Schiit saying they are against MQA. I also stated the opinion that coming out against MQA has its advantages right now. 

 

I don't doubt, and agree with you, that Charles is acting in what he sees as Ayre's best interest. But, since when do you line up with a company's best interests? You are "Mr. Consumer" (I mean that in a good way) and I'm surprised to see you and Ayre aligned because Ayre's best interest isn't your best interest (for the most part). 

 

I'm not nervous about any of this. Not sure where you got that. Perhaps I don't get the joke :~)

 

If MQA flies, I'll figure out how to make the best of the situation. If MQA dies, I'll figure out how to make the best of the situation. My life and business won't change either way. 

 

 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I like when liars are called out. It makes the rest of us look better and keep our faith in telling the truth. However, bringing in Bob's wife and her familial money and conjecture that his companies have been bailed out by her money etc... is in very poor taste and a personal attack that, while not the same as saying he is a c-sucker, it definitely was mean as an attack. 

 

Taste is taste and I don't judge. I just consider it bad taste to bring up a guy's wife and the fact that her family has been monetarily successful, thus she must have bailed him out etc... Without being in the boardroom, nobody knows all the facts and reasons for anything. 

 

Heck, even being in the boardroom might not help

 

However, I think I see your point.  That said, given apparently objective fact (I have not myself pursued the British government source - I am assuming the others here who have are correct) that Bob's Meridian and now MQA/Meridian ventures (they are the same company - the division is an accounting/tax artifact) have for the last 20 years lost money it is certainly reasonable to suspect that his family's trust is supporting him.  Sure, they "believe" in Bob but would a more objective investor?  However I agree that it would be best to tread lightly around such speculations though I think it is certainly reasonable to ask these questions.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I don't have "such a hope," it was more of a figure of speech. I hope, yes. But don't have "such a hope." I hope that comes through as I intend, but won't be surprised if I didn't make my point.

 

Ah, just like my "all is fair in war and business" not really being about actual war where people suffer horribly and die

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't doubt, and agree with you, that Charles is acting in what he sees as Ayre's best interest. But, since when do you line up with a company's best interests? You are "Mr. Consumer" (I mean that in a good way) and I'm surprised to see you and Ayre aligned because Ayre's best interest isn't your best interest (for the most part). 

 

If I believe that a company interests line up with my own (or in this case, the "Audiophile Consumers Union"  ) in any particular case I will take it.  After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  

 

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

Personally, I would hesitate to call a person who has lied a liar. Otherwise, we are probably all liars. One might gauge the severity of the lie and of its consequences as to whether it is wise to call someone out on a lie. A pattern of lies that indicate a habit of lying  generally qualifies someone as a liar, which is a serious vice, but one among many . Again, I would take account of the severity and consequences in deciding how to confront this, especially on a public forum. This is my opinion.

 

(Would you like to confront a serious public liar whose lies have far more  destructive consequences?  Be my guest., but this may not be the right forum.)

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

though I think it is certainly reasonable to ask these questions

 

If we were chatting on the pages of some web-based gossip rag, I would think of it as more in line with the personal interests of the audience.  But I don’t know what it has to do with the possibility of getting greater enjoyment from my music.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Personally, I would hesitate to call a person who has lied a liar. Otherwise, we are probably all liars. One might gauge the severity of the lie and of its consequences as to whether it is wise to call someone out on a lie. A pattern of lies that indicate a habit of lying  generally qualifies someone as a liar, which is a serious vice, but one among many . Again, I would take account of the severity and consequences in deciding how to confront this, especially on a public forum. This is my opinion.

 

All good points.  Does Bob S/MQA's lying about whether MQA is DRM, or whether it is lossy encoding, or it's actual effective bit depth (rather unfolded or not) have consequences that are "severe" for the consumer?  I maintain that these lies are quite serious to our enjoyment of this hobby and that the normal deferment and unspoken toleration of our usual imperfections and "lies" does not apply.  I myself have called Bob S a "Big Fat Liar", comparing him to the kind of liar that Bill Clinton is (whom I actually like).  I don't want to banish either to some layer in Dante's Hell, I just believe in both of these cases they have through their own actions risen to that very public level of "Big Fat Liar" and that when discussing sex in the Oval office or the pros and cons of MQA that this description is necessary so that the discourse can remain relevant and truthful.

[Charles Hansen]

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I like when liars are called out. It makes the rest of us look better and keep our faith in telling the truth. However, bringing in Bob's wife and her familial money and conjecture that his companies have been bailed out by her money etc... is in very poor taste and a personal attack that, while not the same as saying he is a c-sucker, it definitely was mean as an attack. 

 

Taste is taste and I don't judge. I just consider it bad taste to bring up a guy's wife and the fact that her family has been monetarily successful, thus she must have bailed him out etc... Without being in the boardroom, nobody knows all the facts and reasons for anything. 

 

Chris,

 

I consider it "bad taste" for a "journalist" to be so lazy as to not look up publicly available information, even when they are given links. Do some research - it's all documented on the web. Meridian nearly went belly-up in 1991. They were looking for financial help. There were rumors of buy-outs by IAG (Chinese consortium that bought Quad, among others). Then their need went away because "they got private funding", which is (according to an official UK.gov website) is his wife's family trust, and simultaneously several of his wife's family members appears on the Meridian board of directors. Even today loans are outstanding and secured by property owned by his wife's family trust - it's unclear to me, as I don't know English geography nor English law, but it may be that the family trust purchased the land where the Meridian family is based and that until that loan is paid off that the family trust is on the hook if Meridian goes belly-up.

 

I trust you can tell when I am repeating known facts available to anyone to look up on the internet, just as anyone can look up the annual report of a publicly held US company, and when I am giving my best interpretation of something that seems fairly clear to me but that I cannot absolutely as fact as I am not an attorney practicing in the UK. I'm sure that there are areas that you are not expert in and also hesitate to state something as fact. In that case you may qualify your remarks with "it appears to me that" or "as far as I can tell" or whatever. I would prefer that you do so than simply look the other way. After all your very job is to serve your readers with information and opinions. If you can provide them with information and opinions they cannot get elsewhere, then your website becomes more valuable, both to your readers and to your advertisers.

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Chris,

 

I consider it "bad taste" for a "journalist" to be so lazy as to not look up publicly available information, even when they are given links. Do some research - it's all documented on the web. Meridian nearly went belly-up in 1991. They were looking for financial help. There were rumors of buy-outs by IAG (Chinese consortium that bought Quad, among others). Then their need went away because "they got private funding", which is (according to an official UK.gov website) is his wife's family trust, and simultaneously several of his wife's family members appears on the Meridian board of directors. Even today loans are outstanding and secured by property owned by his wife's family trust - it's unclear to me, as I don't know English geography nor English law, but it may be that the family trust purchased the land where the Meridian family is based and that until that loan is paid off that the family trust is on the hook if Meridian goes belly-up.

 

I trust you can tell when I am repeating known facts available to anyone to look up on the internet, just as anyone can look up the annual report of a publicly held US company, and when I am giving my best interpretation of something that seems fairly clear to me but that I cannot absolutely as fact as I am not an attorney practicing in the UK. I'm sure that there are areas that you are not expert in and also hesitate to state something as fact. In that case you may qualify your remarks with "it appears to me that" or "as far as I can tell" or whatever. I would prefer that you do so than simply look the other way. After all your very job is to serve your readers with information and opinions. If you can provide them with information and opinions they cannot get elsewhere, then your website becomes more valuable, both to your readers and to your advertisers.

 

You missed my point. You raise the issue of Bob's family putting in money as if it's a bad thing and surround it with precisely chosen language to make it appear as if family wealth is a bad thing and family helping each other out is a bad thing. 

 

All of this has absolutely zero to do with anything ever discussed on CA. Or, maybe it does. The fact that Bob needs more money like he needs a hole in the head. I'm not defending him, but the claim that he is laughing all the way to the bank and that MQA is in it for the money, falls on deaf ears. MQA may be in it for other reasons (pro or anti consumer), but it ain't for the money.

[Nikhil]

Having gone over the last two pages (whew!) I'm siding with Charles ....

 

Bob Stuart and MQA have leverage over companies who have signed their NDAs and contracts.  

And over what appears to be IMO some secret sauce filters implemented with some silly cooked up procedures.

Would these people have engaged with MQA knowing the information we now know?  Probably ... probably not.   

 

If whatever has been shared in the last few pages helps some companies evaluate their strategies then that's a good thing.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

On what exactly are you siding with Charles?

[Charles Hansen]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA may be in it for other reasons (pro or anti consumer), but it ain't for the money.

 

Chris,

 

I don't know what kind of things you are being told, but it is fairly apparent that the only reasons that MQA exists are to gain money, power, and control. You must have swallowed the blue pill or some excellent mind altering chemicals, to actually believe the nonsense you are writing. You make it sound like MQA is a charity organization, and good ol' Uncle Bob just wants to "give back" to the community (to which he has already lost approximately $25 million).

 

I suspect a more likely scenario is that the family trust became very weary of constantly pumping money into Meridian to keep it afloat and in desperation Bob turned to a $10 billion investment group. I am quite certain that nobody gets to be worth $10 billion by simply by being super nice guys. Instead it is more likely (obviously I am speculating here as I don't know any billionaires and the most I know about them come from a multitude of second-hand sources. Things like the accurate portrayals of some billionaires in the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley", namely Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.  It's fairly safe to assume that every single thing in the movie is true, else the producers would have been sued out of business within days of its release. It's also fairly safe to assume that some of the worst behavior was left out because it couldn't be proven to be true - likely as nobody wanted to risk reprisal from the clearly sociopathic Gates, Jobs, and Ballmer. Although not shown in the film Paul Allen seems to have never progressed beyond the maturity of a teenager, despite having faced death (I forget - cancer or heart disease or some other potentially fatal condition). The only one involved who may be at least a half-way normal human being is Steve Wozniak. The rest are not what I would term admirable in any sense whatsoever, yet as a society we are constantly being inculcated into believing that money will solve your problems, money will make you happy, and that rich people are to be admired, respected, and emulated.

 

It's all part of our sick (as in unhealthy, diseased, unsustainable) culture that precisely mirrors the world of Orwell's novel "1984". Most of us don't even realize it, as we are as blind to it as a fish is to water. Not only did we grow up surround by and bombarded by the messages, but so were our parents, and often times even their parents. In real life "1984" actually happened in 1924. If you want to learn about this system in which we live,  spend some time watching a BBC documentary that was banned. (It was shown exactly once and then "disappeared" down the memory hole.)  Fortunately there are ate least two circulating version made by persons who taped it with VCRs. One has better audio and the one with better video can be seen at:  https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-century-of-the-self/

 

It comprises four 1-hour episodes. Watch just the first 15 minutes of the first episode to see if it catches your attention. In my opinion this film should be part of the high-school curriculum for everyone to learn from. It explains a lot of what is described in the film "The Matrix", as when Morpheus tells Neo, " Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about? "

 

Or " This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

 

But only about 1 in 5 takes the red pill at some point in their life (commonly referred to as "waking up"). Literally  80% of the population (of any country) just wants to be told what to do, and are happy to do so if they are (as the Romans said) given bread and circuses. As long as people are not hungry and are given some form of mindless entertainment, they mostly just are happy to do their jobs as long they can have sex fairly regularly, drink beer (or whatever recreational drug they choose - caffeine, cannabis, or whatever) with their friends to numb them from reality, whilst being distracted from real life with mindless "entertainment" - TV, movies, video games, amusement parks and self-centered physical activities and "hobbies".

 

It's pretty much the 20% that create any real change - for better or for worse - whether a Gandhi or a Hitler. Either way they need the support of the masses, and those other 80% generally only act when the bread and circuses are taken away. Since at this time in the US, over half the country is poor or living in poverty, the ruling class (the rich) are working very hard to ensure that we at least have the "circuses" to distract us. If they have to, they will begrudgingly give up a tiny fraction of their enormous wealth to give us bread - but they would really rather not. Instead they will likely continue their strategy of divide and conquer. Look how well it works - here we are arguing about which is "better" PCM or DSD. We are so inculcated into the idea that we are separate and disconnected that we will willingly divide into groups that are like religions - we are the "good" guys because we believe the right things, while those others are the "bad" guys because they believe something different. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

And you seem to act as though your job is like the old Fox News motto, "We report, you decide." And as long as you get enough clicks and advertising dollars to support your lifestyle, then it appears that you are one of the 80%. Most vocations are pretty much self selecting. Police are largely composed of people who were either bullied or are bullies (usually the two go together). Nurses and firemen are largely composed of people whose life circumstances made them feel they were not doing the right thing if they were not being of service to others. Politicians and CEOs of powerful corporations attract sociopaths at 20x to 30x the natural population (1%).

 

I would hope that journalists and reporters would be people with excellent communications skills attracted to the opportunity to share information about the world in which we live. Instead, today's examples of what passes for journalism is largely just "access journalism" where the journalist wants to rub shoulders with the "industry leaders" and is afraid to rock the boat (lest they lose "access" to the "high and mighty". I'm not telling you how you should run your publication. I am simply pointing out that you have choices. Maintaining the status quo is one of those choices. It's your life, and you are the one who chooses how to live it. You choose what is important to you and what is not. Whether that choice is a conscious one is up to you. The first step is to understand that much of our perception of "reality" has been programmed into us by generations of unconscious techniques, ranging from the subliminal to the emotional and even all the way to the routine use of mind numbing chemicals.

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, Nikhil said:

Bob Stuart and MQA have leverage over companies who have signed their NDAs and contracts.  

And over what appears to be IMO some secret sauce filters implemented with some silly cooked up procedures.

Would these people have engaged with MQA knowing the information we now know?  Probably ... probably not.

 

Hello Nikhil,

 

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. The fact that your speculations are in fact true can be read here:  http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/mqa/1.html

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

Hi Nikhil,

 

I forgot to add the non-anonymous one who has also come out against MQA once they learned more about it - Auralic:

 

"“This pretty much means we at AURALiC are saying no to MQA. We are no longer interested in their technology. We want to keep everything open but they want to keep it closed. We are not in the same boat. I don’t believe the very High End will benefit from MQA as it only degrades sound quality, not improve it.”

“We do not use any MQA technology, this is not MQA certificated or MQA licensed. We are up-sampling the file using our algorithm, applying our own in-house developed filter, to optimize sound quality, not just for a particular DAC but all devices.”

“There is a MQA pass through function which allows you to output an untouched signal to an MQA-certificated DAC. I suggest you compare our decoding and MQA decoding but only after the final firmware release. The current version is only a test version as we are still optimizing its sound quality, especially the resampling plug-in.”

 

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/04/auralic-firmware-v5-0-adds-dsp-engine-web-browser-control/

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Chris,

 

I don't know what kind of things you are being told, but it is fairly apparent that the only reasons that MQA exists are to gain money, power, and control. You must have swallowed the blue pill or some excellent mind altering chemicals, to actually believe the nonsense you are writing. You make it sound like MQA is a charity organization, and good ol' Uncle Bob just wants to "give back" to the community (to which he has already lost approximately $25 million).

 

I suspect a more likely scenario is that the family trust became very weary of constantly pumping money into Meridian to keep it afloat and in desperation Bob turned to a $10 billion investment group. I am quite certain that nobody gets to be worth $10 billion by simply by being super nice guys. Instead it is more likely (obviously I am speculating here as I don't know any billionaires and the most I know about them come from a multitude of second-hand sources. Things like the accurate portrayals of some billionaires in the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley", namely Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.  It's fairly safe to assume that every single thing in the movie is true, else the producers would have been sued out of business within days of its release. It's also fairly safe to assume that some of the worst behavior was left out because it couldn't be proven to be true - likely as nobody wanted to risk reprisal from the clearly sociopathic Gates, Jobs, and Ballmer. Although not shown in the film Paul Allen seems to have never progressed beyond the maturity of a teenager, despite having faced death (I forget - cancer or heart disease or some other potentially fatal condition). The only one involved who may be at least a half-way normal human being is Steve Wozniak. The rest are not what I would term admirable in any sense whatsoever, yet as a society we are constantly being inculcated into believing that money will solve your problems, money will make you happy, and that rich people are to be admired, respected, and emulated.

 

It's all part of our sick (as in unhealthy, diseased, unsustainable) culture that precisely mirrors the world of Orwell's novel "1984". Most of us don't even realize it, as we are as blind to it as a fish is to water. Not only did we grow up surround by and bombarded by the messages, but so were our parents, and often times even their parents. In real life "1984" actually happened in 1924. If you want to learn about this system in which we live,  spend some time watching a BBC documentary that was banned. (It was shown exactly once and then "disappeared" down the memory hole.)  Fortunately there are ate least two circulating version made by persons who taped it with VCRs. One has better audio and the one with better video can be seen at:  https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-century-of-the-self/

 

It comprises four 1-hour episodes. Watch just the first 15 minutes of the first episode to see if it catches your attention. In my opinion this film should be part of the high-school curriculum for everyone to learn from. It explains a lot of what is described in the film "The Matrix", as when Morpheus tells Neo, " Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about? "

 

Or " This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

 

But only about 1 in 5 takes the red pill at some point in their life (commonly referred to as "waking up"). Literally  80% of the population (of any country) just wants to be told what to do, and are happy to do so if they are (as the Romans said) given bread and circuses. As long as people are not hungry and are given some form of mindless entertainment, they mostly just are happy to do their jobs as long they can have sex fairly regularly, drink beer (or whatever recreational drug they choose - caffeine, cannabis, or whatever) with their friends to numb them from reality, whilst being distracted from real life with mindless "entertainment" - TV, movies, video games, amusement parks and self-centered physical activities and "hobbies".

 

It's pretty much the 20% that create any real change - for better or for worse - whether a Gandhi or a Hitler. Either way they need the support of the masses, and those other 80% generally only act when the bread and circuses are taken away. Since at this time in the US, over half the country is poor or living in poverty, the ruling class (the rich) are working very hard to ensure that we at least have the "circuses" to distract us. If they have to, they will begrudgingly give up a tiny fraction of their enormous wealth to give us bread - but they would really rather not. Instead they will likely continue their strategy of divide and conquer. Look how well it works - here we are arguing about which is "better" PCM or DSD. We are so inculcated into the idea that we are separate and disconnected that we will willingly divide into groups that are like religions - we are the "good" guys because we believe the right things, while those others are the "bad" guys because they believe something different. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

And you seem to act as though your job is like the old Fox News motto, "We report, you decide." And as long as you get enough clicks and advertising dollars to support your lifestyle, then it appears that you are one of the 80%. Most vocations are pretty much self selecting. Police are largely composed of people who were either bullied or are bullies (usually the two go together). Nurses and firemen are largely composed of people whose life circumstances made them feel they were not doing the right thing if they were not being of service to others. Politicians and CEOs of powerful corporations attract sociopaths at 20x to 30x the natural population (1%).

 

I would hope that journalists and reporters would be people with excellent communications skills attracted to the opportunity to share information about the world in which we live. Instead, today's examples of what passes for journalism is largely just "access journalism" where the journalist wants to rub shoulders with the "industry leaders" and is afraid to rock the boat (lest they lose "access" to the "high and mighty". I'm not telling you how you should run your publication. I am simply pointing out that you have choices. Maintaining the status quo is one of those choices. It's your life, and you are the one who chooses how to live it. You choose what is important to you and what is not. Whether that choice is a conscious one is up to you. The first step is to understand that much of our perception of "reality" has been programmed into us by generations of unconscious techniques, ranging from the subliminal to the emotional and even all the way to the routine use of mind numbing chemicals.

 

That's a tough one to follow, as in what to say, not how to comprehend. 

 

I don't want to be seen as a Bob /  MQA defender, but I will say your speculation is wild and the stuff of novels, not the journalism you hold in such high esteem. 

 

I'm not sure I need to write any more after reading your sentence beginning with ... "It's fairly safe to assume that every single thing in the movie is true"

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

Hi Nikhil,

 

I forgot to add the non-anonymous one who has also come out against MQA once they learned more about it - Auralic:

 

"“This pretty much means we at AURALiC are saying no to MQA. We are no longer interested in their technology. We want to keep everything open but they want to keep it closed. We are not in the same boat. I don’t believe the very High End will benefit from MQA as it only degrades sound quality, not improve it.”

“We do not use any MQA technology, this is not MQA certificated or MQA licensed. We are up-sampling the file using our algorithm, applying our own in-house developed filter, to optimize sound quality, not just for a particular DAC but all devices.”

“There is a MQA pass through function which allows you to output an untouched signal to an MQA-certificated DAC. I suggest you compare our decoding and MQA decoding but only after the final firmware release. The current version is only a test version as we are still optimizing its sound quality, especially the resampling plug-in.”

 

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/04/auralic-firmware-v5-0-adds-dsp-engine-web-browser-control/

 

You know this isn't about "once they found out about it" but rather the falling out at CES. Do some homework and don't slant the real story Charles. 

 

Edit: MQA didn't do it's homework to realize the Auralic product sent two audio streams. When they heard this at CES, they pulled the plug. That obviously ticked off Auralic, for good reason, because MQA had the device for a long time. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Charles - We obviously disagree about my approach to writing about MQA. But, I believe that my approach is actually much more powerful and influential than the direct approach. 

 

As @Jud said earlier, if I directly try to influence people about MQA, the final out come isn't very powerful because of this influence. However, if I provide the area for debate and foster this debate, allowing people to come to their own conclusions, the final outcome is much more powerful. 

 

It's the church and state thing. Shoving religion down someone's throat doesn't make the religion stronger. Enabling one to find religion on their own, given the "facts," gives a much more powerful outcome. 

 

P.S. I'm not religious. 

[Charles Hansen]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's a tough one to follow, as in what to say, not how to comprehend. 

 

I don't want to be seen as a Bob /  MQA defender, but I will say your speculation is wild and the stuff of novels, not the journalism you hold in such high esteem. 

 

I'm not sure I need to write any more after reading your sentence beginning with ... "It's fairly safe to assume that every single thing in the movie is true"

 

Hi Chris,

 

Now you have me in a position of not knowing what to say. You simply dismiss everything I wrote without giving any reasoning whatsoever. You are free to do so, but obviously I cannot support my position with further evidence if you cannot articulate any reasons for dismissing what I wrote. I'm not able to read your mind, so you would need to either ask for clarification or provide a reason why you believe that my words should be simply ignored, dismissed, tossed in the waste bin, or whatever.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

if I directly try to influence people about MQA, the final out come isn't very powerful because of this influence

Yeah, subterfuge and faux neutrality are much more effective and, more importantly, keep you in the good graces of the industry people you rely on, whether through advertising revenue or insider access.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Yeah, subterfuge and faux neutrality are much more effective and, more importantly, keep you in the good graces of the industry people you rely on, whether through advertising revenue or insider access.

 

With you, I can only win if I say MQA sucks. 

 

Providing a forum for the most anti-mqa talk just isn't good enough. 

 

I must say, your comments about me lately have been out of character. Zero facts. Zero evidence to support the comments. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Chris,

 

Now you have me in a position of not knowing what to say. You simply dismiss everything I wrote without giving any reasoning whatsoever. You are free to do so, but obviously I cannot support my position with further evidence if you cannot articulate any reasons for dismissing what I wrote. I'm not able to read your mind, so you would need to either ask for clarification or provide a reason why you believe that my words should be simply ignored, dismissed, tossed in the waste bin, or whatever.

 

With respect to access journalism. What would happen if I talked to a few ex-Ayre employees and posted some unflattering facts about your company, in the journalism fashion you so love. Then I asked for a review sample of a product you've been working on for years, that is very important to you. 

 

?

[Charles Hansen]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You know this isn't about "once they found out about it" but rather the falling out at CES. Do some homework and don't slant the real story Charles. 

 

Edit: MQA didn't do it's homework to realize the Auralic product sent two audio streams. When they heard this at CES, they pulled the plug. That obviously ticked off Auralic, for good reason, because MQA had the device for a long time. 

 

Chris,

 

Now you are claiming to be a mind reader. I don't know anything about a "falling out at CES". I am unable to travel overnight since my injury 11 years ago, and haven't been to a CES since January of 2006. I don't know of any place that reports gossip on a "falling out at CES". If you do, please point it out to me. The closest website I know of to that is the very interesting https://www.strata-gee.com

 

Ted Green actually does report on goings-on like this, but unfortunately is focused on the custom install business and has zero interest in things like MQA and companies like Auralic. If there is some "common knowledge" about the alleged "falling out at CES", I'm sure that your readers would be just as interested to hear about it as I would.

 

It is nice to see you write that "MQA did not do its homework". Part of MQA's pitch to the record labels is that the decoded digital signal will never be available to the consumer - this was one of the same promises SACD made to the record labels, presumably as a way to make it more difficult to make digital copies. Stuart tries to disguise this by claiming that each individual DAC chip needs its own special compensation - the whole "end-to-end" myth MQA created. I call it a myth (I could call it misleading, or if I wanted to be blunt I could just call it a lie) as Mansr and Archimago have shown that the filters used in various hardware products are not customized in any way for that product. Just more marketing BS from BS.

 

It's one of the huge disadvantages to MQA - Auralic has created their own whole-house integration system that can't be used with MQA, nor can any other popular (and growing - much faster than MQA is growing) things like loudspeaker correction, room correction, and so forth. Of course you never seen any of these important points even mentioned in the "audio press". Instead just the same old, "MQA did a demonstration and it sounded really good to me" with zero evidence that the demonstration was a fair one in any way, shape, or form.

 

Hoping to hear more from you on soon on the "falling out at CES", or at least a link to where I can find out more.

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

[The Computer Audiophile]

Not a mind reader. I was there. I talked to those directly involved. 

 

Wow, does this make me a real journalist in your eyes? I'm the source :~)

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must say, your comments about me lately have been out of character. Zero facts. Zero evidence to support the comments.

I just call it as I see it.

[Charles Hansen]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With respect to access journalism. What would happen if I talked to a few ex-Ayre employees and posted some unflattering facts about your company, in the journalism fashion you so love. Then I asked for a review sample of a product you've been working on for years, that is very important to you.

 

HI Chris,

 

Wow. I never realized that we live in completely different worlds. There aren't a lot of ex-Ayre employees, as most like to work there and have stayed for many, many years. Naturally there are some whom have left for various reasons, and I'm sure that some will have negative things to say about me, my personality, my grooming habits, or whatever. But the fact that you even think that would affect my willingness to submit a sample for review is something that literally never occurred to me and speaks volumes about your philosophy of journalism.

 

Contrast your attitude, for example, with this attitude:

 

"I have published reviews that are at least in part negative of products made by people for whom I have respect
and have also published very positive reviews of products made by people that I would cross the road to avoid."

 

Care to take a guess at the author of those words? That is an attitude for which I have the utmost respect. The product is not the designer, the salesperson, the PR agent, or the marketing person whom places ads with various publications. To conflate any of these is absurd in my opinion. YMM(and apparently does) V.