MQA is Vaporware

[shtf]

If this critical MQA review by Peter Moncrieff has already been posted here I apologize, but I'm not about scan 332 pages to confirm. 

 

Anyway, I posted this about a week ago on AudioAsylum. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Don't know if this MQA review by International Audio Review's Peter Moncrief has been posted here yet.

Twenty years ago Peter Moncrief was known by some to be head and shoulders over all other reviewers because of his supposedly exceptionally well-trained ears.

Peter was also known to tell it like it is. That he did and this upset any number of product manufacturers. Rumor has it that reviewers (and mfg'ers) would sit around the audiophile campfire telling scary Peter Moncrief stories.

In my limited experience with products I've owned or auditioned and Moncrief reviewed, he seemed spot on in those cases.

Anyway, thus far I've only read the first few pages of his paper but wow! I also suspect this should be quite an eye opener for many and for a number of reasons.
 

http://www.iar-80.com/page170.html

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my position on MQA, I already knew it to be a hoax since first reading about MQA in TAS in 2014, taking into consideration Harley's initial impressions and Stuart's interview with Harley where Stuart seemed to be trying to convince the reader that MQA was all things to all people and even seemed to be contradicting himsef in the process.  Though my source has been digital for 20 years I'm not technically inclined with digital audio in the least, but I already knew in 2014 without ever hearing MQA that it was impossible for MQA to provide a playback level even remotely close to the crazed performance claims by Harley, Stuart, and Atkinson.  In fact, I even stated at AudioAsylum and at WhatsBestForum in 2014-2015 that if Stuart hoped to get even remotely close to those outlandish performance claims, they were barking up the wrong technology tree altogether. I also issued my concerns then that MQA may turn out to be inferior to Redbook CD.  Last October, and without a single inquiry, Jim Austin of Stereophile called me an idiot for speaking negatively about MQA's sonics when I've never listened to MQA.  I think I called him Juanita.

 

Anyway, I have no reason to doubt that Moncrieff's position on MQA's sonic abilities from a listening perspective are probably quite accurate.

 

[shtf]

2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

Exactly. The nose in the sky finger wagging about decorum...they can kiss my ass....the audacity of what Stuart and his sycophants have brought upon us must be met with smash mouth offense. Being nice gets zilch.

 

I agree.  I knew from day one MQA was nothing but a hoax and a fraud.  And here we are 4 years later and the jury is still out for many.

 

If I thought there was even a hint of legitimacy to MQA (I don't see any) and the designers' stated intentions, I think it appropirate to be somewhat civil, offer some benefit of the doubt, etc. 

 

But when I think of the divisions, the strife, the potential millions of hours already accumulated in forums like this to find substance, the consumer dollars already invested, the questionable demo's, the potential deceptions by so-called industry leaders, their potential end-game, etc, IMO, MQA is by far the biggest hoax ever played on this already tiny and fragile cottage industry and it should be called exactly what it is, a fraud.  BTW, as near as I can tell MQA

 

Yet, on the other hand and in a perverted sense, I'm sort of thankful for MQA's introduction.  Which includes its shoot for moon performance claims that we will finally hear exactly what the engineers heard in the studio when the little green light turns on, the over-the-top sell-out endorsements by highly questionable industry leaders, etc.  I'm thankful because the industry has been heading in the wrong direction for decades partially because many including these same "leaders" have backslidden to the point where listening skills for many no longer matter in this supposedly audio-only industry and in its stead measurements and price have become the new holy grail.  In other words, many have already abandomed their "untrustworthy" ears and now rely solely on their "trustoworthy" eyes (and wallets) for sonic performance.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that high-end audio remains very much near its infancy from a performance perspective because of all this. 

 

And MQA's introduction has indirectly and unintentionally done a fairly good job exposing at least some of what's been wrong with this industry.  And for that they are to be thanked.  But not forgiven nor forgotten.

 

 

 

 

[shtf]

Sorry, but I accidentally left an incomplete sentence above when I said, "BTW, as near as I can tell MQA"

 

I intended to say,

 

BTW, near as I can tell MQA could care less about the tiny high-end audio community as they were after monopolizing the entire music industry of which high-end audio makes up maybe 1%.  The only thing I suspect MQA ever wanted from high-end audio were a couple of raving endorsements from a couple of influential high-end audio representatives so MQA could then tell the world that MQA's performance claims were even substantiated by the high-end audio sector of the music industry, the supposedly most discriminating sector of music known to mankind, right?

 

Enter Harley and Atkinson.  IMO, MQA got exactly what they needed from the high-end audio sector to get MQA outta the barn.  A couple of tin-eared sell-outs' seemingly drug-induced endorsements.

 

And because of their intent to monopolize the entire music industry under the false premise of out-of-this-world performance, there is no reason to be civilized as these charlatans need to be held accountable for their actions.  Acting civilized only allows them to continue their pursuits unimpeded.

 

[shtf]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

From crenca, regarding anyone at a print magazine with something positive to say about MQA

 

<< Art Dudley and all the rest will be gone before we all know it, and we will remember them for the things they got right...no matter how short the list >>

 

From Kelly Sadler, regarding John McCain

 

<< Sadler joked that McCain's opposition to the president's CIA director nominee doesn't matter because "he's dying anyway." >>

 

I'm kind of surprised that Brinkman Ship hasn't suggested that crenca and Kelly Sadler are actually the same person. Seems pretty obvious to me

 

Beyond the apparent ageism here (older people's opinions are inherently inconsequential) there are some glaring inconsistencies, in terms of who gets singled out as clueless due to their vintage. To name two audio engineers well past 55 that I admire greatly, there's Andreas Koch and Mark Waldrep (when I was chatting with Mark at AXPONA, he noted proudly that he'd just received his Medicare card.) Because they agree with you, they're sage elder statesmen. On the other hand, Bob Stuart, John Atkinson and Robert Harley are, to you, obviously past their sell-date and should gracefully exit the stage. At any professional meeting I've ever been to, it's the senior people who have been productive and creative over a lengthy career that those of all ages are most interested in hearing from. That's how any discipline achieves continuity and growth—by acknowledging the value of experience and long-term perspective.

 

I'll emphasize once more that I am not a pro-MQA partisan. As I've been told here is Chris Connaker's position, I'm still watching from the sidelines. What I continue to be appalled by and will continue to comment on is the escalating vitriol from a minority of those who don't like the technology.  You don't see Archimago calling Stuart, Atkinson, or Harley names, not publicly, at least. You can't change minds if people are turned off by hostile personalized attacks on those with an opposing viewpoint. Consider the possibility that assaults on individuals that enthusiasts like and admire—Peter McGrath, Art Dudley— can potentially undermine the most cogently argued position on MQA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I won't speak for others but for me it's a perception thing.  Better yet, it's a marketing / used car salesman type thing and regrettably it / they ain't got nothin' to do with "high-end" audio performance nor the betterment of the industry.  No matter how many may hold these types as knowledgable leaders.

 

For some time I've perceived Harley and Atkinson as tin-eared sellouts playing charades with their readers.  In fact, I attribute much of what's wrong with "high-end" audio to them specifically.  They've taken what should be a respectable performance-driven and performance-oriented industry for those seeking the very best performance from their playback systems and instead became frontrunners to manipulate mainstream "high-end" enthusiasts into thinking that measurements and price determine real performance.  This business model may have helped keep the magazines afloat and kept some from having to downsize their lifestyes but in so doing are destroying the industry from within.  As a result, instead of garnering more respect from those within and without, high-end audio with it's now stratospheric prices and measurements galore, is becoming more a laughing stock to all.  Imagine when somebody says "high-end" audio amplifiers start at $10k and anything less is mid-fi or when somebody drools over pictures of somebody's $500k system and says, "Wow, I'll bet it sounds awesome."  That's just naive nonsense and it's a dead giveaway that these types most likely lacks any listening skills, what it takes to build a truly musical playback system.  But I've no doubt those types read TAS and Stereophile every month.  I call this mainstream hgh-end audio.

 

Now along comes Bob Stuart with his MQA format promising every last music lover in the world that when that little green light is illuminated we're all essentially guaranteed to hear exactly what the recording engineers heard in the studio.  Regardless of associated playback equipment if one were to take Stuart literally.

 

Now I already knew for a fact when I first read about MQA in TAS in 2014 that it was impossible for MQA (nor any other new format) to generate, over and above currently available formats) a level of musicallity even remoted close to what Stuart, Harley, and Atkinson claimed.  So when Harley and Atkinson and a few other insiders jumped on the MQA bandwagon 4 years ago endorsing MQA performance claiming cows are now jumping over the moon, that wasn't just a little much, it was so frickin' over-the-top, it was as though editors-in-chief were now taking hallucinogens during working hours.

 

Mature adults simply don't speak/write this way when endorsing superior products / technologies and seasoned professionals in positions of influence who really care about and know the industry would normally never write such drivel unless they had outside influences. 

 

I'm 100% convinced that Atkinson has near zero ability to discern / interpret what he hears and that goes for much of his staff too.  I'm also convinced that Harley has or had some ability in time past to discern / interpret what he hears.  It was Harley who said in the Mar/Apr 2009 TAS issue, "I am convinced that something catastrophic is occurring at the microphone diaphragm that prevents much of the music from ever reaching the recording."  Paraphrased.  Not that Harley reached this conclusion by his lonesome as in that same article he went on to briefly describe a rather cheap experiment conducted by Ed Meitner that led Meitner to that conclusion and hence Harley followed suit.

 

About a year earlier, Valin said, "We are lucky if even our very best SOTA playback systems are able to capture even 15% of the magic (I interpret magic as believability) of the live performance."

 

Even Atkinson admitted near as much in Stereophile's Sept 2009 issue when comparing a recorded piano to a live piano performance saying much of the musc was lost between the 2 and was not in the recording.

 

Those are all intellectually honest and reasonbly accurate assessments and admissions of the industry's performance levels then and now and as far as I can tell are the last time any from these magazines have made such admissions.  Perhaps they realized that intellectual honesty doesn't increase subscription numbers.

 

But I digress.  My point is that these guys have abandomed their care and concern (if they ever had any) for the industry itself and instead now seek to influence and direct the industry in directions that keep them and their magazines afloat and usually at the expense of the industry's health and the consumer's wallet.  Shills and charlatans if you will.  And if there's any truth to that, now we're talking serious personality flaws that include deception, conspiracies, etc.

 

IMO they developed similar strategies with DVD-A and SACD in the early 2000's and shortly after that they tried to convince us that multi-channel was the cat's meow and TAS even went so far as to retitle its publication cover to include "multi-channel".   But after a few years of consumers spending millions going the multi-channel route, that too died off and eventually TAS removed the "multi-channel" from its cover.

 

IMO, these past events are nothing compared to what I perceive is a 100% sellout for MQA.  And I don't see what these two have done for the industry as an opportunity to approach them with a "come let us reason together" type of demeanor.  I see this more as an opportunity to expose them as shills, charlatans, and the blind leading the blind.  However, none of this could have been exposed to this degree if it were not for MQA.  For that perversion, I offer a perverted thank you, MQA.

 

With the majority of "high-end" enthusiasts now more enamored with price and measurements than audible performance, mind you in an audio-only industry, I have no desire to discuss or reason with used car salesmen types nor their followers who might blindly follow them. 

 

For me, I'm pretty convinced that both Harley and Atkinson were presented with an offer from MQA neither could refuse (it had to be both or it wouldn't work) to provide off-the-charts endorsements so while MQA was getting its industry monopolizing horse outta' the barn, they could tell the entire world that "high-end" audio sector confirms their performance claims.  And like with DVD-A, SACD (reasonable formats) and multi-channel, there was pretty much a guarantee that if MQA should succeed there'd be an influx of new / upgraded products flooding the market and needing to be reviewed.

 

But that's me.

[shtf]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

 

Why is it necessary to use phrases like "tin ear"? 

 

 

Good question.  Though name calling in and of itself is of little value, in this case it can imply so much more.

 

We must remember that "high-end" audio is or at least was intended to be all about what we hear.  After all, this is an audio-only industry.

 

From my perspective, the introduction of MQA, which in my opinion, is a 1-legged race horse, hits so many facets of high-end audio I keep forgetting all the aspects MQA potentially touches on.   In fact, my audio life remains much simpler by just remembering that there is one aspect MQA does not touch or or impact, and that's improved performance aka improved levels of musicality from the perspective of one who possesses even basic or perhaps reasonable ability to discern / interpret what they hear.

 

That said, I would attest the single biggest problem by far with high-end audio today is that the majority, including many reviewers and other professionals, lack even basic listening skills so that they are unable to discern / interpret what they hear.  Moreover, there are often times evidences when people write / talk that can give clear indication they lack any such listening skills.  They can be the most intelligent science-minded type on the planet, yet possess tin ears.  

 

What's worse is there is a great misunderstanding what is required to develop trained ears or more commonly known as well-trained ears.  Many, including the professional, might claim that because they passed a hearing test with flying colors they're convinced they have ears to hears.  Others might claim because they are a member of their church choir or because they play an instrument, that qualifies them as possessing the ability to discern what they hear / interpret.  In most every case I'm aware of, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Now all that said, if a professional, an insider, a reviewer or editor proclaims the sonics of a product or technology to be roughly the equivalent to experiencing the birth of a new world, do you think it matters whether or not that person has tin ears?

 

As Peter Moncrieff (known by some to posses extremely well-trained ears) stated in his long MQA diatribe, when describing significant potential shortcomings with MQA recordings, Moncrieff said the naive may actually prefer the seriously degraded sound.

 

From my perspective, I couldn't give a rat's behind about the technology though I think it has an important role to help establish / confirm a product or technology's performance levels but not always.  What should matter to everyone first and foremost is, does it actually improve our playback system's level of musicality moving it closer toward the live performance aka the absolute sound, or further away?

 

Obviously it ultimately only matters what you hear.  But would you prefer to hear the answer to this question from one who potentially possesses tin ears or from one who potentially possesses well-trained ears?  And if per chance I'm right about many, including professional types, lacking any real listening skills, well, that opens up a whole new can of worms and it's no longer just about MQA.

 

The way I see it and why in a perverted way I'm thankful that MQA came along professing that cows can now jump over the moon is because it took something as over-the-top as MQA to bring much of the industry's shortcomings and lack of leadership to light.

 

Think of it this way.  Imagine a powerful, influential, well-regarded court judge has just been discovered that he possessed very little knowledge of the law and was taking bribes in many of his court case decisions.  That implies that not only are the court cases before him today in great peril but that also implies that every court case he ever presided over is also in great question.

 

And always in the process of such discovery, many are harmed, even if it's just financially.

 

Hence, calling somebody here tin ears could be mere bullying but there's also the possibility that they have some history about the person targeted and know what they are talking about.  And if the one targeted indeed possesses tin ears, well, they just became the recipient of a whole lot'a buckshot.

 

Hint.  Those who possess tin ears are usually the last to know and are usually the first to give you that deer-in-the-headlights look when the topic is brought up.

 

But if one were to start asking some of these MQA proponents what it takes to develop and possess listening skills to discern / interpret what we hear, I can pretty much assure you it would be more hilarious than an evening at the improv. 

 

 

[shtf]

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

"if a professional, an insider, a reviewer or editor proclaims the sonics of a product or technology to be roughly the equivalent to experiencing the birth of a new world, do you think it matters whether or not that person has tin ears? "

 

 

 

 

[shtf]

24 minutes ago, miguelito said:

All the veiled implications that Mr Stuart suddenly figured out how to outdo math is what is deceitful and drives people (me at least) up the wall. Clown.

 

 

But according to one TAS interview 4 years ago, we're talking about Bob fulfilling his lifelong dream to fix this problem.  Moreover, Bob routinely shares his breakthrough technology to packed rooms and..., AND last I heard Bob actually stands behind his claims.  Cross my heart, hope to die.  Read it myself.

 

What more do you need?

 

[shtf]

5 hours ago, crenca said:

....

Instead, they go with cool kid Bob S who moves the goalposts. 

....

@Jim Austin@Jim Austin

 

 

I think the real question is why? 

 

I don't think I've ever knowingly listened to any piece of Meridian gear and as I recall Meridian's reputation was at best middle-of-the-road, though I think the mags used to give Meridian and Stuart higher praise than that.  There's Stuart's interview in 2014 published in TAS where he seemed a bit illogical and contradictory, then more recently hearing about the Meridian's financial struggles, his questionable character, etc, it just doesn't seem to fit that he would have the wherewithall to come up with MQA all by his lonesome.  It's certainly possible but just doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility.

 

That's why I think potentially everything about MQA, its measurements, performance, intents, etc can be greatly simplified if not entirely eliminated when I give consideration to the possibility that Stuart was approached by the music industry and was annointed as the "inventor" of a new format whose primary purpose was to simplify inventories, recordings, pressings, productions, purchases, and downloads all to a single format and acquire royalties, licensing fees and monopolize the entire music world.  All under the guise of listeners all over the world hearing for the first time exactly what the recording engineers heard in the studio.

 

And just as I suspect Stuart was approached, I also suspect Harley and Atkinson and other insiders were approached in much the same way.

 

This scenario seems by far the most logical and in fact, it's the only strategy that makes complete sense to me and explains everything about the controveries surrounding MQA.  And because playback music is so dang subjective, everybody involved thought it would be an easy sell.  A no brainer if you will.  This was my suspicion since reading my very first article about MQA in TAS.  And it makes more sense today than it did 4 years ago.

[shtf]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The case for dCS is pretty easy. They move so few units that they can't risk any loss of sales. And my research points to them at the beginning of this blur thing.

 

I agree that may well be the case.  I'm aware of one manufacturer who held off incorporating MQA into his DAC's and he's glad he did.  He also shared sentiments, much like you suspect with dCS, that other manufacturers he knows felt exactly that way.  They didn't want to incorporate MQA because of their own skeptism but they couldn't afford to risk losing revenue.  And some of these manufacturers are relatively small and wouldn't take much of a hit to go outta business.

 

For me, it's just one more reason to try to view MQA for what it and especially for what it isn't.

[shtf]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

I struggle to see what in that post is deserving of censure. Someone provides an opinion / hypothesis and calls is his suspicion, yet you believe it should be censured? I believe the old guard press has much different rules than we do here at CA. This community prefers to error on the side of letting people voice opinions and lay out their suspicions, leaving everyone to judge for themselves if s/he buys it or thinks it's BS. 

 

When the initial MQA discussion started here on CA and some of the experts here raised their hands saying something doesn't look right, many people wanted the discussion censured. I received a few phone calls from Bob S. about the discussions and I know he would've loved to see a heavy hand used in moderation. That's not how we, or the internet work now days. 

 

 

 

 

 

Your response is very much appreciated.  Thank you.  But I admit I was rather surprised Quint made that comment and that early on you had received a few phone calls from Stuart.  Then again, not really.  And it sure doesn't hurt my suspicions much. 

 

Thanks again.

 

p.s. I'm quite new to CA and still don't know my way around much.  But my respect for and impressions of CA just went up a really good notch.

[shtf]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

........

I must say, the one surprising aspect of the visits by you, ARQuint, and John Atkinson is the degree to which you are going after @The Computer Audiophile himself, and the intensity with which you are focusing on denigrating this community.

.........

 

Almost as if to protect some vested interest perhaps?  I'm suspicious again.

 

Just sayin'

[shtf]

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

Good one.  MQA has politicized and polarized our hobby.  The trade publications have blown their credibility and they won't get it back.  We're mad as hell.

 

To some, their credibility was blown a long time ago.  Like I said earlier, it took something so over-the-top like MQA to blow the lid off and expose these so-called industry leaders for what they really are.  And for that I am thankful to Bob.   Hmmmm. You don't suppose that Bob was also tired of the BS in the industry and he invented MQA just to expose the industry for what it really is?  I'm reaching.

 

[shtf]

3 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Exactly right. 

 

 

Seriously guys?

[shtf]

16 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I think it is important we all realize that once Atkinson reported on the "Birth Of A New World "(the introduction of MQA was equated with introduction of the CD) and that his "socks were blown off" there was no going back. To back track from that would have been humiliating. Hence, the agenda was set...

 

... and the 3-legged race horse was outta' the barn and they called it Secretariat, er, um...  MQA.

[shtf]

2 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

.....

 

The irony is that it's rejected by the technical folks and embraced by the subjectivists ...

 

 

I think you would have been far more accurate had you said, "The irony is that it's rejected by the technical folks and embraced by the naïve ...

 

I think back to what Peter Moncrieff said after reading your first Stereophile MQA article last January,

 

"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."

 

"And many naïve listeners will be persuaded by MQA's larger spatial portrayal to believe that this MQA rendition must be better, and must be yet another way in which MQA is superior to other digital systems. But, as Goldilocks taught us, more is not always better, and a "just right" middle ground might well be the best of all, especially if it represents accuracy."

 

"First, the large space itself was portrayed as a large amorphous bloated vague halo somewhere beyond the performers - but not as a well defined hall or room, with well defined walls at a well defined distance, where the original recorded performance actually took place.

So there was clearly something wrong with MQA's enhanced spatial imaging. This inferentially scientifically suggests that MQA's whole enhanced imaging phenomenon might well be due to an inaccurate mistake MQA was making, which is the complete opposite of MQA's own claim that MQA does something better than competing digital systems, hence provides superior and more accurate spatial imaging."

 

"Many naïve listeners have joined MQA's own implied claim that bigger, more bloated spatial imaging is always better. And they also have joined MQA in jumping to the totally unfounded inferential assumption that this bigger hence 'better' spatial imaging must be due to MQA's very short (hence more 'ideal') time domain impulse response - which they (erroneously) assume must be providing more accurate time domain transient response reconstruction of the original signal waveform, hence more accurate reproduction of the original spatial venue imaging as the recording mikes heard it."

 

BTW, dont' you and Atkinson prefer MQA's sonics? 

[shtf]

20 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Yes to your first point--and that is (as I've written) a legitimate concern. (It is not, as I have also written, something I personally worry about much.) As to the second, we have to wait and see. That's what listening tests are for. Given the stakes, this is not something that should be left to some self-proclaimed golden-eared writer--or me. It should be tested properly--and how it sounds is the ultimate test. And as I mentioned previously, word is the McGill tests didn't go well for MQA. If that proves to be true--if MQA (at comparable rate) is found not to be preferred over 24/96 PCM (the comparison they're making)--then the only advantage is some streaming economics. That, to me, is far less compelling. 

 

Why do you say we must we wait and see about how MQA benefits us sonically?  Rather than leave it to some "self-proclaimed" golden-eared writer as you put it? 

 

If you're speaking of Moncreiff, I'm not aware that he ever proclaimed himself to be some golden-ear type.  I know I've heard numerous times over the years that he supposedly has some very well-trained ears and I've been told by some who take playback music and live music rather seriously that they and others consider / considered him head-and-shoulders over other reviewers.  I also know of the handful of products I've owned that Moncrieff also reviewed he seemed quite accurate and I've shared this with others in this and other forums.  But again, if it's Moncreiff you're speaking of, I've yet to come across any such self-proclamaiton.  Neverthless, would you not be more comfortable relying on the feedback of one known for possessing well-trained ears or one or even a group of listeners having no such reputation?

 

Given the stakes?  What stakes?  You're a frickin' high-end audio product reviewer!!!  Since when do reviewers care about a manufacturer's stakes?  Stakes are clearly outside every reviewer's scope.  Unless, hey wait a minute.  Are you implying that you have a stake in this?

 

Besides what's at stake, who annointed you grand poo-bah or final arbiter as to who is qualitified to judge MQA for its sonic benefits?   What is it about MQA that you consider it to be so unique and different and special from every other new product and technology introduced in the past 60 years that you suppose needs to be left for the so-called real experts to determine if it benefits sonically?  Isn't that why Stereophile pays guys like you, to review products' performance? 

 

It's no secret that you've buried your head into every MQA-related writeup you could get your hands to more fully understand it before judging it.  For all I  know, maybe that's why you spend time here bantering in this thread.  But in the course of all your MQA homework surely at some point you settled down and took a few MQA recordings for spin.  I mean that's a reviewer's primary reason for existing, right?

 

What are your thoughts on MQA from an sonic perspective?  How would you compare your MQA listening experiences to say Moncreiff and Atkinson?  
 

Why do I get the impression you're attempting by slight of hand here to subliminally elevate MQA's performance to some sacred cow or trophy-like status keeping it behind the showcase so none of the kids get their fingerprints on it?   This behavior is just so frickin' odd for any reviewer and of course when compiled with all the other odd behaviors surrounding MQA it seems most of this strange behavior is coming from the magazines, namely TAS and Stereophile.  Which coincidentally are the same 2 magazines whose editors-in-chief without any apparent hesitation boldly claimed from the mountain tops 4 years ago after just a few short listening session that cows can now jump over the moon.  Which coincidentally occurred at a critical time when the MQA horse was just about to be released from the barn.  But now that the race horse is outta' the barn with one or more broken legs, here you are trying to convince us the stakes are so high, MQA's sonic benefits must be determined by real experts.

 

All this odd, dare I say child-psychology-like behavior just draws more negative attention to the magazines and away from the real topic at hand, which is MQA's legitimacy and purpose for existing in the first place.  I'm even left to wonder if perhaps that's Atkinson's purpose for you.  To draw attention away from MQA's legitimacy that is.  A distraction if you will.  Almost like you'e the trapped lizzard's detachable tail drawing everybody's attention toward your wiggling tail while the lizzard escapes to market unharmed.  Who knows, maybe that's TAS and Stereophile's role in all this - to be the lizzard's tail?

 

But again, why not share some of your more informal thoughts here about your own MQA listening experiences?   Even if just to provide us a sense of normalcy. 

[shtf]

22 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I'm reading about every third or fifth post now, but this one caught my eye. It's frustrating to repeat here what I've written elsewhere. The "stakes" are that if MQA (a proprietary technology) is widely adopted there's a risk that it will supplant nonproprietary technologies for all audio distribution--as I'm sure has been widely discussed here. This seems to be a talking point aimed at gaining record-company buy-in. I'm less worried about this than others are--if the payoff is high enough--incontrovertibly superior sound--then I personally would be willing to make the sacrifice, and I think a lot of other people are, too. But, as I've written, I consider that to be a not-insignificant cost. Before we substitute a non-proprietary technology with a proprietary technology, there's a high threshold: It has to be significantly better. If it's not, we shouldn't adopt it. 

 

This answers another, somewhat similar post: Because these stakes are high, MQA should not be anointed by me or any other reviewer. (No, I was not thinking of Moncrief.) Listening tests should be done. If a panel of expert listeners cannot hear the difference, MQA should not displace those nonproprietary technologies (PCM/FLAC). 

 

Yes, I have a stake--as an audiophile and music lover. So do you, and so do all the rest of us who enjoy listening to music in digital formats.

 

jca

 

And what pray-tell do these stakes have to do with a lowly reviewer?  Besides, it seems clear these stakes were not taken into consideration when Atkinson claimed 4 years BEFORE MQA was released and after just I think 1 maybe 2 short demo's that Atkinson's experience was the equivalent to observing the birth of new planets, "blew his socks off",  along with a few other seemingly off-the-cuff responses.  For all we know Atkinson was eating his favorite ice cream during those short MQA demos but at that time he obviously gave no hesitatation then to tell the world.  Wouldn't that have been the appropriate time to consider the full impact of MQA and what Atkinson experienced?  Are you implying that your editor-in-chief acted in a reckless and irresponsible manner 4 years ago? 

 

So clearly your editor-in-chief did not take any of this into consideration.  Why do you feel it's your responsibility to do so now, 4 years later?   IOW, here we are 4 years later and suddenly the responsibility and burden falls to you a reviewer to ensure everybody acts circumspectly pertaining to MQA's performance benefits?  Again, such responsbilities are outside the scope of a reviewer, for which tho art one.

 

Who assigned this responsibility to you that is clearly outside your scope as a product reviewer?

 

 

[shtf]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

I'm not sure why you'd believe this post would be deleted. Stereophile (and the publication that I write for) delete online correspondence if the poster becomes defamatory or otherwise descends into incivility. Opposing views are heard and responded to—if they are delivered without flames. That contrasts significantly to CA's "Vaporware" thread where any visitor (or member) perceived as being even remotely pro-MQA can count on hearing from the same ten guys who will attempt to bully him into departing, or provoke a comment that gets him banished.

 

I perceive tho art a conspiracy theorist.   To use your own words, "Making things up out of thin air and fantasizing."  Jeepers, Quint.  Do you not understand the difference between theory and probability?  

 

Do you at least understand what it means to be hoisted on your own petard? 

 

Just sayin'.  

[shtf]

5 hours ago, botrytis said:

Stereophile writers do not like to be called on the carpet and they are trying to continue being on the MQA band wagon. It seems the '70 brigade' thinks they are the arbiters of what is right and wrong for this hobby and that is not the case. They are one possibility.

 

The real question is, why are they trying so hard to stay on the broken down MQA bandwagon?  What are the possible motives?

 

As for them being one possible arbiter (of many) to discern what is right and wrong for this hobby, I suspect you're being rather optimistic.

[shtf]

2 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Robert "Scientific Revolution" Harley gives MQA ample coverage in his Munich show report-

 

"MQA Updates

MQA put on a unique demonstration of the technology’s ability to deliver studio-quality sound to listeners via streaming. A live musical performance was streamed in real time to selected exhibitors in Munich’s MOC convention center—in full high-resolution quality. As a small jazz group played in a London recording studio, the stereo mix was converted to digital at 192kHz/24-bit (a bitrate of 9.2Mbs), and then encoded in MQA on the fly. The 1.1Mbs MQA signal was streamed over the Internet to about ten participating exhibitors who had MQA decoders in their exhibit rooms. The streamed MQA signal was “unfolded” to the original 192/24 signal and converted to analog in the MQA-compatible DACs in the rooms of participating exhibitors. I happened to listen to the demo in dCS’s room, decoded by a dCS Rossini and wonderfully reproduced by a pair of Wilson Alexia Series 2 speakers. The whole thing was a bit of a stunt, but nonetheless drove home MQA’s remarkable ability to deliver true high-resolution studio sound quality via streaming services.

In other MQA news, ESS Technology, maker of the popular high-end Sabre DAC chip, announced that it will soon release a DAC chip with integral MQA rendering. This new chip will make it easier and less expensive for manufacturers to include MQA compatibility in their products—no additional DSP required. Note that the ESS chip performs just the second step of MQA decoding, called “rendering”; the signal must first be unfolded to an MQA Core signal, but that unfolding technology is readily available in Tidal, Roon, Amarra, Audirvana, and many other music players. ESS’s announcement has implications far beyond getting MQA in more high-end DACs; this new Sabre chip will bring MQA to other applications including active headphones, smartphones, tabletop systems, and more."

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-2018-munich-high-end-show/

 

 

Harley said, "The whole thing was a bit of a stunt...."

 

Interesting.  Do you happen to know when it stopped?

[shtf]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I don't believe I have made any comments on this forum about the lack of civility displayed by CA posters. Could you provide a link where I did do so, please.

 

As moderator as stereophile.com, I have deleted posts that I judge to be flames or are personally insulting. But I  don't delete posts that are critical of Stereophile or of our coverage of MQA. You can see that spacehound, indie66rock, and Archimago are regular posters to Stereophile's site. Note, also, that contrary to something was said earlier in this thread, I don't block people from posting except as an extreme action. I think that in the 13 years we have allowed third-party comments on our site, I have banned less than 5 people.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Mr. Atkinson.  While we have your attention in this thread, would you please:

1. Confirm or deny your initial MQA performance claims?
2. Explain why Stereophile reviewers seem unwilling to share with us their in-depth thoughts on MQA's performance?

Thanks in advance.

[shtf]

On 5/24/2018 at 4:53 AM, John_Atkinson said:

 

For the record, I have no financial stake in MQA anymore than Chris Connacker has. Please put your conspiracy theories back in your pocket.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Boy, that's a relief.  Golly, John, you sure had some of us going for the past 3.5 years.  Why we didn't just come straight out and ask you back then is beyond me.

 

Since you bring it up, I'm curious why you and Quint et al seem fond to so quickly label some of our suspicions as conspiracy theories.  Is this some new defense strategy induced by the magazines?  If not, I'm unaware of a prior time or product or technology where high-end audio editors-in-chief and reviewers were accusing their readers and others of being conspiracy theorists.  What is it about MQA that has caused you guys to become so defensive?  

 

Let's think about this.  Now it doesn't seem either you or Quint did but let's think about this.

 

To the best of my knowledge a theory is a supposition or idea that has no evidence to support it.  But the moment you uncover a single shred of evidence, it ceases to be a theory and now becomes a probability.  For example.  In theory I could win the lottery and so long as I never purchase a lottery ticket it remains a theory.  But the moment I purchase a single lottery ticket, it ceases to be a theory and now becomes a probability, however remote it may be.  And the more lottery tickets I purchase the greater the probability of my winning the lottery.

 

That said, I'm confident I can produce a fairly lengthy list of evidence and/or behaviors I think will show a high probability that you and perhaps others indeed have a stake in MQA's success.  And if others chime in, I suspect such a list could become quite lengthy indeed.

 

On the other hand, I can't think of any evidence and/or behaviors that might substantiate your claim that you have no stake in MQA.  Can you?

 

[shtf]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

"I think will show a high probability that you and perhaps others indeed have a stake in MQA's success."

 

This is the key. Having a stake in MQA succeeding. Not a stake IN MQA. This may account for seeing what he wanted to see in MQA and reporting on it with Rose Coloured glasses.

 

Agreed.  However, in the end it really doesn't matter much which ethical lines might have been crossed as the resulting behaviors and damage would be pretty much the same.

 

Quote

"On the other hand, I can't think of any evidence and/or behaviors that might substantiate your claim that you have no stake in MQA.  Can you?"

 

I don't think this is fair. The onus would be on those who make the accusations to prove them, not for JA to provide proof that they are wrong

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed.  I was being somewhat rhetorical in that I wasn't asking Atkinson expecting him to provide evidence, but rather I was merely trying to illustrate who might be the real conspiracy theorists here.

[shtf]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Because my opinion has been formed as the result of extensive experience of the subject, the experience of designing, organizing, and taking part in blind tests that are intended to detect small but real audible differences. Again, I refer you to the 2 articles of mine that I linked to in my previous response. Until you have done so, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

But what if one unknowingly lacked listening skills i.e. the ability to discern or interpret what they hear?   Wouldn't that one fact alone potentially nullify 40 years of any such extensive experience and findings?

 

Could you share with us how one acquires such listening skills particularly when involving playback systems?   Or do you still hold to your 6-month old premise that singing in a church choir or playing an instrument is sufficient enough training for you and your staff?

 

Peter Moncreiff, whom some claim/claimed possesses very well-trained ears, recently wrote that the MQA sound, with its potential deficiencies, may be very appealing to the naive and most here are aware of your claim that MQA "blew your socks off" and during your brief MQA demos you were experiencing the birth of a new world.

 

Given the above and even though you wrote several articles on the subject in time past, do you think this subject might be worthy of continued discussion?  Or at least a re-evaluation?

 

[shtf]

8 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Oldie but a goodie...

 

Some juicy quotes from the Captain of the MQA Squad:

 

"It was immediately apparent how much deeper I could listen into the soundstage with MQA. Due to MQA correction of minute timing errors, special relationships were clarified to a significant extent."

 

"I especially like the tuba," said John Atkinson. "The taps on the timpani and bass drum sound more natural, rather than like generic thwacks, and the sonic signature and dimensions of the hall are clearer," he noted."

 

"(Peter)McGrath, in turn, said, "Listening to my recording with MQA literally brought tears to my eyes, because it was the first time I could hear what I heard in the hall. "

 

"In a follow-up call, days after CES ended, Michael Fremer had this to say about what he heard:  When the MQA version was played, there was a coherent attack, sustain, and decay. Finally, I could visualize Jarrett playing a piano in three-dimensional space, and the space behind it. It was like what a record sounds like."

 

"As for my impression, the harmonics of the piano were far more in evidence. I felt as if a window had been scrubbed clean, and I could see deeper into the music than before."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqas-sound-convinces-hardened-showgoer

 

So, to your next MQA demo, bring MQA glasses so you can see "deeper" into the soundstage, and brink

a tissue in case tears start to flow...?

 

Shoot, I can top your referenced quotes without even blinking an eye.  Though this next quote in and of itself has zero to do directly with MQA I suspect indirectly it may have much to do with their mindset and MQA endeavors.

 

"Musically perfect...., across the board"  -John Atkinson editor-in-chief Stereophile magazine after listening to the Vandersteen model 7A speakers at CES 2014.  Think about it.  That's early January, 2014 when Atkinson made this claim perhaps just days after he claimed to be experiencing the birth of a new world during his MQA demos.  

 

Side note 
Like Stuart's MQA performance claims that for the first time MQA would allow us to hear what the engineers heard in the recording studio thereby implying quality playback equipment was irrelevant, I also don't recall Atkinson making any mention of any of the associated equipment in the Vandersteen room.  The implication being that nothing but the speakers contributed to this "musically perfect..., across the board"  sound.  Yet common sense dictates that everything in the entire playback system would also have to be "musically perfect" including the room and the listening position.  Nevertheless, Vandersteen used Atkinson's quotes in his Model 7A speaker advertisements.  Perhaps it was just coincidence but within a few months of me calling Atkinson out on this lame performance claim I noticed that Atkinson's endorsement was missing from the Vandersteen 7A ads.

 

BTW, I read the stereophile article via the link you provided.  How regrettable and sad and there's so much more that needs to be said about the potential damage to the industry we're all observing firsthand.

 

Suffice it to say for the moment, the probabilities are looking pretty high.