MQA is Vaporware

[Kal Rubinson]

On 5/8/2017 at 11:09 PM, rickca said:

Wait for the MQA announcements at Munich High End.  Then it will be game on again.

 

If Sony signs on, we'll hear all kinds of crap about how that means DSD is dead from people who don't really understand either MQA or DSD.

Here you go.

Munich PR _11 May 2017_FINAL.docx

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

When there is an album I want (a prior post has a list available in Europe) encoded with MQA available in the United States I will buy it. Then I will make a copy and put it on my music laptop. I will make no claims about coping MQA files until I actually copy one.

They copy just like any other file and the copies play fine, whether with MQA-enabled DACs or others.  Surely, that is what makes them downloadable.

[Kal Rubinson]

18 hours ago, Jud said:

First tell me: Do you recognize these as the same song?  Then we'll go from there.

They share an identifiable melody and a title based on that melody but I do not regard them as the same song.  

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

How did you identify the melody as being shared?  One is sung, the other played on an instrument.  They have different rhythms.  Are they even the same notes (i.e., same key/pitch)?

Common harmonic progressions although time and pitch are shifted and variable.  Its like looking into the mirror and "seeing" my father although we differ in so many ways and are not the same person.

[Kal Rubinson]

Andreas Koch?

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

You think that has anything to do with the size of the Organ of Corti being such that it really only works to about 15 or 16 khz?   The size being physically related to the sound frequency detected.  The size of the basilar membrane runs out of a place for the sound at 20khz if that.  I mean they gave a Nobel prize to the fellow who figured this out. 

This is true.

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Feeling "relaxed" and all that 85kHz Japanese pseudo-science  is another story.

Indeed.  They even admit that they have no explanation of how such signals are transduced.  

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Acc'd to their search engine about 1120 of 1250 albums are NOT analog based. But I'm not sure if that does or doesn't include DSD extracted from SACD that was originally in some other format before SACD. If you ask for "not analog sourced, never available as SACD" you get 300 albums.  

Those would seem for sure to be ""DSD"". But then you have to look and see how it was produced: was it recorded to DSD and just edited, meaning it is 99% native DSD, or was it mixed in analog, or converted to DXD and then back to DSD. 

Maybe TedB can enlighten us on this. 

You might take a look at the tags on the album pages which say "Digitized at 64fs," "Digitized at DSD256," "Digitized at DSD64" in comparison to those that say  "Digitized at Analog to DSD256," etc..

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Didn’t the April issue come out in January?

Seems like it to me.  That's when we write it.

[Kal Rubinson]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

I actually think this is the case.  However, what took him so long?  

With all due deference to my editor, these are independent contributions and, as far as I know, unsolicited but welcomed by him.

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, crenca said:

Not sure how this is relevant, perhaps you could say more.  First, when I look up the name on the Stereophile web site I see he is a regular (several contributions a month) going back several years - not sure what "independant" at this context means. 

I was not referring to Jon Iverson's long relationship with the magazine. What I meant (despite the misspelling) is that, as far as I know, all contributors arrive at their own opinions/conclusions independently.  The editor has not, in my experience, ever asked for an opinion piece.  There have been cases where I have  expressed an opinion to him and then he responds by suggesting that I put it into a contribution for the magazine. 

 

5 hours ago, crenca said:

Second, I wonder how and when he came to his conclusion - "what took him so long" still stands, as well as where did he get his basic data from which to be skeptical?

I have no idea and, I suspect, only he does.

[Kal Rubinson]

7 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Yep IT"S ABOUT TIME, but I am surprised that any anti-MQA voice is being allowed over there.

Don't be surprised.  In the 20+ years that I have been writing for Stereophile, I have never experienced any censorship.  

[Kal Rubinson]

37 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Though, one has to consider that you have provided no reason to be censored, which may have contributed to your lengthy tenure.  

That is possible but it is an accurate description of my experience covering a long period of time.  In addition, I have not heard anything to the contrary from any other reviewer.  OTOH, I know of no basis for any speculation of censorship other than suspicion.

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, semente said:

Not saying that it's happening but if a reviewer were to be "biased" (or in someone's pocket) then there would be no need for the editor to exert censorship.

Really?  I would think that would be a valid reason to exert censorship. 

 

In fact, reviewers are barred from reviewing products in whose development they might have been involved or consulted.  In addition, I have never reviewed any products manufactured by a few people who were friends prior to my relationship with Stereophile.

[Kal Rubinson]

5 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

The acquisition probably explains the (partial) shift on MQA coverage at S-phile.  Hasn't Paul Miller been critical of MQA's claims for quite a while now?

I was not going to respond to all these speculations about the the recent sale and MQA but this one is easy.  The writers were informed about this sale only hours before it was announced in public.  It is illogical to think that it could have influenced statements already in print.  

[Kal Rubinson]

34 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Choosing that recent "As We See It" was an editorial decision, you commented that the writers were informed only hours before the public announcement.  

Sheesh!  AWSI was written by Jon Iverson and, while I do not know with certainty that he was completely unaware of the impending sale, the editor's decision to publish it is not germane since he has always encouraged individual and, even, controversial contributions.

38 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

The only shift was in choosing that last piece, and publishing the accompanying letters, as far as I'm aware.  No writers at S-phile have changed positions on MQA, have they?

Yes, I have.

39 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

I would say that It's illogical to think that the EDITOR of a publication would find out with no notice. 

It is possible.  Stereophile has been sold by one publisher to another several times over the decades and I suspect that some have been without prior editorial notice. 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Understood.  

21 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Also to add:  I was under the impression that you personally had never cared for MQA, so I wasn't aware that you had changed your views on it.  You certainly have never beat the drum for MQA, unless I'm very much mistaken!

I must admit that I was (1) intrigued and interested in MQA from the initial (controlled) demonstrations and (2) later fascinated by my first home demonstrations in multichannel but (3), finally disturbed by its compromises and my evolving realization of its negative impact on future program availability.

[Kal Rubinson]

10 hours ago, shtf said:

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.

How is this relevant?  Just because this market has not accepted multichannel does not prove that it is inferior or that its promotion is an attempt to fool the consumer.  The situation is similar to that of active loudspeakers which have obvious technical and, often, obvious subjective advantages over passive loudspeakers but both are generally rejected by the audiophile market for a variety of reasons.  As most here have argued and accepted, the technical basis of MQA is entirely a different matter.

[Kal Rubinson]

14 hours ago, mansr said:

I have, more than once, seen writers for audio magazines say they will not publish a bad review so as not to harm the reputation of the manufacturer. 

 

23 hours ago, mansr said:

I have heard, though cannot confirm, that someone (not at Stereophile) was compensated rather handsomely for an early glowing report on MQA.

Please, if you cannot offer a source, a confirmation and/or identify a specific individual, publishing this hearsay is irresponsible and offensive, especially to those to whom these statements do not apply.

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

I wasn't referring to you.

Thanks but you paint with a rather broad brush.  

[Kal Rubinson]

15 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

To restate, the print media are at the fringes here, altho’ I believe Kal Rubison modified his opinion upon further listening. Why is that?

I did and the reasons were in my published comments.

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Agree with Kal about the products that "force" the MQA filters onto all playback (some allow you to manually  switch filters) should be censored.

I did not and would not use the word "censored."  I prefer "avoided" or "rejected."

 

[Kal Rubinson]

17 hours ago, shtf said:

 

But I’ve no doubt they’re all reading every post in this thread just waiting for the next opportune time to strike.  And of course then disappear again. 

I don't much care about this anymore.

[Kal Rubinson]

4 hours ago, ddetaey said:

I am convinced hirez - non-MQA - downloads of these new 50th anniversary verslons will soon  be available there as well

I am not interested but thanks for reminding me that it is time for me to rip these:

[Kal Rubinson]

55 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

You will enjoy the MC mixes on the DVD-As.

Yes.  I have but it will be easier after I rip them.

56 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

The stereo RE-mixes are, eh, digital sounding.

OK.  I never listen to stereo if there is a decent multichannel alternative.

[Kal Rubinson]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 I have lots of 2L recordings from Morten Lindberg and redbook from them has never even crossed my mind.  

Agreed.  OTOH, while I have only multichannel recordings from 2L and, probably, would never have acquired any had they been only CDs, there are many among them that I love and would have missed.