MQA is Vaporware

[plissken]

I wasn't really sure where to post this since there are so many MQA threads so I decided to post it here.

 

The most disappointing thing from my perspective regarding MQA is the apparent requirement of MQA hardware to obtain its full sonic benefits.

 

MQA is a software stack. Specific hardware to play it back is just an expensive dongle. We had those in the 90's for running QuarkExpress. You had to have the dongle plugged into the computer or QE wouldn't work.

[plissken]

This post of yours, "crenca", is a perfect example of your "style" - purposeful misrepresentation, misinformation, and simply being flat out wrong.

 

I find that hilariously ironic coming from you. You are known to ban users and delete posts where you are getting a technical beat down that look bad for your advertisers.

 

Your infamous BS Audiophile Ethernet review comes to mind.

 

You are everything that is wrong with the industry.

[plissken]

Here's a novel idea - try asking a meaningful question.

 

In what way where you able to establish that Ethernet cables had a 'plainly apparent and easy to hear' difference?

 

What is your theory behind the perceived improvements?

 

Because in the Aug 2012 posting on Forest and Cinnamon Ethernet cables you weren't so sure as you were in the September 2013 posting.

[plissken]

My "rebuttal" is already here.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-vaporware-31115/index15.html#post623618

 

Here is a snippet of the Linn posting at their forum. Please counterpoint away:

 

"A supply chain monopoly

 

MQA is an attempt to not simply sell the same content again at a higher margin, or to maintain audio quality in streaming ecosystems: it is an outright land grab. It’s an attempt to control and extract revenue from every part of the supply chain, and not just over content that they hold the rights for. It really is quite extraordinary. Let’s break it down:

 

Manufacturers of recording equipment will have to license the technology and adapt their products. MQA gets paid.

 

Developers of recording software systems will require certified software plug-ins. MQA gets paid

 

Recording and Mastering engineers must purchase and use certified equipment and software. MQA gets paid.

 

Artists must use studios and engineers utilising certified equipment and new workflows; or even pay to have their back catalogue ‘remastered’ in MQA. The costs of this, of course, are borne by the artist, either directly, or recouped from royalties.

 

Digital distributors will have to license MQA and purchase/lease a ‘Hyper-Security Module’ to encrypt/encode/watermark files ready for delivery to download services. MQA gets paid.

 

Download and Streaming service providers will have to agree to commercial terms and become partners from which MQA gets paid.

 

Physical media manufacturers can use MQA to author on to CD and DVD, presumably there will be licensing agreement required for this too. MQA gets paid.

 

Hi-fi manufacturers—software developers of players—will have to adapt their products and license the technology. MQA gets paid.

 

End customers, having paid a premium for MQA music via licensed content providers, will also have to buy MQA certified players at increased cost, with a license paid for each unit shipped. MQA gets paid."

[plissken]

The Ethernet reviews were published in 2013. Since that time I've written a number of additional articles on Ethernet that get into detail about this subject. I'd suggest reading what I've written.

 

Can you provide some links please? Do you have anything about what you think is happening and can you bridge conjecture and assumption to actual measurements?

 

I know Archimago tested some Ethernet cables and couldn't find any differences. But then again you banned him too.

[plissken]

I do not have time as I have an appointment to get to. I'd recommend searching for "Ethernet" on AudioStream.

 

One thing to note -- "cables" do not have a "sound". Systems do.

 

The closest titled article I could find was "Ethernet Noise: Proof Of Concept" but it just seemed like product placement for an EMI/RFI filter for industrial environments.

 

Then there was the ArsTechnica article of yours that led me to the measurements were the Vodka was borderline in spec vs a cable that cost about 24 times less.

 

You asked for items of substance so I would appreciate engagement that is proportional to your own request.

[plissken]

Here's a question for you - how many people have I banned from AudioStream?

 

Archimago

Jinjuku

Peter Wright (ArsTechnica)

 

I'll try to remember some others.

[plissken]

nevermind. wish this could stay on topic.

 

I encourage Mr. Lavorgna to participate in this thread: Audiophile Ethernet

 

But realistically there isn't going to be a well thought out counterpoint coming on any of this (MQA, Ethernet, or otherwise) from him so the fears of this thread really going off on a tangent due to participation by him are slim to none IMO. My observation is he as an inability to actually hold an above board conversation.

[plissken]

Point taken. Not sure I agree entirely. I think your posts can come off as pretty confrontational and aggressive at times , as well as several others who posted here. All good contributors, but it was clear to me this was driven by some animus and there seems to be the desire to give Michael a beat down. He's perfectly able to stand up for himself, but I just didn't think this was going to go anywhere because of all involved, not just Michael.

 

I may be wrong.

 

It is my style on subjects were I'm a material expert. Networking both from installing the physical infrastructure to routing to server architecture (mainly HA clusters and virtualization).

 

I try to be helpful where I can. But something you need to understand: Many here have formed an opinion about Michael over the years of what we believe is tantamount to a hyperbole machine. It has it's roots in him banning and deleting accounts/posts that effectively challenge his assumptions and factually expose them to their shortcomings.

 

I mean he banned Archimago for petes sake and I've never read a cross word from the man.

 

It's why there isn't any worry about him actively engaging in a thought provoking manner here. He's a person of little actual substance and his posting here has already amply displayed that fact.

 

So far he's the only poster in this to call another forum member an ass.

 

Now I think he's a hack, but that's a position I can actually back up.

[plissken]

Oh another person that Lavorgna banned: John Sully.

 

John is the person that challenged Lavorgna/Swenson/Gordon on their perceptions of how bit perfect audio players worked in regards to how Intel handles caching at the hardware layer:

 

Listening to Ethernet ($10,000 Ethernet Cables!!) | AudioStream

 

Q&A with John Swenson. Part 3: How bit-perfect software can affect sound | AudioStream.

 

Sound Science | AudioStream

 

John Sully is low level application engineer and wrote directly for Intel architectures while @ Silicon Graphics. He goes into great detail about how on die cache works and why L/S/G having a misunderstanding that they did.

[plissken]

Sorry plissken, but are you really suggesting here there are no audible differences in different qualities of Ethernet cables? If so, I sincerely doubt your hearing capabilities.. I've heard several comparisons and the differences in SQ are very obvious. I frankly don't care if they are measurable or not. But OK, we're off topic now.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

I've got $$ that says you can't. My test setup is a Server, Cisco Switch, Client computer with two NIC's teamed. One AQ Vodka cable that and a BJC cable.

 

This would be single blind. You get $2000 for hitting 14/15 swaps of the cable.

 

Client computer using JRiver.

 

This can all happen in real time with zero interruption in the playback.

[plissken]

Doesn't help the dialogue at all.. I'm so disappointed to miss this chance to finally have a fair discussion with him, based on clear factual questions instead of a bunch of assumptions. I would be pissed-off too. Hope he will come back and if so, please be more open-minded and less judging than you were now. Thank you.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

He's not coming back though. You are missing the entire point: If Michael can not edit, delete, or ban the user he will not engage in a conversation. It's not in his DNA to have a level playing field in this regard.

 

You'd have a better chance at winning the lottery. Look at the links I provided. Ctrl+F in your browser and search for 'Sully'. You find a single post of his that merits banning. You won't find one. He's banned because he was making a better technical point than Michael and you can not have that @ Audiostream.

[plissken]

Not interested, thanks. I hear what I hear and that's enough for me.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

LOL. Hahahahaha. I've never seen a sure $2K just turned down like that. I rest my case.

[plissken]

You are all acting like adolescent asses and are surprised he gets angry. I'm not. Again: a sorely missed chance on an open discussion. I'm sooo disappointed!

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Again: You will not get that from him @ a forum where he has zero administrative authority.

[plissken]

I didn't spend € 3000 on a USB cable to need either your BS or your money.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Don't trust an audiophile that is scared shitless by a blindfold. If they don't trust their ears neither should anyone else.

[plissken]

I would have liked to be able to draw that possible conclusion myself, but only after talking with him instead of relying on some members' clear assumptions.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Look at what has already been posted by him in thread and nothing is precluding him from participating and using the ignore feature.

[plissken]

2. If you believe that you can measure a cable to determine how that cable will affect a system, you do not understand some basic realities.

 

 

I do that all the time. Last year we ran 17,000 feet of data cabling and most of it's certified(when the customer options for it) . I know exactly how any given leg of the network is going to perform since we guarantee that performance.

 

My last install was four 70 inch displays, sixteen 50 inch displays, AMX HDMI Matrix Switcher, AMX remote control panels (10), Christie Projection to a 200" drop down display, Shure Wireless, Crown CT 4 channel amp

 

All the HDMI is over Ethernet.

 

It's called engineering Michael.

[plissken]

-1 he's back

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

No, he just proved my point. He's not going to say anything of actual merit. He said so in the post you are up in a lather about.

[plissken]

You mean "Peter Bright" from Ars. Yes I banned Peter for a number of reasons, which I warned him about in a private email beforehand. Calling me "Lasagna" was not one of those reasons but I felt that helped illustrate his level of discourse.

 

Correct 'Bright'.

 

What about John Sully or Archimago? Did they refer to you as some form of pasta also?

[plissken]

True! I'm actually working in IT for 25 years and I am 100% sure that all your lovely measurements are pretty much worthless in judging actual SQ.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

 

Since you are an IT person:In what way?

[plissken]

I sent Archimago numerous emails explaining in detail what I do and do not accept in the comments on AudioStream. He was unable to abide by these simple rules so he was banned. The same for Mr. Sully.

 

What would those 'simple rules' have been? Are they on the web site as far as a 'terms of service' or 'code of conduct'?

[plissken]

I will post a video interview with Juergen Reiss of MBL and John Atkinson next week that took place at CES. I'd recommend watching it since we talk about some related issues. I think you'll find it educational.

 

FYI - you are a very unpleasant person to communicate with. Or should I say to try to communicate with. If you cannot leave behind your personal insults and chest beating, I'm going to ignore you. And no, it's not because you ran 17k feet of cable, it's because you think you know more than you know. And you're arrogant about it.

 

Please do.

 

It's not arrogant if I can back it up however. What is arrogant is stating that you have experienced plainly audible differences in Ethernet cabling but are simply afraid of what it means for you to have your sighted evaluation variable removed from the listening session.

 

Here is the issue: Outside of power supply pollution on a switch CAT5/6 cabling is incredibly noise resistant. Immune even.

 

Siemons paper on susceptibility of Ethernet to gross error, as related to electric field interference over a 100 meter in total scenario shows no gross error even though they used a transceiver (in addition to a hand drill and microwave oven) in the 3-18v/m range.

 

Their conclusion ""No packet errors were detected for either the ‘generic' or ‘enhanced' category 5 channel configuration regardless of EMI source type, source location, or duration of exposure."

 

Keep in mind the cabling is UTP and not shield twisted pair.

 

Siemons other paper "The antenna myth" provides some other useful information:

 

"Magnetic field coupling occurs at low frequencies (i.e. 50Hz or 60 Hz) where the balance of the cabling system is more than sufficient to ensure immunity, which means that its impact can be ignored for all types of balanced cabling"

 

And

 

" 60 Hz signal results in an electric field disturbance that can only be measured in the thousandths of mV range, while sources operating in the MHz range can generate a fairly large electric field disturbance. For reference, 3V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in a light industrial/ commercial environment and 10V/m is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the average electric field present in an industrial environment."

 

And

 

"This means that screened and fully-shielded cabling theoretically offers 100 to 1,000 times the immunity protection from electric field disturbances than UTP cabling does!"

 

And

 

"Well balanced (i.e. category 6 and above) cables should be immune to electromagnetic interference up to 30 MHz."

 

T.I also has some really fascinating technical papers that I'll get to in another post.

 

I welcome and encourage responses that are backed up with credible sources.

[plissken]

From our About page: 1. Criticism is welcome as long as it's directed at the content of the review, post, or comment. We have a zero tolerance policy for a lack of civility, disrespectful comments, and personal attacks.

 

Also, in most cases (as was the case with Archimago), I send an email to the person prior to any action being taken, describing the issue(s) with their comments.

 

Didn't you start off in this thread calling some one an ass? I would like to hear Johns and Archimago's side of the story.

[plissken]

Indeed it's just that: engineering. NOT high-end audio SQ.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

So you are publicly stating that great SQ isn't engineered? That's your position?

[plissken]

You're almost funny. Again: audible differences many times cannot be measured. This doesn't fit in your cosmos, I know. But it's true. [emoji4]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Says WHO?

 

I've just provided information about the ability for CMNR data cabling to reject gross amounts of noise from 50Hz to 30MHz.

 

Find me one source where it was empirically shown that a group of people heard something, with all the proper controls in place, and the researcher couldn't measure and find out why.