MQA is Vaporware

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

It's like saying "Beetlejuice".

 

Say the name and a Principal Director of (employer removed - editor) appears!

 

Mentioning the employer is going way over the line.  This is the third time this has happened.  I am considering leaving the forum.

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Mentioning the employer is going way over the line.  This is the third time this has happened.  I am considering leaving the forum.

 

You were actually never part of it anyways.  Industry sycophants and insiders are only here to sell things and insider wants/needs, not actually take part in the process which helps consumers reach their high Fidelity goals. Your participation here is in fact anti-consumer.  This is not a disrespectful observation, it's just true.

[psjug]

57 minutes ago, mansr said:

All MQA files I've examined, including MQA-CD, have had 14 or 15 bits above the MQA data stream.

That's interesting.  How is it that the remaining one or two bits are able to give any kind of decent representation of the ultrasonics?

[KeenObserver]

57 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Mentioning the employer is going way over the line.  This is the third time this has happened.  I am considering leaving the forum.

 

With regards to a previous post, I have no direct financial connection to MQA, Meridian, Bob Stuart, or any of the principals of MQA or their subsidiary businesses.  The only financial connection I have with MQA is the additional cost I would have to pay for anything that had to pay royalties to MQA.  My primary concern with MQA is the damage done to music.

 

You have stated previously that your only connection to MQA is your love for music, which is truly noble.  I salute you!

 

With regards to the previous quote, I never mentioned any name.

[FredericV]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Mentioning the employer is going way over the line.  This is the third time this has happened.  I am considering leaving the forum.

Please do!

You endorse MQA & listen to crypto DRM'ed files with an artificial higher noise floor which are never better than 17/96, then use grounding devices as you believe it lowers the noise floor. Hahahaha

 

1 minute ago, KeenObserver said:

You have stated previously that your only connection to MQA is your love for music, which is truly noble.  I salute you!

 

With regards to the previous quote, I never mentioned any name.

 

 

Same excuse as Peter Veth who was banned and came back via fake accounts. Admitted in the secret MQA group he was using fake accounts.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, FredericV said:

Please do!

You endorse MQA & listen to crypto DRM'ed files with an artificial higher noise floor which are never better than 17/96, then use grounding devices as you believe it lowers the noise floor. Hahahaha

 

You really can't make this stuff up can you 😂

[FredericV]

30 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

You really can't make this stuff up can you 😂

He is a joke:

 

No quack devices are going to replace real acoustic treatments.

 

Does not understand physics either, and thinks this arc distance can do 1 million volts:
 

 

[MikeyFresh]

38 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Please do!

 

+1

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, psjug said:

That's interesting.  How is it that the remaining one or two bits are able to give any kind of decent representation of the ultrasonics?

They are not. Let's look at a sample someone sent me in both standard Redbook CD and MQA-CD format.

 

First the standard CD showing a fairly typical spectrum:

Next the MQA-CD without decoding:

 

Two things stand out here:

1. A rising level towards the top end of the spectrum.
2. A spike in the 15.3 kHz vicinity that isn't present on the real CD.

 

Finally, the decoded MQA-CD:

 

The spike at 15 kHz is now gone, and two new ones have appeared. Checking more carefully, we find that the undecoded spike is at 15.28 kHz, while the new ones are at 28.82 kHz and 37.33 kHz. Notice that 15.28 kHz and 22.82 kHz are at equal distance to either side of 22.05 kHz. Similarly, 28.82 kHz and 37.33 kHz are equidistant from 33.075 kHz, the halfway point between 22.05 kHz and 44.1 kHz.

 

The rest of the high half of the decoded spectrum, in addition to the spikes, also exhibits a conspicuous symmetry, aside from a downward slant, around the 33.075 kHz point.

 

From this we can learn a few things:

• The upper quarter of the decoded spectrum is entirely fake, based on a mirroring of the quarter below it.
• There is nothing resembling actual musical content above about 25 kHz.
• The PCM portion of the undecoded file is contaminated with content aliased from higher frequencies.

Unfortunately, I don't have a genuine high-res version of this track, so I can't tell how close the MQA version actually gets.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Lee Scoggins, you think we need more of this (see above)?

[ARQuint]

17 hours ago, crenca said:

 

You were actually never part of it anyways.  Industry sycophants and insiders are only here to sell things and insider wants/needs, not actually take part in the process which helps consumers reach their high Fidelity goals. Your participation here is in fact anti-consumer.  This is not a disrespectful observation, it's just true.

 

A leading elected official tweeted this:

 

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews and many more) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people. SICK!”

 

There's an uncomfortable resonance between the elected official's comment about the free press and crenca's many declarations about the qualifications and/or motivations of any audio writer with anything the least bit positive to say about MQA. (Regular audiophiles who haven't joined the torch-carriers are merely dumb, inexperienced, or "gullible".) Those, like crenca, who dismiss the range of opinion about how MQA-processed music actually sounds are strangely removed from the essence of perfectionist audio. Plenty of thinking audiophiles—even those with doubts about the technology—recognize this as the intolerant and hate-fueled flailing of a vigilante minority that it is, and tune out. As CC has pointed out, that's what the IGNORE button's there for. 

 

But before I push it, I want to register the opinion that Chris should continue his efforts to, as much as possible, prevent small corners of Audiophile Style from devolving into platforms for increasingly angry men who have forgotten that this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance—and who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[mansr]

crenca for president!

[SilvesterH]

28 minutes ago, mansr said:

crenca for president!

+1

[Jud]

19 hours ago, crenca said:

 

You were actually never part of it anyways.  Industry sycophants and insiders are only here to sell things and insider wants/needs, not actually take part in the process which helps consumers reach their high Fidelity goals. Your participation here is in fact anti-consumer.  This is not a disrespectful observation, it's just true.

 

Doesn’t change the fact that getting into personal info on this forum is a creepy thing that shouldn’t be done or encouraged without the advance consent of the individual involved.

 

 I say that entirely apart from any thoughts about MQA, which as I’ve often said here, I don’t like the sound of insofar as I can tell a difference, and I certainly don’t like the prospect of proprietary lower resolution recordings crowding out hi res or RedBook.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Those, like crenca, who dismiss the range of opinion about how MQA-processed music actually sounds are strangely removed from the essence of perfectionist audio. Plenty of thinking audiophiles—even those with doubts about the technology—recognize this as the intolerant and hate-fueled flailing of a vigilante minority that it is, and tune out. 

 

Hi @ARQuint -

 

I think you are, however, being somewhat dismissive in turn. What information are you using to say that within the range of opinion about how MQA sounds, those who don’t favor it are a minority fueled by hate?

 

 I like to think of myself as someone who enjoys the sound of music reproduced as accurately as possible, and to the extent I have been able to tell a difference when the same master is used, I have liked MQA less.  Though I generally wouldn’t want any proprietary format taking over the market, (1) at the time I was comparing MQA to RedBook, it was before they’d signed deals with anyone other than Tidal, so the possibility of a market takeover didn’t seem to me to be probable anyway, and (2) even if a format was proprietary, if it was plainly superior to my ears, then I’d be intrigued and would have no problem saying so.

 

Thus I think caricaturing the numbers and motivations of those who don’t favor MQA is as fraught, difficult, and likely to be wrong as caricaturing the numbers and motivations of those who do.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

A leading elected official tweeted this:

 

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews and many more) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people. SICK!”

 

There's an uncomfortable resonance between the elected official's comment about the free press and crenca's many declarations about the qualifications and/or motivations of any audio writer with anything the least bit positive to say about MQA. (Regular audiophiles who haven't joined the torch-carriers are merely dumb, inexperienced, or "gullible".) Those, like crenca, who dismiss the range of opinion about how MQA-processed music actually sounds are strangely removed from the essence of perfectionist audio. Plenty of thinking audiophiles—even those with doubts about the technology—recognize this as the intolerant and hate-fueled flailing of a vigilante minority that it is, and tune out. As CC has pointed out, that's what the IGNORE button's there for. 

 

But before I push it, I want to register the opinion that Chris should continue his efforts to, as much as possible, prevent small corners of Audiophile Style from devolving into platforms for increasingly angry men who have forgotten that this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance—and who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

I partially agree with you Andrew. But ’m not a big fan of MQA,  and not because of hate. I was an early adopter - out of curiosity- and even bought and MQA DAC. After extensive listening, I’m “meh” about the sound - I mostly don’t hear any advantage to it so I don’t see the point. Add in the proprietary aspects and the clear goal to control what file formats we have access to, and that pushes me to the “anti” side.

I’m fine if you or anyone else enjoys the sound of it - that’s personal taste. What bugs me though, are some consumers and many professionals - some of them at your magazine - who write about it as if it is clearly a major audio advance and has no possible downsides for consumers. Some of the people at your magazine are also ignorant about it’s technical aspects, and repeatedly regurgitate false marketing speak put out by MQA themselves that obfuscate what it is and how it does it.

 

That uninformed and fanboy approach is part of the reason for the “hate” you refer to. Many of us feel the audiophile press is trying to foist an unneeded format upon us through false or at least dubious claims. 

My 2 big questions:

1. We now have Qobuz and some other sites successfully streaming hires-so why is there any technical/streaming need for MQA for consumers (the fact that labels like it doesn’t interest me-they are anti -consumer and always have been).

2. If MQA is so obviously great sounding - as some of your colleagues seem to think - then how come many of us don’t hear it? If it was so great, virtually everyone would agree it sounds better. Even the only real attempt to properly test and evaluate it concluded that listeners didn’t find it superior.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

A leading elected official tweeted this:

 

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews and many more) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people. SICK!”

 

There's an uncomfortable resonance between the elected official's comment about the free press and crenca's many declarations about the qualifications and/or motivations of any audio writer with anything the least bit positive to say about MQA. (Regular audiophiles who haven't joined the torch-carriers are merely dumb, inexperienced, or "gullible".) Those, like crenca, who dismiss the range of opinion about how MQA-processed music actually sounds are strangely removed from the essence of perfectionist audio. Plenty of thinking audiophiles—even those with doubts about the technology—recognize this as the intolerant and hate-fueled flailing of a vigilante minority that it is, and tune out. As CC has pointed out, that's what the IGNORE button's there for. 

 

But before I push it, I want to register the opinion that Chris should continue his efforts to, as much as possible, prevent small corners of Audiophile Style from devolving into platforms for increasingly angry men who have forgotten that this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance—and who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

Hi Andrew - Your comments are much more about shooting the messenger @crenca than telling anyone about the benefits of MQA. If he focussed on things other than how "music actually sounds" that doesn't matter to me in the least. Many others here focus on how it sounds. Combine the two and we have a pretty broad view of MQA. 

 

Your last paragraph is quite Presidential. You are turning things 180 degrees the wrong way. The only reason people around here bring up all the negative aspects of MQA is because, to use your words, "this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance." MQA for may people is the antithesis of perfectionist audio. This is evidenced by so many overwhelming points. We went from your magazine pushing straight wire with gain to audio origami. You guys have a lot to lose, so it doesn't surprise me that there's no mea culpa but rather a doubling down on the original message like we see in politics today. You guys have been duped. It happens to everyone and it isn't a crime. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

 

I was thinking the other day about what Mike Jbara said during my RMAF presentation when he claimed that MQA was going to help artists get paid and that it was needed or people would turn to other careers. Think about that. Who is MQA really for? It's for the record labels. In addition, telling consumers that artists will be better compensated because of MQA is such a joke. Sure, public companies are going to take any "extra" profits and give them to artists when they have never done that in their history. Plus, I'm not sure many consumers want to fill in the monetary gap created by record labels. In other words, record labels pay artists next to nothing, so consumers should make up for that by buying into a proprietary format rather than just have labels pay artists what they should. Again, MQA isn't for consumers. Please try to get ahold of the materials MQA uses to sell its products to the labels. Anti consumer doesn't even begin to touch on it. 

 

Your last statement about "...who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community" is also turning things 180 degrees. I'm sure you realize that HiFi has been dying for decades. Stratospheric prices, many more competing interests for peoples' time and money, and a touch of snake oil all contribute. So, when a newcomer is fed pages of BS about MQA being the second coming of digital, then purchases an MQA DAC to hear this second coming. What do you think happens when it sounds worse or he can't tell the difference? That's a much bigger turn off and much larger factor in turning people away from this hobby. 

 

Read all the mainstream tech press. What do they say about lossless audio? That only audiophiles can tell the difference if listening on a good system.Talk about high resolution and those publications with tens of millions of readers per month start to chuckle. Now add in MQA and it's a soup sandwich. We have a large tech audience here on AS from Silicon Valley and elsewhere. When they read both sides of MQA they find it refreshing. They don't need to be protected by anyone saying, stop the negative MQA bashing because it will turn people away. Real information keeps people coming back. Sure, giving people a dream and increasing their hopes of a second coming of digital also draws people in but in the long run it turns people away more than anything. 

 

I find that people like to read all sides of the story. This includes those at the far ends of the continuum because it helps put the whole story together. 

 

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

53 minutes ago, firedog said:

After extensive listening, I’m “meh” about the sound - I mostly don’t hear any advantage to it so I don’t see the point. Add in the proprietary aspects and the clear goal to control what file formats we have access to, and that pushes me to the “anti” side.

I’m fine if you or anyone else enjoys the sound of it - that’s personal taste. What bugs me though, are some consumers and many professionals - some of them at your magazine - who write about it as if it is clearly a major audio advance and has no possible downsides for consumers. Some of the people at your magazine are also ignorant about it’s technical aspects, and repeatedly regurgitate false marketing speak put out by MQA themselves that obfuscate what it is and how it does it.

 

That uninformed and fanboy approach is part of the reason for the “hate” you refer to. Many of us feel the audiophile press is trying to foist an unneeded format upon us through false or at least dubious claims. 

 

The above is sensible, and mirrors my own personal feelings and stance on MQA. Funny how the MQA cadre won't actually respond directly to any of the above in a substantive manner, ever.

 

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Andrew - Your comments are much more about shooting the messenger @crenca than telling anyone about the benefits of MQA. If he focussed on things other than how "music actually sounds" that doesn't matter to me in the least. Many others here focus on how it sounds. Combine the two and we have a pretty broad view of MQA. 

 

Your last paragraph is quite Presidential. You are turning things 180 degrees the wrong way. The only reason people around here bring up all the negative aspects of MQA is because, to use your words, "this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance." MQA for may people is the antithesis of perfectionist audio. This is evidenced by so many overwhelming points. We went from your magazine pushing straight wire with gain to audio origami. You guys have a lot to lose, so it doesn't surprise me that there's no mea culpa but rather a doubling down on the original message like we see in politics today. You guys have been duped. It happens to everyone and it isn't a crime. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

 

I was thinking the other day about what Mike Jbara said during my RMAF presentation when he claimed that MQA was going to help artists get paid and that it was needed or people would turn to other careers. Think about that. Who is MQA really for? It's for the record labels. In addition, telling consumers that artists will be better compensated because of MQA is such a joke. Sure, public companies are going to take any "extra" profits and give them to artists when they have never done that in their history. Plus, I'm not sure many consumers want to fill in the monetary gap created by record labels. In other words, record labels pay artists next to nothing, so consumers should make up for that by buying into a proprietary format rather than just have labels pay artists what they should. Again, MQA isn't for consumers. Please try to get ahold of the materials MQA uses to sell its products to the labels. Anti consumer doesn't even begin to touch on it. 

 

Your last statement about "...who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community" is also turning things 180 degrees. I'm sure you realize that HiFi has been dying for decades. Stratospheric prices, many more competing interests for peoples' time and money, and a touch of snake oil all contribute. So, when a newcomer is fed pages of BS about MQA being the second coming of digital, then purchases an MQA DAC to hear this second coming. What do you think happens when it sounds worse or he can't tell the difference? That's a much bigger turn off and much larger factor in turning people away from this hobby. 

 

Read all the mainstream tech press. What do they say about lossless audio? That only audiophiles can tell the difference if listening on a good system.Talk about high resolution and those publications with tens of millions of readers per month start to chuckle. Now add in MQA and it's a soup sandwich. We have a large tech audience here on AS from Silicon Valley and elsewhere. When they read both sides of MQA they find it refreshing. They don't need to be protected by anyone saying, stop the negative MQA bashing because it will turn people away. Real information keeps people coming back. Sure, giving people a dream and increasing their hopes of a second coming of digital also draws people in but in the long run it turns people away more than anything. 

 

I find that people like to read all sides of the story. This includes those at the far ends of the continuum because it helps put the whole story together. 

 

Very well said Chris.

 

Shall we take bets on whether or not AR responds in any kind of substantive way?

[Jud]

22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

So MQA CD 8-15 may be correct. Ahhhhh.

 

Could simply say MQA lo res. Accurate, short, plain.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

A leading elected official tweeted this:

 

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews and many more) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people. SICK!”

 

There's an uncomfortable resonance between the elected official's comment about the free press and crenca's many declarations about the qualifications and/or motivations of any audio writer with anything the least bit positive to say about MQA. (Regular audiophiles who haven't joined the torch-carriers are merely dumb, inexperienced, or "gullible".) Those, like crenca, who dismiss the range of opinion about how MQA-processed music actually sounds are strangely removed from the essence of perfectionist audio. Plenty of thinking audiophiles—even those with doubts about the technology—recognize this as the intolerant and hate-fueled flailing of a vigilante minority that it is, and tune out. As CC has pointed out, that's what the IGNORE button's there for. 

 

But before I push it, I want to register the opinion that Chris should continue his efforts to, as much as possible, prevent small corners of Audiophile Style from devolving into platforms for increasingly angry men who have forgotten that this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance—and who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

Andy audiophiles actually like people questioning the motivations and qualifications of audio journalists. I get a lot of positive feedback.   

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

38 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Could simply say MQA lo res. Accurate, short, plain.

 

MQA is Low Res. I can work with that thanks. Back to the joys of Section 199A.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Andrew - Your comments are much more about shooting the messenger @crenca than telling anyone about the benefits of MQA. If he focussed on things other than how "music actually sounds" that doesn't matter to me in the least. Many others here focus on how it sounds. Combine the two and we have a pretty broad view of MQA. 

 

Your last paragraph is quite Presidential. You are turning things 180 degrees the wrong way. The only reason people around here bring up all the negative aspects of MQA is because, to use your words, "this hobby is about maximizing musical enjoyment outside the context of live performance." MQA for may people is the antithesis of perfectionist audio. This is evidenced by so many overwhelming points. We went from your magazine pushing straight wire with gain to audio origami. You guys have a lot to lose, so it doesn't surprise me that there's no mea culpa but rather a doubling down on the original message like we see in politics today. You guys have been duped. It happens to everyone and it isn't a crime. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

 

I was thinking the other day about what Mike Jbara said during my RMAF presentation when he claimed that MQA was going to help artists get paid and that it was needed or people would turn to other careers. Think about that. Who is MQA really for? It's for the record labels. In addition, telling consumers that artists will be better compensated because of MQA is such a joke. Sure, public companies are going to take any "extra" profits and give them to artists when they have never done that in their history. Plus, I'm not sure many consumers want to fill in the monetary gap created by record labels. In other words, record labels pay artists next to nothing, so consumers should make up for that by buying into a proprietary format rather than just have labels pay artists what they should. Again, MQA isn't for consumers. Please try to get ahold of the materials MQA uses to sell its products to the labels. Anti consumer doesn't even begin to touch on it. 

 

Your last statement about "...who could drive people away from this 98% generous and welcoming community" is also turning things 180 degrees. I'm sure you realize that HiFi has been dying for decades. Stratospheric prices, many more competing interests for peoples' time and money, and a touch of snake oil all contribute. So, when a newcomer is fed pages of BS about MQA being the second coming of digital, then purchases an MQA DAC to hear this second coming. What do you think happens when it sounds worse or he can't tell the difference? That's a much bigger turn off and much larger factor in turning people away from this hobby. 

 

Read all the mainstream tech press. What do they say about lossless audio? That only audiophiles can tell the difference if listening on a good system.Talk about high resolution and those publications with tens of millions of readers per month start to chuckle. Now add in MQA and it's a soup sandwich. We have a large tech audience here on AS from Silicon Valley and elsewhere. When they read both sides of MQA they find it refreshing. They don't need to be protected by anyone saying, stop the negative MQA bashing because it will turn people away. Real information keeps people coming back. Sure, giving people a dream and increasing their hopes of a second coming of digital also draws people in but in the long run it turns people away more than anything. 

 

I find that people like to read all sides of the story. This includes those at the far ends of the continuum because it helps put the whole story together. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good points, and valid questions, Jud, firedog, and Chris. Myself, I lived with an MQA-capable player (an Aurender) for a couple of months and concluded that I heard a minimal improvement with full decoding. Nothing to make me want to rush out and acquire the technology. My understanding of the McGill study, where blinded listeners judged the "clarity" of MQA-processed vs. unprocessed files, was that the subjects couldn't tell a difference, which probably isn't inconsistent with my experience.

 

Currently, as I listen to a lot of classical, I stream mostly primephonic (no MQA content) with some Tidal for other genres (no MQA decoder at my end)—and I don't feel I'm missing anything. But I'm as skeptical of those who are certain that MQA degrades Redbook sound as I am of those who maintain it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

So, you're right, I do find crenca to be an off-putting "messenger" for one extreme position regarding a subject that should generate a respectful dialogue among sound-conscious music-lovers. Why must every appearance of Lee Scoggins occasion insults and unsupported accusations regarding his motives, and even efforts to embarrass him at his work? Isn't it conceivable that the guy just likes the way MQA sounds? And, to read this forum, you'd think Stereophile and TAS are plugging MQA at every turn, when it actually comes up only episodically. Crenca, I sense hates the magazines on general principles—every equipment review, every music review, every interview, every opinion piece is contemptable. He should note that Audiophile Style has a lot more in common with TAS than with some agitprop blog.

 

We are on the same team. Don't call me a shill and I won't push the button….

 

Andrew Quint

 

[crenca]

18 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Funny how the MQA cadre won't actually respond directly to any of the above in a substantive manner, ever....Shall we take bets on whether or not AR responds in any kind of substantive way?

 

He can't.  He and most other audiophile press writers have various backgrounds in non-technical areas (or technical areas unrelated to digital, software, audio, intellectual property, etc.).  They are hired for their prose, not their ability to understand and evaluate something like MQA, or even an electrical circuit, or a data network, or....  Even their prose is used only in one direction - they are never critical of anything.  

 

On top of this, those with some technical background/ability such as John Atkinson were too easily duped and have spent the last few years trying to save face by emphasizing what are in fact the most dubious aspects of MQA, such as "ringing/impulse response", "end-to-end", and the like because these aspects offer a grey area in which they can try to recover a bit of dignity - remember their whole livelihood depends on the majority of their readers believing they are technical authorities.  MQA has taken the mask off their perceived authority like nothing has, at least in a long time.

 

So all ARQuint has to offer is a sophomoric political evaluation, and that is all he has offered since his "The Politics of MQA" article in TAS and probably before.  His take is unconvincing even taken on its own, not that it really is the right way to be thinking about MQA, consumer audio (or consumer anything) at all.

 

The good that comes from him posting here is that all get to see an aspect of audiophile "press" that is usually somewhat hidden - it is a good old boys club that is exists for and serves its own.  This forum (and consumers in general) are a kind of necessary evil for them.  They really do think they will be able to convince us to fall in line with MQA (and all their other desires) with pious sounding talk of "community".   The more they talk, the better 😉

 

 

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Good points, and valid questions, Jud, firedog, and Chris. Myself, I lived with an MQA-capable player (an Aurender) for a couple of months and concluded that I heard a minimal improvement with full decoding. Nothing to make me want to rush out and acquire the technology. My understanding of the McGill study, where blinded listeners judged the "clarity" of MQA-processed vs. unprocessed files, was that the subjects couldn't tell a difference, which probably isn't inconsistent with my experience.

 

 

 

Currently, as I listen to a lot of classical, I stream mostly primephonic (no MQA content) with some Tidal for other genres (no MQA decoder at my end)—and I don't feel I'm missing anything. But I'm as skeptical of those who are certain that MQA degrades Redbook sound as I am of those who maintain it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

 

 

So, you're right, I do find crenca to be an off-putting "messenger" for one extreme position regarding a subject that should generate a respectful dialogue among sound-conscious music-lovers. Why must every appearance of Lee Scoggins occasion insults and unsupported accusations regarding his motives, and even efforts to embarrass him at his work? Isn't it conceivable that the guy just likes the way MQA sounds? And, to read this forum, you'd think Stereophile and TAS are plugging MQA at every turn, when it actually comes up only episodically. Crenca, I sense hates the magazines on general principles—every equipment review, every music review, every interview, every opinion piece is contemptable. He should note that Audiophile Style has a lot more in common with TAS than with some agitprop blog.

 

 

 

We are on the same team. Don't call me a shill and I won't push the button….

 

 

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

 

Nope, we are not on the same team.  You work in sales.  "Community" and such things is but a means to an $end$ for you.

 

I work in the truth and reality department.  For example, it is true that Stereophile, TAS, and most of the rest of the "audiophile press" plug MQA "at every turn" and have done so for at least 3 years now - your spin is just that, spin.

 

The really good thing about my job is that I have reality - the Real - behind me.  Neat thing about reality is that it is like gravity - always present and irresistible.  You can flap your arms and resist gravity only so long.  Eventually, sooner or later, reality wins.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

I work in the truth and reality department. 

 

Whaddaya think about climate change?