MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

34 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Everyone is subject to bias, it's just that with more resolving systems, you can hear the differences easier.

 

As we both know from Hoffman, "your system's not resolving enough" is the go-to retort to those claiming not to hear a difference that the audiophile elite swear by.  Here, @GUTB has simplified this to, "your system sucks".  Same sentiment.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I have heard a couple of tracks where the MQA did not help so bad tracks definitely exist.  It seems to work best with better recordings that are not overly processed.  But most of what I have heard in MQA has had more clarity and presence.

 

My hope is that I can find some nice tracks where we split the mic feed into 16/44 and 24/176 and see where MQA falls.

 

I predict the result will be that MQA is awesomely awesome.

[Samuel T Cogley]

32 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This shows an antiquated view of corporations.  Their must be some value for the consumer or it won’t sell.  The new world has the consumer having a lot of power.  For this to work well, there has to be good selection and good sound quality at a decent price.

 

That corporations are not predatory?  I assume you have cell phone service?  Ever read your Terms Of Service?  Part of the boiler plate language in almost all U.S. mobile service TOS is a clause that requires the customer to keep paying for service, even if the service is completely down and utterly unusable.  Could a more contemporary view of corporations lead one to conclude that such TOS are good for the customer and the customer is actually king?

 

"The Customer is King" is your well worn mantra.  I'm thinking those customers of LH Labs aren't feeling so regal when they still haven't received the goods they paid for, years later.  And those customers were the so-called "kings" of this piece by you which I suspect you were hoping disappeared from the internet.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Let's see about that. Here's a histogram of the hour in which your posts to date were made:

 

That's a quite a few posts during business hours, although you're quite busy in the evenings as well.

 

It seems that Scoggins is perhaps a little sensitive to the appearance that McKinsey & Co. is compensating him for his M-F daytime posts here.  He's been making an effort lately to avoid posting during east coast U.S. business hours.  But his daytime posting history is out there for anyone to see, including McKinsey.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

I don't really understand why this is relevant. It's an indirect personal attack. What Lee does or doesn't do in his working hours is an issue for him and his employer, and shouldn't be a part of this discussion. Please tell me how it is relevant to the "mqa is vaporware" topic. 

 

Sure

 

Scoggins is not posting here in good faith.  He conspicuously avoids any substantive technical discussion of MQA.  If he's marketing for MQA during normal working hours, one could make the argument that his "day job" employer is literally paying him to post here, regardless of their awareness of his activities.  And that potentially makes his employer a (perhaps unwitting) player in the MQA swindle.

[Samuel T Cogley]

13 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

And busy duking it out on Steve Hoffman's forum...

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/my-new-article-series-on-mqa.723574/page-26

 

Very interesting that Hoffman himself (no doubt receiving a TON of PMs from Scoggins) made a statement that's basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Quote

That's life on a public forum! You were expecting something different?

 

And having spent years reading the forums over there, I can say with confidence that once you've lost Metralla (one of the original forum members from 2002), you're done.  And it sure looks like even he is not impressed with Scoggins' MQA lovefest.

 

Scoggins has gone so far to suggest that cable skeptics are not qualified to evaluate MQA because, well, if they can't hear the increase in sound quality that happens when high end interconnects or power cables are used, they certainly won't hear the awesome benefits of MQA.

 

I really don't think Scoggins was expecting this level of push back on what he considered a "friendly" forum (Hoffman).  And the fact that all those critical posts about MQA are still there and threads are not locked or vanished tells me that Hoffman has decided to let MQA face withering fire.

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 hours ago, Fluffytime said:

Par for the course over on Daddy Hoofmans vanity forum.

 

He's hoping to get another freebie, this time an MQA DAC.

 

Oh how I miss stereocentral.tv!!!

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Fair Hedon said:

MQA is a fantasy, so it is no surprise he relies on magical thinking.

 

He got his buddy Uncle Steve personally involved in his thread...curious....have not seen that before.

 

The culture over there is different.  Rest assured that Scoggins was burying Hoffman in PMs regarding that quasi-sponsored MQA thread.  I'm sure he got Hoffman to give you the boot by suggesting you were making Hoffman's forum look unfriendly to vendors.

 

The reason Hoffman seems to be agnostic about MQA is there's no free gear in it for him.

 

Quote

My marketing manager Bill has these two shipping to me next week for long-term loan. Anyone have them or listened? What do you think? Gus Skinas of www.SuperAudioCenter.com (who's ears I trust) raves about this setup for CD playback (won't play SACDs, ironically). He thinks it is the best he's ever heard..

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

?? Looks more like speculation with, just perhaps, a touch of negative bias. 

 

My #1 CA fan has returned!!! 

 

I missed you Chris!

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Yes, but the PS Audio DAC he has on "long term loan" now does MQA, correct?

 

I have read that, but don't know first hand.  I always thought laying out $10k for the full DirectStream setup was somewhat foolhardy as the State Of The Art moves so quickly.  I've heard the DS and it sounds nice, but I never heard $10k worth of value there.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

Hoffman clearly has no Tidal account, in fact, does not have any file playback system what so ever, by his own admission. He listens only to CDs and SACDs for digital. He does not even know where to start to set a network based high resolution streamer.

 

From what I've heard from people present at his mastering sessions with Stephen Marsh, Hoffman only provides verbal feedback for sound (and over at the now defunct stereocentral.tv, he earned the title: EQ Consultant).  Others twiddle knobs to his specifications.  I've heard Hoffman has something like zero ProTools skills.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Remember I worked on some the the earliest hirez releases at Chesky Records in 1993.

 

And for those who don't remember, I see you helpfully remind them every few weeks.

[Samuel T Cogley]

20 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

It is such a shame the Troll Scoggins still has a venue.

 

I'm thinking two, as he still keeps a toe in the water over here.  I'm beginning to see that the thread over on Daddy's forum was meant originally as a counterbalance to this thread.  I have a good friend who's a dealer of high end gear who has lots of contacts at various manufacturers.  This very thread is a huge source of agita for some of them, and most want to see it gone or at least fall off the front page of the general section.

 

Have you noticed that no gorts have intervened in that thread?  Only Daddy himself.  I've never seen a thread get such a white glove treatment.  I think Hoffman is between a rock and a hard place.  He wants to be seen as friendly to industry, but that thread does no favors for MQA.  It's only Scoggins, though another old timer, "Mal", tried feebly to defend/support Scoggins with a few posts and left.  Everyone else is skeptical of Scoggin's motives and loyalties.  Daddy sticks with his mantra, "MQA, don't care".

 

Veterans of Hoffman forums know Scoggins and his famously specious claims.  Here's just one example of some back and forth from 2011:

 

Quote

I have been experimenting with AIFF and Apple Lossless files on my portable rig. AIFF sounds a bit better on my iPod.

As a result I am ripping CDs in AIFF now.

 

Forum veteran "Vidiot" can't let this go unanswered:

Quote

 

I'm very skeptical about this.

If you want to try to compare the files yourself on your computer, use one of these two free programs:

ABXer for Mac OSX

Foobar2000 for Windows

Each will let you compare one file with another, which is very helpful for determining real differences in an A/B test. The guys on the Hydrogen Audio Forums are adamant that lossless is lossess. A WAV file is identical to Windows Media Lossless, Apple Lossless, FLAC, AIFF, and everything else. My opinion is that any difference you think you hear is imaginary, but I concede that the mind can be fooled under certain conditions. If you're hearing a real difference, something's wrong with the system.

 

 

Scoggins never hesitates to name drop to back up his claims:

 

Quote

I'm not sure why AIFF but I know it does. It may be that the iPod works better with AIFF. Maybe it has to do with the unpacking of the lossless file on the fly.

P.S. Several prominent audiophiles have noticed this as well including John Atkinson, Bob Harley and others.

 

Someone makes a subtle note about the name dropping:

 

Quote

If they weren't prominent, which is a position they achieve by articulating the differences they hear which others do not (and which does not mean they exist), they would be a anomaly in the data set.

 

Scoggins then elevates himself to the level of Atkinson and Harley without even blinking:

 

Quote

Why do you discredit what we are hearing?

What evidence do you have to prove we are wrong to hear the AIFF-ALAC differences?

 

And as you would expect, the thread goes off the rails.  This is just one example.

 

The makeup of active posters on Hoffman has changed over the years as new blood with more vigor has pushed aside the fogies.  But some loyalties endure and Daddy is in no hurry to nix Scoggins' war on the MQA skeptics.

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I honestly don’t know what happened. I dropped off around 9pm last night to watch a movie, then this morning could not find the thread.  I saw some comments from Agitater that people had hurled some personal epithets at me.  I am bummed because they gorts usually just remove the offensive posts and give a public warning.  Now we don’t have access to the articles, etc.

 

Nice try Lee.  There were no epithets that I saw on that thread.  Hoffman likely had it deleted because it reflected poorly on MQA and their surrogates (i.e., you).  When you posted that despicable stuff about Charlie Hansen, you basically made Hoffman look as  despicable as you.  He had no choice.  There's a reason only Hoffman himself (and no gorts) was in that thread scolding your skeptics.

 

Look at the bright side.  Hoffman did you a favor by deleting that post of you proclaiming that "prominent audio leaders" had "lost respect" for Hansen.  It would be fascinating to poll those same "prominent audio leaders" for their opinion of you.  I suspect you might be unpleasantly surprised.

 

Looking forward to the next MQA marketing "article" on PTA.  No doubt it will be as much fun as the last one. 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

25 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

That seems to indicate the claimed “17 bits” contains all of the music.

 

You seem to be acknowledging the effective 17 bit depth of MQA.  Tiny progress it seems.  I'll be very curious to see if this ends up in the next PTA MQA marketing post.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I was banned there because too many threads I participated in they decided to disappear.  I never violated any of their TOS.  Never was personally insulting or vindictive.  I simply expressed personal opinions at odds with what they wanted promoted.  I provided technical reasons for them (which is when they would decide to disappear threads).  

 

Someone there would also filter PM's from other members.  If someone started asking or explaining something to you related to a thread they didn't like, suddenly neither of you got PMs thru to each other anymore.  Really pathetic forum.

 

I don't know about you, but there are many who consider being banned from Hoffman to be a badge of honor. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

+1.

 

Guffman is an ego driven forum, and a venue for Hoofman to shill. He claims he is getting in gear for "review", which he keeps and never returns, and the "review" never appears any where.

 

Here's his "review" of the PS Audio DirectStream with a note at the end:

 

Quote

So, it's going well. Hopefully I can convince PS Audio to let me keep using these in my work. It's quite an upgrade.

 

Like, forever. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

Thanks, Fokus. Well put.

How is this not a personal attack?

 

You sure are fixated on @Fair Hedon Chris.

 

I understand that being the self appointed Civility Police for the forum is hard work, but you seem to be approaching it with a level of gusto that, to me, implies something more personal as your motivation.

 

Consider that your contributions to this thread have only been in the vein of the Civility Police.

[Samuel T Cogley]

FWIW, my attempts to at something like ABX for MQA were not successful.  With all the MQA DACs that I've tested, there is a "tell" with MQA material where the DAC doesn't emit sound until a full second or two into a song.  Sorry if I missed a testing scenario that accounts for this.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Norton said:

 

Members who joined in last few months with 85% +  of posts overtly anti-MQA and in this thread don't equally alert your suspicions...?

 

Personally, I see anti-MQA sentiment as a type of consumer advocacy and pro-MQA sentiment as the opposite.  YMMV, of course.

 

It's far more likely that anti-MQA posters are more concerned about how MQA could limit consumer choices.  They're just individuals for the most part.  While individual, independent pro-MQA posters certainly exist, they make up a tiny portion of the pro-MQA posters on this forum and on the internet in general.  Like Scoggins, there are many Audiophile Social Media Personalities who see industry friendliness as the primary vehicle for notoriety and success.

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

Would that be the kind of consumer  advocate whose interest in computer audio was seemingly not enough to have warranted participation on this particular site until very recently?

 

I'm almost following where you're going.  I think it's human nature to be vigilant against being victimized by entities more powerful than the individual.  And that's where I believe the motivation to post in opposition to MQA ultimately comes from.  Perhaps it's a sign of the times, but for every person who resigns themselves that "The Man" cannot be successfully opposed, there others who simply cannot resist the opportunity to oppose tyranny as they see it.

 

Is MQA a form of tyranny, or is the mere notion that it's tyranny itself hyperbole?  We'll know, eventually.  I think it's too soon to say today.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Abtr said:

 

MQA and non-MQA tracks from the same master should play equally loud at the DAC's output, right? If so, the problem is reduced to finding MQA and non-MQA tracks or albums from the same master..

 

Other than the scant examples on 2L, I've not found instances where a >44.1kHz/16bit version can be compared apples-to-apples with the MQA version.  Comparing Redbook examples (presumably from the same mastering) to MQA is not really a good test, as MQA is claiming to be better than hi-rez and there were likely digital filter(s) applied when the material was downsampled to Redbook.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I wonder how many PMs Chris is getting right now...

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, HalSF said:

So you understand what's going on with MQA on this CD? Please explain it to me because I couldn't be more confused. 

 

I too share your confusion about how MQA can be encoded into a Redbook container (16 bits)  but transparently "unfold" and "render" on MQA-enabled hardware/software.  Based on my limited understanding of how MQA encoding/decoding works, it seems pretty clear that those playing this "CD" undecoded will get substantially less than 16 bits of resolution.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here's the MQA provided image for 16 bit data. It doesn't look pretty.

 

 

Thanks for that Chris.  It still doesn't really clear up what the effective bit depth is decoded and undecoded.