MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. 

 

Archimago's and Mansr's position agrees with the facts; Stereophile's position does not.  This makes the theory that Stereophile writers are receiving payment for attacking MQA much more likely than Archoimago or Mansr (or other posters) receiving such payments. Further, it's quite plausible that Bob Stuart would fund a Stereophile project or that some equipment manufacturer would make payments to writers or otherwise would be particularly generous in purchasing ad space from Stereophile.  OTH, it's not plausible that there is anyone making payments to Archimago and/or Mansr or other posters -- who would they be?  

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Isn't PhD synonymous with Unemployed? 😎

 

Not since the emergence of Uber and Lyft. ☺️

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

Anyone have a Doctorate in Ethics?

 

What saint had a doctorate in Ethics?  ☺️

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Another one of those loopholes in regard to authentication is what if an artist heard the result and said, "I don't like what MQA does, no approval from me". 

 

When artists signed away ownership of their masters to the label, or otherwise licensed the masters to the label, the artist's "approval" of a release is implicit.

[lucretius]

16 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m not suggesting direct payments but hey, even I’ve been asked if there was anything that could be done for me. As in, “Is there anything we can do for you?” During a conversation about @Archimago‘s article. 

 

Who was asking?

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, botrytis said:

I have an original copy of a video game (2000), for a company that is still around. The game is still played and still supported by the company. I bought a copy that was not stolen as I bought it at a retail shop, I still cannot use it and they won't support it since it has the license key setup that was smaller than the newer versions of the game. I can't install the game, play it, etc. i basically had to throw it away.

 

It can happen at any time. The company can just cut you off on their whim.

 

I've had a similar experience with an EA video game purchased in the 80's. The good thing is I've never purchased a video game since.

[lucretius]

53 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

This forum is like the original Stereophile ( and TAS ). It is run by people with a love of music. J Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson wanted to share their love of music and the equipment that produced it.  They were perhaps not the best businessmen.

Then came Archibald and Atkinson.  They turned Stereophile into a successful and influential business.  The key word is business.  The decisions made at Stereophile are business decisions.

 

Does the magazine still exist?  I went to their website and clicked on Subscribe>Print Magazine and Subscribe>Digital Magazine and I get Server Not Found.

[lucretius]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We've heard, among other things:

MQA is the best thing that's ever happened to digital

There may be some drawbacks

It sounds fantastic

It unfolds to a trillion gigahertz (joking)

etc, etc, etc...

 

And who could forget these unforgettable ditties from Stereophile:

1. "So much more emotionally compelling, and so much more nuance."

2. "The pacing and accents are more palpable."

3. "... the increased clarity of the spatial relationships between the players and the surrounding hall ambience."

4. "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."

5. "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".

6. "I heard the winds in the back of the orchestra as I've never heard them before."

7. "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."

 

[lucretius]

8 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

The subs page seems to be working: https://sph.pcdfusion.com/pcd/Order?iKey=I**A03

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Still not working for me. 😒

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

Were all these made by JVS when comparing an MQA track to the equivalent PCM?

 

If so, then they all rest on the technical assertions (all false) of MQA.

 

All the quotes come from here:

 

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

 

Quotes belong to Peter McGrath, Jason Victor Serinus, and John Atkinson. I don't remember if any of the quotes came from Michael Fremer, who was also at the same event.

 

 

 

Try to convince me that Bob Stuart never raised the question:

“Is there anything we can do for you?”

 

Also, 4 writers/editors at the same show. Didn't strike me that Stereophile had that much money to burn. All expenses paid?

 

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

I get an order form. Maybe Stereophile is banned by your ISP. To protect the children, of course.

 

After sever hours, finally the link is working for me. Very strange.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Consumer Reports takes no advertising, but it's much more of a general interest publication that has a subscription and donor base an audio magazine couldn't hope to duplicate.

That's true.  But Stereophile might greatly increase their subscription base, if they stopped targeting the 1%.

[lucretius]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

This article on Audioholics about some Dolby shenanigans has relevance for any closed format, including MQA:

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-widthdraws-from-restricting-non-native-upmixing-a-win-for-consumers

 

So whose going to bring MQA to the attention of the European Commission?

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Yes, a magazine like Stereophile reviews a lot of products that its typical reader will not be able to afford. See my essay at

https://www.stereophile.com/content/conspicuous-consumption

in which I both offer an answer to the question "Why does a magazine read by regular middle-class people devote space to products that might as well be made from unobtainium?" and examine why the high-end audio industry is undergoing an upward price spiral.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

Thanks for the article.  The article states that "many people who will never be able to buy these products still want to read about them."  That seems to be the conventional wisdom. However, It's definitely not true for me.  I'm wondering if there are any studies to support it.  As far as car mags go, I may read the car mags that deal with the same stuff I'll deal with in real life -- seems to me only young kids stare at unobtanium.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

2.      How about Mark Waldrep or John Siau?

 

They easily get my vote!

[lucretius]

delete

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Any technology or product worth its salt will only get stronger once subjected to objective critical examination. 

 

The people who who love MQA should be demanding the old guard put it through its paces. 

 

What say you @ARQuint?

 

It may be a moot point.  By the time the "old guard" gets on this, MQA will be long dead.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As explained in the essay of mine that I linked to, it is what readers, who vote with the wallets, want.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Perhaps the readers subcribe to the mag in spite of the unobtainium reviews (i.e. for the other material in the mag)? Have you asked them?

[lucretius]

3 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

They vote with their wallets? 

 

Yes.  But as JA says, there's other material (relating to obtainable items) in the mag. So maybe that's what they're "voting" for? It's not like there's a cornacopia of mags to choose from.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

The testing equipment I have access to is very expensive. A QuantAsylum QA401 is $450.

 

Where's the sarcasm font?

 

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I'm giving reviewers until next year to get one or I'm viewing them as third class citizens in the audio world.

 

Surely, Stereophile can afford one of those.

 

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Anyone thinking about spending more than $30k should probably get one too.

 

Not a bad idea.

[lucretius]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The fact that the old guard won't agree 2+2=4 if they don't know who said it, is comical.

 

One wonders what number field/rational domain the old guard is employing.

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, Archimago said:

However, for us in the audiophile world, I'd like to think that we've been in the era of "fake news" and BS claims for way too long already...

 

You know, it's becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between Bob Stuart and other BS. Maybe it's a case of BS by any other name ...

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

HiFi mirrors the real world in this way.

 

HiFi needs more high-fidelity assessment.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

Catholic means universal   So, you are saying it is universal, universal? Jes asking.....

 

I feel a Doublemint gum commercial coming on ...

 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

There is tons of low priced near state of the art equipment on the market: Topping, Emotiva, TEAC, Audioengine and many others.

 

You really think Audioengine is "near state of the art"?