MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

I am not sure why you don't understand why MQA could have been formed to keep Meridian and Stuart afloat.  We will leave it at that.

It could have, but that makes zero business sense to me.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

My positive addition is ridding the "Computer Audiophile" community of the cancer known as MQA.. fake format

marketed on numerous lies. Oh yeh, and it is lossy.

You’re hurting your own message with a post like that. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Fair Hedon said:

that is your opinion. in my view, my message is clear as day, and to the point.

 

audiophiles blather on about being True To The Source.

 

and MQA spits right in the face of that premise.

 

If you truly wanted to see MQA fail, a different tact would get you much further. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

By the way @Fair Hedon I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I just believe you could be more effective going at things a different way. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

Did @The Computer Audiophile get another call from Bob Stuart? He's suddenly pushing back quite hard against MQA critics using the usual guises of faux neutrality and "friendly" advice (to stop saying bad things about MQA).

Absolutely not. I'm not pushing back. I'm trying to pull out information. 

 

If someone says MQA was created to keep Meridian afloat, I want to explore that and get into the details. 

If someone says MQA sucks and you suck, I want to dig deeper to see what's behind that.

If someone says I want to see MQA gone and is being a bit abrasive about it, I want to know more about the facts and the real reasons, not more about what the person thinks of someone personally or his attacks. 

 

If we stick to facts, reasonable speculation, and a collegial tone we all win. 

 

Edit: In a way, being abrasive because people aren't listening to the message is like saying might is right. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Just like MQA claims? Sounds familiar?

 

In practice the HDCD makes you lose one or two of the precious 16 bits of RedBook, standard players will clip the peaks harder due to the way it is encoded and instead of proper dither the LSB is not working the way it should (very important for CD too) causing more loss of precision. As result HDCD is not properly dithered.

 

Sony's SBM which was earlier developments of noise shaped dither for CD use was better approach and didn't need any special playback hardware or "decoding".

 

Excellent reply Miska. Thanks for the information.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’ve never understood the “don’t like it don’t buy it” mentality. It only makes sense if you’re a company who doesn’t want to grow very big, thus leaving other options available. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

So I guess that makes it okay then?  Others do it, so have at it all you MQA shills.

 

You know there is a difference between shilling, and marketing and promoting a product, don’t you?

Wow, this says something about you.  You realize there’s a difference between shilling and marketing, promoting and representing a product, don’t you?  Shilling involves lying, harm and deception.  You’re okay with that?  Is shilling permitted on your site?  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were confusing marketing and promotion with shilling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

 

I would argue that it’s a bad business decision for companies to use shills.  Once it becomes obvious that shills are being used, and it should be obvious at this point in the case of MQA, then the company loses all credibility.  It demonstrates that there’s not much the business has to offer, so it has to rely on lies and deception to sell whatever it is it’s selling.

It sure looks that way.  And now apparently even trying to defend the act of shilling.  

 

Typically, Chris’ activity on the forum is pretty light, but when a new MQA shill appears he suddenly becomes more active and the majority of his responses directed at critics.

 

Give me a break. 

 

You’re viewing this from such a negative angle. What’s wrong with my responses to some critics? Telling one critic that I don’t disagree with his message, just his delivery, is a bad thing?

 

Please present facts that I’ve responded to critics in some pro-MQA fashion when a new MQA shill appears. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, rwdvis said:

The important point you seem to be missing is that some day you might not have that choice.

You may be surprised to learn that people around here are actually pretty smart. I'm willing to bet @synn has considered the point you believe he missed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, labjr said:

What Spencer Chrislu says is nothing but marketing BS. He also states that MQA improves the sound. So why would we need the "crown jewels" if MQA is better?

This also raises the question, why would the labels keep an inferior version of the crown jewels and release something better to the public?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

MIC not mike, there are no Mikes in a recording you arrogant fool.

 

I see it was recorded in 5.1 SURROUND + STEREO produced in DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition 352kHz/24bit) by Lindberg Lyd, Norway

 

SO OF COURSE that is the actual master.

 

Tone it down Brian. We don't call people ignorant fools around here. Perhaps you run your business this way, but I don't.

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

No you just fail to moderate and have your own bad attitude !

 

I let adults be adults. But, when they act like children they get banned. Bye Brian. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I hate banning people and moderating speech of adults, but it has to be done once in a while. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Traildog said:

 

Seriously? The guy comes on here, gets all sorts of needless abuse including being liked to a whore. He calls you out for not moderating and you get upset and ban him? 

 

I'm honestly quite shocked at this thread and find his criticism quite valid in this regard.

He wasn’t banned for his criticism. He was banned for calling people fools and idiots, despite several warnings and friendly attempts to get him to stop the personal attacks. I have one set of rules. If you can’t play by them I have to ban your account

[The Computer Audiophile]

57 minutes ago, Melvin said:

Mr. Lucey's banning is the most disappointing turn of events I've seen on CA in quite some time. Chris obviously has his standards but this dude has serious credentials. Another one gone ...

 

Your disappointment should be directed at him. Many people tried to encourage civil discussions with him, but he refused. 

 

No matter one’s credentials, one can’t treat people like dirt and get away with it. 

 

With respect to credentials, I’m guessing you’re referring to the number of albums he has mastered? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Traildog said:

He was calling the people who were calling him names idiots and fools. I suggest that calling someone a whore is several steps worse than calling someone a fool.

 

But anyway, it's your show and you can do what you like. But I really feel he's been unfairly treated on this thread and I'm surprised he stayed around. 

Please show me the post calling him a whore and I will happily enforce the same standards. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

Here is the post where the term was used.  I will point out I tried in several posts to create a bridge of conversation with BL.  He obviously has zero interest in that.  The whore comment wasn't so much to say he was one.  But to point out if one wanted to to pre-judge someone, there were plenty of ways to pre-judge his activities in negative light.  The very ways he thought gave him credibility.  That he had so many clients we should all quit complaining and listen to the wise Brian Lucey mastering genius extraordinaire. In context of a few posts between he and I it was meant to try one more time to get his attention as being subtle wasn't working.  Reading back over it I think that context wasn't very clear. 

 

If Chris thinks that should result in a ban, then okay. 

 

I'll use the same rules with you as I did Brian. 

 

This is a warning.

 

 

P.S. I always give people warnings and hope to come out with a win-win in the long run. I don't need to tell you about personal attacks and I totally understand your context. With Brian things were much different, but the same rules applied. He received warnings. Hell, I even offered to meet with him next week while I'm in Los Angeles. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, beetlemania said:

 

Yes, I saw the predictable car wreck when people were taking shots at Lucey's livelihood (and derailed the thread) but missed the part where Mr Connaker banned him. Then again, Mr Connaker was among those hucking the molotov cocktails.

 

sigh

 

Im guessing you missed most of his posts and the post where I offered to meet him in Los Angeles because I was sure we got off on the wrong foot. 

 

I dont think we need to rehash his banning, it’s all documented above. Although it was strange that a 50 year old Brian Lucey called me old because of my musical taste that includes many of the albums he touched and the fact that I’m in my early 40s. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

I think I *did* read most of those. My recollection is one or two from *you* criticized his role in the loudness war. For sure, there were several over-the-top flames directed at Lucey that you failed to moderate. In fact, you didn't see any problem whatsoever. Isn't it weird that manufacturers and professionals, who come to share their knowledge, are pilloried and often driven off this these fora? But, hey, it's your blog.

Evidence please. 

 

I didn't criticize his role in the loudness war. Loudness is an artistic decision over which I don't want any control. I prefer more dynamic range, but I much prefer to hear what an artist wants to deliver. 

 

99% of comments directed at BL we not over the top flames. He couldn't handle any talk about loudness unless it fit his narrative. Even when the talk was a simple question. 

 

What you call my failure to moderate also included a warning to esldude that he would be banned if he made another comment like the one that was brought to my attention. I apply the rules evenly to everyone. 

 

Manufacturers and professionals aren't gods to be held on a higher pedestal and given a different set of rules. The truth is that most of them don't participate here because they are busy working a real job. If some of them can't handle criticism, then the internet isn't for them. Nobody gets to come here and act like an angry child insulting people. Those who can't control themselves need to take a hike. 

 

I wish BL could have got over his preconceived notions of audiophiles and had a normal discussion because most of the people in this thread were on his bandwagon and supported his cause. It's hard to believe that he could take an audience who liked him, wanted to learn from him, and supported him, and make them think the opposite. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

28 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

One post questioned whether we could believe anything Lucey said given that his masterings were, in the opinion of the poster, overly compressed.

One post. Big deal. Plus, questioning someone isn’t a bad thing. People in this thread are questioning Bob Stuart and MQA. Are you upset with this?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, beetlemania said:

I 'spose it could just be a coincidence that there is much more professional participation (Curl, Hansen, Khomenko, Karsten, Jim Smith, Rankin, et al.) over on AudioAsylum where the posts are more carefully moderated.

There are many more reasons why "professionals" chose to participate in forums than meets the eye. 

 

Where do you think Bob Stuart would rather talk about MQA, a forum that's heavily moderated where he is viewed with elevated status, or a forum where people like mansr and miska will ask him very technical and challenging questions that he may not want to answer?

[The Computer Audiophile]

57 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

Lucey didn't follow audiophile forum etiquette. Given his background, his posts made a lot of sense and his impatience understandable. How do you curb your arguments for a group of people who think debating MQA merits hundreds of pages despite that no matter what angle you're coming from it's been easily discredited? I mean, from an outside perspective it has to look ridiculous. It's like the People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front bit from Life of Brian. Who in their right mind has patience for that?

There is no audiophile etiquette. Or if there is, count me out. 

 

I have zero understanding for someone using the language he used to attack people. Attack arguments, not people. 

 

I also don't understand why people are holding BL up to be this god of pro audio. He has zero respect for many people, including most people here and even mastering engineers who paved the way for him. When asked about Doug Sax mastering dynamic recordings, all BL said is, "Doug is dead." 

 

All he had to do was respect people and he'd be encouraged to post here. That's really all I ask. 99.99% of people here have no problem with respecting others, even if a little shade is thrown there way. I guess we all handle things differently, but one can make life much harder by using spice rather than sugar. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

The DR lynch mob was over the top

We like to use facts around here. A couple people criticizing BL's work doesn't equal a lynch mob. You miss the vast majority of people around here who just want to learn something without being called an idiot. 

 

Those of you who who keep talking about this undeserved harsh treatment BL received are really dreaming things up in your head. You read into comments way more than I could ever imagine. 

 

When people criticize my work, the last thing I'd ever do is call them names and attack them personally. That's Trump style and BL style. Those who can't handle criticism shouldn't do work that the public consumes. 

 

8 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

the last 12 months has proven being nice gets you nowhere

Factual evidence or you're wrong. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 hours ago, 4est said:

Yes, but it you are cherry picking two of the most knowledgeable posters on this site. There are many others here that just froth at the mouth. IIRC, people were all over him about DR when he repeatedly stated it was not his decision. Sure his answers were rough, but what do you expect him to do- spend hours attempting to defend his livelihood to a bunch of hobbyists while alienating his clientele? I felt for him. I work in the custom home industry, and I'd hate to have to defend myself for the products that I make. Like him, I am just a cog in the wheel controlled by others.

I don't follow this argument. It only takes a person or two to make "experts" uninterested in posting. This is why I said these people aren't interested in posting where they will be questioned. 

 

What do I expect of people? I expect a reasonable amount of respect. 

 

BL simultaneously wanted everyone to believe he was integral to his client's work while at the same time he was only a cog in the wheel who had no decision making power (thus, not responsibility to low DR). You can't have it both ways. My guess is the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

Again, he had a built-in audience of people who wished him well, wanted to support his arguments, and agreed with him. He managed to turn that around pretty quickly. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

No, sorry, if was more than a "couple" of people.

 

Secondly, you might find this amusing, but my quote about not being nice actually pertained to the rise of Trump, not about this board, which could have been prevented if the press and the opposition was not so "nice".

 

Although you could also apply it to the rise of MQA in general. Way too many gave it a pass...just my opinion.

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. But, I could really derail this thread.

 

Niceness has zero to do with this. Who are you more likely to give a break, more likely to talk to, more likely to work with, a nice person or a jerk? 

 

All BL had to do was be reasonably nice. I'll stop here with the BL talk. He cemented his reputation by himself all over here.