MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I have talked to several. Some do not want to go on the record. Others have signed noncompete agreements. Have you noticed that even on this forum most experts use pseudonyms? Doesn't make it impossible however, an it's a reasonable suggestion. 

 

Fine--good. Thanks for listening with your ears. 

Pseudonyms are used to protect privacy. Crazy people show up at places of business and call employers of people who’ve used real names. 

 

Pseudonyms are irrelevant when it comes to math. 2+2=4 for Jim Austin and BigBird. 

 

Mansr has frequently given his full name here on CA. Plus, I’m sure Bob has told you he has all the information about the MQA detractors (except archimago). Just ask Bob for some names and contact info b

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Do you think you can make a convincing case that this is true? It's a pretty serious accusation. Since some of this work has been published in scientific journals--I mean Bob Stuart's--you're accusing him of scientific misconduct, among other things. I'll point out again that his work has earned him distinction as a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society. You are welcome to your opinion, but even without such distinction, there should be a high bar for that, IMO. 

The same AES who published Mayer & Moran and refused to publish articles showing the holes in the “research.”

 

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

OK, I stand corrected. I don't know who you are, but you're clearly knowledgeable. I would not presume to label you as some sort of charlatan. 

Here’s a video of Mans from 2012. The internet is full of more. 

 

P.S. You should read the threads on CA where he schools Gordon Rankin about how Arm chips work. Good stuff. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Jim Austin said:

 

This is what, when pugs box? 

 

This is why I use the "circle jerk" metaphor a couple of days ago. You have a nice little insular community here, in which you reliably reinforce each other's opinions. Feels good, doesn't it? 

You lack even a little understanding of this community. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

No one here understands the mathematics from the papers I presented earlier; I'd bet serious money on that. But you're profoundly wrong about "FT and the sampling theorem." You only betray your own ignorance. (Ban me Chris, go ahead.)

 

 

I will happily put $10,000 on people (plural)  here at CA understanding the mathematics. 

 

You’re sparring with people who send rockets to the ISS. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

Ban me Chris, go ahead.

Reminds me of the cowards who provoke suicide by cop.

 

I don’t believe you’re a coward and suicide isn’t something to joke about. I was just reminded of the practice after reading your comment. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

That comparison is ... psychotic. 

 

It wasn’t a comparison. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Here are a few of Dale's comments from that MQA article on Stereophile, that have since been deleted:

 

"You're a complete idiot. I'm independently wealthy and don't

sell anything ever. Everything on my website is free as well."

 

"You people are seriously obsessed with me, which apparently makes me a huge

political figure like John Kennedy or Dr. King. Speaking of jealousy."

 

Stereophile is very tolerant of Dale.

That amazing. Not that Stereophile is so tolerant, but Dale's comments. Wow. 

 

Someday he may wish to take advantage of the EU's right to be forgotten :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Bringing this back on topic, did His Daleness have any opinion on MQA?

He may have invented it before Bob.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

That contrasts significantly to CA's "Vaporware" thread where any visitor (or member) perceived as being even remotely pro-MQA can count on hearing from the same ten guys who will attempt to bully him into departing, or provoke a comment that gets him banished.

Give me a break. You're sounding like the old guard making comments about what it thinks happens, even though it has no clue about the reality.

 

Provoking someone into leaving a comment that gets them banned. Ha. Talk about not taking responsibility and blaming others for one's lack of self control. 

 

I challenge you to find another audio site (more lenient than CA) that lets adults be adults and refuses to ban people for all but the most egregious violations.

 

Take a look at the posts for people who've been banned. There all available here on the site and in this thread. If there is a single person who doesn't deserved to be banned for flagrant violations, I'll eat my shorts. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

50 minutes ago, ddetaey said:

A last suggestion to Chris, as you have now the forum and the marketplace, why do you not offer a centralized support forum to the manufacturers and help them on their way to communicate effectively with their 'digital' customers.

 

Hi Dirk - This is something I've been talking to manufacturers about for a couple years. A couple big players have been close to jumping in with a support forum, but they decided against it at the last minute. I believe there is a ton of hesitation because of the unknown and the fact that this is a different world.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Confused said:

Well done MQA.  It’s not that unique though.  The BBC have been doing something similar for a while:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/pilots/radio-3-concert-sound

 

I have tried this and can confirm that it works perfectly and sounds good.  Ok, the BBC’s version was “only” 16 / 48 versus MQA’s (claimed) 24bit, but I can confirm the sound quality from the BBC’s efforts were subjectively excellent.  Plus, no special DAC / streamer / encoder required.  The BBC’s efforts were basically a proof of concept and a beta trial.  24bit would be possible.

 

Standard FLAC compression would probably be just fine. I wonder how much content was captured up to 96 kHz that required the 192 sample rate for the MQA event.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, rwdvis said:

Okay, after that post I now put you back into category A:

A)  Individual is directly affiliated with BS, MQA, or is an industry affiliate who stands to benefit financially in some other way.

Norton has been a contributor to the CA Community since 2010. I believe your methods of determining who is or isn't a shill are off a by a bit. 

 

In addition, nobody wants to read the back and forth arguments between two members. If you weren't grandstanding you'd simply PM him. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, rwdvis said:

You seem to be the only one needing special treatment. 

Trust me, plenty of people are reporting your behavior on the site. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original due to several interaction effects."

[The Computer Audiophile]

I really like John but this article surprises me

 

 

Playback Pioneers 2018: Bob Stuart / MQA

 

https://darko.audio/2018/05/playback-pioneers-2018-bob-stuart-mqa/

[The Computer Audiophile]

Move the DBT talk to a new thread. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

A screenshot I couldn't resist :~)

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Nobody’s opinion should be dismissed, but finding non-press accolades equivalent to TAS and Stereophile is like finding Bigfoot. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

What's also surprising from the old guard is all of a sudden their massive dislike of all things DSP has evaporated. For decades we've heard from the Ministers of Information about not touching a pristine signal, room correction is bad, converting formats is bad, etc... I'm cool if they believe it and want to espouse their beliefs. I'm sure I'm guilty of espousing my own audio beliefs.

 

However, the sudden turnaround professing that processing a pristine signal like origami and removing bits that can't be replaced is the second coming of digital audio is quite strange. Where did my ole straight wire with gain guys go?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, rickca said:

What's interesting is that after all this time we still don't know what prompted them to give MQA such hyperbolic accolades.  There's been endless speculation that doesn't need repeating.  

I believe I know and I'm trying hard to find the facts. If this was TMZ rather than CA, there'd be a front page article with some unbelievable headlines. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I wonder where MQA would stand in the old guard press if it was introduced to HiFi by a no-name Chinese or Indian engineer. I know some brilliant savants form China and India who are fully capable of this type of DSP. 

 

Anyone venture a guess as to what the initial articles would have said in TAS or Stereophile?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

You might have "zero expectations that he is a journalist", but unfortunately most do and of course the trade publications do nothing to disabuse their readers from the fact that they are not doing journalism.  

 

As far as your point, I agree but that is also my point (I think ?).  I and others might not object to a promotion piece featuring Bruno or any other industry confidence game leader, but then none of those guys are on the same end-to-end limb as Bob S.  Since such "interviews" are par for the course in Audiophiledom, some of us take what they can get as long as it does not rise to the level of MQA.

 

So yes, MQA is different by nature, and so the "intolerance" for the status quo from the trade publications is expected, is "important", etc.  As far as your concern around "tone", "nastiness" etc. like I have said before it is part of the forums such as this one.  I simply expect it and overlook it, so it is not "important" for me.  What is important is how MQA has leveraged Audiophile subjectivism to its advantage, so no I have not forgotten that "people do have different tastes and opinions" but I also have not forgotten that this fact is being used as a crutch for MQA because as our host points out, it is only these trade publication promotion copy writers such as Darko that come to such glowing and unambiguously positive "tastes and opinions" about MQA.  It does not add up, excepting as a industry insider bubble of induced subjectivism.  

One thing we have to keep in mind is that most of us interviewing people in the industry don't have the savant type of knowledge to call people out on the spot. This certainly doesn't mean we can't do some homework and come armed with facts that others have produced, but it makes things much more difficult. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

I might have missed them, but where are the TAS and Stereophile extremely positive articles about FLAC? When FLAC was released in 2001, it was, or should have been a big deal. Why didn't RH compare the creators of FLAC to Isaac Newton? 

 

Of course FLAC was and is free... Just like Newton's theory of gravitation! 

The old guard hadn't heard of FLAC until many years later.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Which rag was it that ran those articles comparing the "height" of the sound with different FLAC settings?

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/new-methods-for-quantifying-sonic-performance-part-two/