MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

aka Morningside Hts.  upper W.

Have only been to New York once. I lived in Syracuse and Rochester, though.

[botrytis]

I met Michael Fremer once. He was so full of himself, that night. He was saying, 'Analog is they ONLY way to achieve absolute bliss in audio'. This was before he waxed poetic about MQA. The vinyl he was spinning, while museum pieces (I mean VER, VERY rare), they were not what I would have played for an audio demo at all.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Tintinabulum said:

I'm afraid your MQA hate storm isn't of much interest to the real world. But absolutely, jail them and bring back hanging, concentration camps anyone? Make MQA a crime. What a farce, have you lot really nothing better to do? School yard bullies, who's going to be next when you've done with MQA?

 

 

Well, the issue is, the people (audiophile press) that are supposed to do the testing and telling us what is good or bad, are shilling MQA like it is the best thing since sliced bread. Archimago and others, on this forum, have shown why MQA is a con.  If the press would have actually done the due diligence, they would be getting the amount of flak they are getting now.

 

People in he real world will start caring when MQA starts squeezing money out of them and the DRM kicks in.

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, eclectic said:

I suggest a change of title to "Lee Scoggins is vaporware". 

 

Where is he? I'm anxiously waiting for him to post details of his MQA "research". He promised he'd do that.

 

To tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kind of lost track myself...

 

Dalethorn actually has  a link - to his supposed testing of MQA on 'MQA Conceptualized' on Stereophile.

 

http://dalethorn.com/Audio_MQA_Notes.pdf

 

It is just listening, nothing useful for the discussion.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Indydan said:

 

Nothing Dale does is useful for discussion.

 

HE THINKS it is. Many on the Pro-MQA side are the same way.

[botrytis]

It is called "Cult of Personality'. That is all it is.

[botrytis]

31 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

What’s real sad about Dale, is he isn’t even cable of figuring out hog/exclusive mode in his software.  He changes the midi settings in macOS manually for his self important MQA analysis, he then draws concusions about MQA and the dragonfly’s lights based on the core audio resampling he unknowingly chose.

 

Unfortunately, that is what happens when people THINK they can run experimental procedures and measurements, without people reviewing what they are saying and the procedures. Archimago has said that others have reviewed and verified his claims. That is the key here.

Dale is just an arrogant shill who thinks HE knows what is right (he is BTW, in his mind) without actually having somebody review what he is posting.

[botrytis]

Well, Apple uses open source software as it's won and doesn't give the source code out, even though it is part of the GPL. That is a non-issue.

 

Back to the OT, if MQA say they treat ringing and timing issues, let them show data, like Archimago has done.  I can say anything I want, it doesn't mean it is true. All one needs do is look at any politician in the world. They lie through their teeth while smiling.

[botrytis]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

The whole concept of "awards" in the context of consumer products is nothing more than an attempt persuade the consumer that the "award winning" product will make the consumer a "winner" as well.  The value of consumer product "awards" is at best dubious.  But the marketing concept of "winning" is potent in consumerism.  Everyone wants to be a "winner".

 

Well same with many awards for alcohol brands. For example, The San Francisco World Spirit Competition is paid advertising. Everyone who pays the entrance fee, get an award. So many use this as a way to sell their brand but many consumers are getting more educated. 

 

Sites like this help.

[botrytis]

@tmtomh I totally agree. We need to be constructive in the criticism while not being condescending or patronizing. It is the only way we can get them to discuss.

[botrytis]

14 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Don't know about you, but audiophilia has taught me that people in this world can get really emotional about extremely esoteric things. 

*KEEPS HEAD LOW* CABLE DISCUSSION ANYONE *STILL DUCKING*

 

[botrytis]

LS believes what he read about MQA and nothing will change his mind other than these same writers going against it. I have seen this in this hobby. people believe all types of crazy things - Shun Mook Discs anyone?

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I was not going to respond to all these speculations about the the recent sale and MQA but this one is easy.  The writers were informed about this sale only hours before it was announced in public.  It is illogical to think that it could have influenced statements already in print.  

That is tough. I have been in a similar situation. No one should have to go through it.

[botrytis]

One can be critical without attacking constantly.

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

This redefines the term irony..a physicist who calls out snake oil endorses the biggest snake oil our time...

 

You can give constructive with criticism without the sarcasm. Your point would hit the mark without annoying people.

[botrytis]

11 hours ago, crenca said:

 

You know what one of the important takeaways of this picture is?  If there is anyone in it below 55 (including all the people in the background) I will eat my socks.  

 

These folks are set in their ways, and trying to disprove their Art & Wine Voodooism is vanity.  Art Dudley and all the rest will be gone before we all know it, and we will remember them for the things they got right...no matter how short the list 

 

Edit:  Recently I have been spending a bit of time at some HP/personal audio/value "high fidelity" (vs. art & wine "high end") sites and it is a real pleasure not to hear much about Stereophile, TAS, or much of anything of "high end", and when they are mentioned it is almost always to laugh at the absurdities.  These folks are in a hole they are never going to get out of and I am increasingly coming to a "let the dead bury the dead" attitude towards them...

That is Mr. McGrath from WIlson Audio. He did an MQA listening test but told people what to expect. That is not objective listening, that is subjective listening. I do like the music files he has produced as he recorded some wonderful music.

 

I just think it is just an old boys network, is all.

[botrytis]

@ARQuint I have been searching the inter-web for more information on MQA,  besides the platitudes found on the audiophile press sites. Most of the information I found, which was balanced was Archimago. No one else that has published anything on MQA has the questioning and honesty to say, maybe I am wrong, show me. That gives even more credence. Why? It is because that is what good science and scientists do. They question to have other to prove or disprove their ideas, they don't say 'You can't possibly understand because you are not Mr.X'. Well, I have shown other scientists wrong before and I didn't want to do that but nothing else made logical sense to me, on the work I was doing. Same can be said here. All we get from the other side is platitudes and condescension. 

 

Well from the reactions, I have seen from the Pro-MQA side, all they have is platitudes and condescension. That just means to me they are either hiding something, they do not really understand what they are hawking, they assume buddies wouldn't sell them the Brooklyn Bridge. I honestly think it is all three.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Exactly right. And for what it's worth, Charles Hansen, who is now a hero to any here, embraced similar design philosophies. (Hansen was a brilliant designer He deserves praise. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here.) 

 

A more important point is that people here point to "experts" who agree with them--and many of them are very knowledgeable. I have great respect for (to name two with whom I've privately discussed MQA) John Siau and Bruno Putzeys). Both are anti-MQA, and very knowledgeable. It's clear from these and other conversations, though, that the ideas behind MQA are not in the normal digital-engineer curriculum. You've got to go beyond that to evaluate them properly. My argument has consistently been that there's more to them than critics (like those here) give credit for. They can't be dismissed as facilely as many try to do. Do the homework first, then dismiss if it doesn't hang together. But keep an open mind. 

 

Goes without saying that you cannot judge it if you don't understand it. 

 

jca

Sorry, I think it is YOU who do not understand MQA. After all, the denizens of CA have been asking for explanations and all we get is either name calling or platitudes. You, of the audio press, should be the ones asking questions, not accepting things at face value. After all, it is the press should be analyzing not just accepting what ever people say.

[botrytis]

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 bet there are but most do not want to give away where they work, etc. People wat to engage you in a discussion but since you don't know anything about MQA,why are you writing about it. It would be like the current head of the EPA, writing about pollution.

[botrytis]

Just now, Jim Austin said:

 

Sorry, I forgot about your objectivity. 

Chris has objectivity. He has to as owner and chief cook and bottle washer of this site.

 

 

[botrytis]

9 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I can't resist replying to this, even though I said I was done. I'm happy you've read some (or one) of my older audio writings. Your mistake (if I may presume what you were getting at) is in assuming that there's a contradiction--irony. MQA may be an illusion--the test is in the listening--but if so it's a far more sophisticated, plausible, and intellectually compelling illusion [edit: than the Intelligent Chip]. I've seen enough of it to recognize that if it's a scam then it's a scam of remarkable subtlety and significance. That's what I want people to see an appreciate.

 

You want to talk about irony? In a way, MQA is--and this is my opinion--an engineer's technology. It talks a lot about neuroscience, but it embraces psychoacoustics. It's willing to sacrifice bit-depth because people can't hear that much dynamic range anyway (partly because you don't have that much in your listening room). It's pragmatic about the huge waste above about 40kHz and aims to figure out what matters and what doesn't--how you can benefit from the advantages of the extra bits at frequencies you cannot hear. (How many of the experts here, I wonder, are convinced that nothing above 44.1kHz sampling frequency matters anyway.) [Edit: The irony is that it's rejected by the technical folks and embraced by the subjectivists you think would reject such quantitative compromises.] It may be wrong, but if you dig into it you find it reflects long and serious thought. If you don't see that, you haven't studied it enough. I don't mean you personally. 

 

MQA may ultimately prove--what, insufficiently advantageous?--but it is a serious technology. I do not base that assessment only on "deference to authority" but to my own fairly extensive explorations. MQA is not the Intelligent Chip. 

 

Still, thanks for reading my old stuff. 

MQA, as others have stated, is the equivalent of the VW DIESEL fiasco. It is not an engineer's technology unless one is a snake oil salesman. Good engineers understand the laws of physics, charlatans do not.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

I'm not sure why you'd believe this post would be deleted. Stereophile (and the publication that I write for) delete online correspondence if the poster becomes defamatory or otherwise descends into incivility. Opposing views are heard and responded to—if they are delivered without flames. 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.

Stereophile writers do not like to be called on the carpet and they are trying to continue being on the MQA band wagon. It seems the '70 brigade' thinks they are the arbiters of what is right and wrong for this hobby and that is not the case. They are one possibility.

[botrytis]

10 hours ago, fung0 said:

 

Mr. Atkinson, many of us greatly appreciate your willingness to engage with the discussion here. But you should understand that when confronted with seemingly irrational behavior, it is very tempting to come up with irrational explanations.

• The instantaneous whole-hearted acclamation of MQA by the audiophile press was hard to understand on any rational basis.
• The ongoing readiness of the audiophile press to accept MQA claims at face value is equally difficult to explain, especially when the company has - for years now - failed to provide the obvious double-blind A/B testing data that might provide a shred of empirical support for its extravagant theoretical claims.
• The ongoing refusal of the audiophile press to engage with, let alone publish, legitimate technical criticisms of MQA borders on the bizarre. One manufacturer after another adopts a restrictive, secretive technology, yet only CA has published a proper technical critique.
• The often over-the-top emotional responses of MQA-supporting journalists, when challenged on this forum, have been odd, to say the least. To be sure, flames will beget flames. But it is not usual to see professional journalists so personally invested in what is, after all, just another commercial, proprietary technology.

Personally, I've never believed that cash changed hands. But there is something happening here that can't be readily explained by the workings of traditional journalism.

Well, in Scientific journals, if one has government funding for research, the law states that the article MUST BE LABELED AS ADVERTISEMENT. This is no different than what the Audiophile press does. The whole magazine is one big advertisement and should be labelled as such. The audiophile press, I mean marketers, are disingenuine at best.

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

That is a little extreme I think...

 

Speaking of funded research..which is better or worse, private or public funding? With private funding, you can get doctors to say anything..like refined sugar does not cause weight gain.

In science journals, it doesn't matter.

 

I mean, I have heard one or more audiophile reviewers easy they will not review equipment if it was not given to them or sold to them at a discount. Hence, that is their bias.

[botrytis]

11 hours ago, phosphorein said:

 

Not true. Have you read a scientific journal recently? I have some here on my desk BTW. I have never labeled any government supported publication as an advertisement and Uncle Sam has never complained.

I am a scientist, a PhD in fungal biochemistry, so yes there are. I got my doctorate in 1996 but since I am in the middle of moving, all my older papers are boxed up.