MQA is Vaporware

[ARQuint]

56 minutes ago, phosphorein said:

 

I examined some of the 24/96 streams from primephonic and they appeared to be normal 16/44 files, even though primephonic asserted that these were 24/96 recordings. I found primephonic's web player to be buggy and only a limited classical catalog. Qobuz is definitely a higher value service.

 

What browser are you using? Chrome works a lot better with the primephonic platform than Firefox.

[ARQuint]

7 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Finally, I’ve shared my gripes and encouraged other to share theirs that’s what the MQA discussion is about on Audiophile Style. You want pro MQA stuff read Stereophile and The Absolute Sound.

 

Let's note what Paul and so many others have observed over the past two years on this thread., It's not a "discussion" if only one point of view is welcome and persons with another opinion are assailed and then advised to go elsewhere.

[ARQuint]

On 2/9/2019 at 7:57 PM, rickca said:

OK @KeenObserver are you @Brinkman Ship?

 

OMG.

I hear it too!

 

Read the last 4 or 5 of his posts. If its not him, it's  as pitch-perfect an imitation as I could have imagined possible—and I'm full of admiration

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

I just used the report function, only the 2nd time I have ever used it.  You simply don't have a grasp of even the very basics of MQA, and now your getting personal with me.  This is not my thread, but if it was I would moderate you even though I think moderation 99% of the time is abused on internet forums.  Your either intentionally deraliing, or don't have a clue - either way the result should be the same...

 

crenca writes the above after seeing this comment from Paul R

 

"Facts won't change no matter how many times you repeat nonsense. People might start to agree with you, but then, loud, brash, aggressive repetition is a well known propaganda technique. You can convince people that fairies make the flowers grow if you shout long and loudly enough."

 

To crenca, Paul R "is getting personal with me."

 

But if crenca lays into Lee S for the umpteenth time, as below, it's not personal, "it's just true".

 

 

On 2/6/2019 at 1:06 PM, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Mentioning the employer is going way over the line.  This is the third time this has happened.  I am considering leaving the forum.

 

crenca said:

You were actually never part of it anyways.  Industry sycophants and insiders are only here to sell things and insider wants/needs, not actually take part in the process which helps consumers reach their high Fidelity goals. Your participation here is in fact anti-consumer.  This is not a disrespectful observation, it's just true.

 

I'm fairly certain that Paul R believes his observations about crenca are equally "true".

 

To note again what's obvious to many who stray into this forum looking for enlightenment on a complex subject: The discussion is dominated by a small number of highly partisan and self-regarding individuals who are convinced that the points of view they represent are inarguable facts. Those who don't see it their way can be maligned with ad hominem assaults. But not them. Their assailants should be sanctioned.

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Ah, don't sweat the small stuff Andrew. People act crazy in places like this because they are essentially anonymous, and that makes it like a vast playground where they can act in ways that would get them "punched in the snoot" in a non-virtual world. Ideas become funny things; where people believe they have to defend them and if someone has a dissenting opinion then it is one's moral obligation to go correct 'em.  The secret to letting it go?  It happens to everyone sooner or later.

 

My best guess is some of the folks here are trying to use the forum to build up their audio-world reputations, and have devolved to the point of targeting people like John Atkinson from Stereophile. In actual fact, there are a few people here who could challenge JA, technical chops to technical chops. Those people are *not* the ones raising a ruckus, though Archimago put a lot of this together three or four years ago. (And yes, he is one of the ones who could go toe to toe with JA and keep up technically.:) 

 

In essence- the ones who are making the loudest rude noises don't appear to me to have done much original research. Seems like Archimago put the research together, people like EslDude, Miska, Jud, and Mansr, among others, pretty much validated it. Chris took on being the face of the issue at RMAF and took plenty of shots from the "heavy artillery."  

 

All over MQA, a different way to distribute "better" sound, and which *could* have been great thing. Still may, though that infuriates  particular crowd here. Same arguments were made over FLAC vs ALAC, WAV vs AIFF,  SMPS vs Linear, and the ever popular, oh, you only spent $xxx on that? You are NOT an audiophile.  The vinyl guys were particularly cutting when they swept in with a sharp angle of attack. (I will get killed for puns one of these days, but who can resist?) 

 

(shrug) - Here, have a virtual Sam Adams and enjoy.  It seems to work best if you treat most of these conversations like pub conversations anyway. If there are no math or charts flying around, it's just a pub chat.  

 

 

-Paul  

 

 

Good post, Paul, and good advice.

 

I don't ring in terribly often because—I hope this is clear, even from my small number of comments—my issue isn't MQA but rather the way we talk to each other. To use a word that definitely inflames crenca - civility. For the record, I have not made any doctrinaire "assertions" about MQA. I once reviewed a product that had it and spent a fair amount of time comparing MQA Tidal files to HDtracks files of identical resolution and concluded that the MQA files sounded pretty good. Not night and day better than the nominally lossless version but pretty good, when the point of reference was live music. I don't have an MQA-capable DAC at the moment, and I'm just fine. I don't feel that the future of our hobby (and the audio industry or the recording industry) rises or falls with the fate of this particular technology. I've met a lot of talented and musically-inclined engineers and manufacturers over the last 20 years to know that everything will shake out in the end and that the upward trajectory of sound quality in the digital realm will continue. MQA may or may not be part of this.

 

I'm a member of the Philadelphia Area Audio Group (PAAG)—there are 80 of us, and a waiting list—and go to as many of the monthly meetings as I can. I like hanging out with other audiophiles. People are unfailingly generous and thoughtful, as we share recommendations of recordings and insights about equipment. Although there are a range of opinions regarding the codec,  MQA doesn't come up much at all, except to observe, in passing, how toxic online exchanges can get on the more lightly moderated forums. Likewise, my interactions with enthusiasts at the two shows I typically attend every year don't have the "us-versus-them" character seen on "MQA is Vaporware".

 

If there's something that gets under my skin, crenca, it's that I, Andy Quint, is "anti-consumer". I am a consumer. I'm a standard-issue audiophile who has a pretty solid music knowledge (conservatory-trained, over 1000 record reviews for TAS, Fanfare, and elsewhere), can write, and cared enough about the phenomenon of perfectionist audio to progressively scale back the time and energy devoted to my regular, money-making job to do this. So I'll declare again something that I know gets under your skin—that you and I (and Lee and Robert and JA and Jason) really are on the same team. We're part of a vital ecosystem of engineers, manufacturers, retailers, hobbyists, and yes, audio writers who are all inspired by that mysterious point of intersection between technology and art.

 

I'll now have that metaphorical beer that Paul recommended. But it won't be metaphorical.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[ARQuint]

4 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

As envisioned by MQA,  MQA is a closed "ecosystem".  Like a septic system.  And full of the same thing.

 

Does this comment add anything to the discussion?

 

The toxicity of the post is underscored by the (for me, and I'm sure others) useful parsing of DSD technology that's unfolded over the last few days on this thread. The principals in that back-and-forth were pretty insistent about their positions and the tone got edgy, but it was still quite illuminating for those of us who don't have an engineering background - who can't do the "maths," as one of the protagonists would say.

 

Someone will suggest that I simply block this guy and, of course, I could. But that won't stop postings like this from derailing a serious dialog regarding a controversial or otherwise challenging issue.

 

Chris has reminded me before how rare this sort of provocative-for-the-sake-of provocation posting is on AS. So how sure is he that KeenObserver isn't someone we've heard from before? The  expressive style, and (lack of) substance seem awful familiar....

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Slightly off topic, but this is the angriest forum on the system. This article is perhaps, appropriate. Not willing to discuss it here, but my friends, take  a couple mins to read it and think about it please.

 

 

Anger can be contagious — here's how to stop the spread
NPR

Emotions circulate through social networks — the good, bad and ugly. And these days, the feeling that seems most viral is anger. Sometimes it takes just one act of kindness to stop the vicious cycle. Read the full story

 

Shared from Apple News

 

Sent from my iPad

 

This isn't as "off-topic" as some think. The behavior of the MQA people at CC's RMAF seminar was unacceptable—they certainly would have had their chance to have their say if they'd just let Chris finish his presentation. (I'm pretty sure that Chris had built time for discussion into his session, plus it was the last seminar of the day and a dialogue could have continued indefinitely.) But, as I've suggested before, they came "loaded for bear" because, I think, they conflated Chris's approach to MQA with that of the most rudely extreme, take-no-prisoner participants on this forum. It was a disappointment to me, as I would have liked to witness a true back-and-forth debate. Probably, a superior format would have been a panel of (well-informed) pro- and anti-MQA partisans, with Chris as the moderator who could have held the panelists' feet to the fire and assured that questions really got answered - both the "who is Archimago, why is he anonymous and what are his possible motivations?" and the "tell me why MQA isn't DRM?" varieties.

 

So I think Paul R's point is well taken. More kindness, respect, civility—whatever you want to call it—would have allowed for a more meaningful MQA discussion at RMAF, and elsewhere in our small universe.

 

Andrew Quint

The Absolute Sound

[ARQuint]

45 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Quint, like the MQA executives, and Scoggins, is still trying to shoot the messenger.  Archimago's meatspace identity is utterly irrelevant to the technical issues he has highlighted.

 

If speculation about Archimago's motivations is fair game, why not the motivations of Scoggins or Quint?  Not understanding the asymmetry (hypocrisy?).

 

I agree with you! In a calmer, less emotionally-fraught atmosphere—without shouted remarks from the floor and, as a result, Chris getting knocked off a line of argument he was trying to establish—that point (regarding Archimago) could have been made.

[ARQuint]

17 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Why kindness, when we Chris saw nothing but contempt? Civility is a 2-way street. There was supposed to be an AXPONA MQA discussion panel with Dr. Mark Waldrep being on the panel. Guess what, NO MQA PERSON WOULD SHOW UP. So, the panel discussion never happened. This is the issue. If they want to discuss, discuss. Let's discuss the positives and negatives, not hide behind veil, like the MQA proponents have been.

 

As far as anonymity is concerned and journalism, most of the important 20th century news stories were started because of anonymous sources. Does that mean the information is invalid? NO IT DOES NOT. Archimago has been straight forward with his reporting on MQA and what he has discovered. As a matter of fact, he even gave out all the information so anyone with the proper equipment can repeat what he has done and actually welcomed that. Why it is a big deal to you who Archimago is? He has stated he does not work in this industry  and does it because he loves audio. You want people to take what MQA says at face value but you do not what to take what Archimago has done at face value? Sorry, it is a 2-way street.

 

I think this is another case of, obfuscation by the MQA proponents while giving no information as to why we need it? We do not and this has been proven time and time again.

 

I'm not an "MQA proponent". I'm aware of the AXPONA (? 2018) MQA decision to bow out and was disappointed at a missed opportunity to educate and inform. I'm not saying that Chris could have done it any other way at RMAF.

 

Also please understand that I have no problem at all with Archimago's anonymity—he's an honest and thoughtful observer. His anonymity is not like, say, Brinkman Ship's, which was fundamentally dishonest and—to my mind—helped to undermine real conversation.

 

Andrew

[ARQuint]

16 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

To date, the only response that MQA has offered to valid technical criticism is "ignore the rude, angry trolls".

 

That by itself should be informative to those still on the fence about MQA.

 

Hi Samuel

 

Lee S (who maintains that he's not in the employ of MQA, but is obviously an advocate) wrote a lengthy critique of Chris's slides a few pages back. I don't expect you to agree with his points, of course. But why doesn't this represent the sort of substantive argument for the technology that you and others say is never offered? You can continue to take down his arguments one by one, understanding that he's likely to maintain his convictions. And—this is my pie-in-the-sky utopian vision—let the undecided consider the cases made by both proponents and naysayers and decide for themselves, without the distraction of derision and character-bashing.

 

Andrew

[ARQuint]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

You're even funnier than Lee Scoggins.

 

No, I'll stick up for myself on this point.

 

Most of my listening—and I do a lot, providing 8-10 record reviews for the magazine's music section each issue—is to computer files, of which around 4000 album's worth are high-resolution (24-bit PCM or DSD). I stream Tidal and primephonic, and will have Qobuz up and running within a couple of days. I don't have an MQA-capable component; my only experience with the technology was the few months that I spent with an Aurender A10. I felt MQA encoded/decoded music sounded good—but no better than what's available to me now. Paul R's right—this hobby isn't doomed and the most aggressive combatants, I feel, can lighten up a bit.

[ARQuint]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Those are alternative facts. MQA has never addressed the counter evidence and no expert to date has backed up what MQA says. 

 

Then you should continue to debunk them. But as you said at the outset of your presentation, this isn't about killing puppies. It also, obviously, doesn't rise to the level of Holocaust denial or even climate change denial or anti-vaccination BS, so there's no moral imperative to shut down those who disagree with attacks on their morality, ethics, brainpower, or their suitability to live in society—in our case, the community of audiophiles. The MQA contingent came to the seminar as if you had accused them of killing puppies. I feel that AS— your brand—should not let tone overwhelm substance.

 

This is beginning to sound like righteous indignation on my part. So I'll stop for now. I can hear the cheering all the way from Philadelphia!

 

Andrew

 

 

[ARQuint]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

Maybe because it's not truthful.

 

Now we're getting down to my issue. The one everybody hates. The C-word.

 

Why is Lee, in your view "not truthful" rather than simply "wrong"?

One characterization makes him out to be actively dissembling while other, perhaps, represents another opinion. You must know that there are plenty of audiophiles out there who have positive views about MQA. You haven't concluded that they're all liars as well, have you?

 

Andrew Quint

[ARQuint]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I politely ask any salesman to help other customers and please leave me alone. If I buy anything new in  high end audio that can be used by consumers I will quietly buy it  from the owner by appointment since I will have already listened to it at the manufacturers place of business. I'm already making plans for trips this summer. 

 

Understanding that I'm kind of fond of Rt66indierock, having met him at a couple of RMAFs, I'm a little amused by the automatic response that he and a few other forum participants have to anything that they perceive as an unwarranted manifestation of  "authority" in our hobby. They dismiss, a priori, reviews in "Old Guard" magazines and now Steve adds audio salespeople to the list of those who can't possibly have anything of value to add to his appreciation of a product—even one that they have heard and he hasn't. I sensed this dynamic as well with the shabby treatment Jim Smith received here from the usual suspects: Bravo to those who called the mean girls out on that.

 

I'll make this point again, if only because it (the "e-word") seems to annoy a few prolific posters at AS who seem to view journalists, retailers, and even some manufacturers, as being involved in a kind of class warfare. We are all part of the same audiophile ecosystem, one that includes the consumer, and have lots we can learn from one another. Audio salesmen are audiophiles with (hopefully) better-than-average people skills who can sell; audio writers are audiophiles who can write. It's our passion for technology serving music that defines us as being on the same team.

 

My, it's gotten late. I'll pack it in for now.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Andrew.  I think you really missed the mark this time.  "class warfare" is a loaded term, and means entirely different things to different people.  As such, it is utterly counterproductive and maybe even a little trollish to use that term at all.

 

Many of us have had unpleasant experiences at brick and mortar audio stores.  I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  And just for the record, I sometimes patronize a local store, know the owner, and generally have positive experiences there.  But even at that store, they often don't have answers for questions that I need answered.  For example, they have an apparent disdain for Audio Technica phono carts (they don't sell them) and always try to suggest that there's always something better than AT.  I purchased a $2000 turntable there a few years back (around the U.S. peak of resurgent turntable sales), and gladly accepted the recommendation for a cartridge that was made by a company under the same corporate umbrella as the turntable maker.  While the cartridge may be a solid performer on other tables, it was not a good match at all for the tonearm.  But I took this in stride as part of the experience I was looking for was determining for myself what cartridge worked best for my needs.  I purchased several different carts but avoided Audio Technica as I was confident that I was given good advice in that regard.  None of those carts really performed well, for various reasons (and not really the point I'm trying to make).  It was only when I acquired an Audio Technica AT150MLX that the table really showed what it's capable of.  And that cartridge is less expensive than almost anything else I tried.

 

So my point is that most brick and mortar places I've visited have a certain list of manufacturers whose products they carry, and generally will attempt to steer you away from products they don't carry.  And in my experience, this prevents them from truly finding the best solution for the audiophile.  So now I simply research on my own and if the product that I select is carried by my local store, they get the business.  Otherwise, I'll likely buy from the internet.  There are legitimate reasons why brick and mortar sometimes will not or cannot offer the "best" solution.  And it has absolutely zero to do with any kind of economic class envy.

 

 

Which I've come to understand means, "I'm just lobbing some text at the forum and don't necessarily plan to follow up to any replies".

 

Hi Samuel

 

If "class warfare" implied "economic class envy" to you, it was the wrong choice of words on my part. It was intentionally hyperbolic, meant to suggest the us-vs-them situation where various audiophile constituencies are hostilely opposed to one another when they really shouldn't be: MQA-critics calling pro-MQA writers shills; pro-MQA journalists labeling those who attack the technology most single-mindedly as cultists; anybody who calls anybody else a Nazi. The watchword of my generation was "Question Authority" but in this hobby there seems to be, among some enthusiasts, an absolute unwillingness to cede to experience or expertise even occasionally.

 

I think the way that you shop for audio gear is admirable. It gives the local guy a shot at your business—even though by doing your homework, you've not limited yourself to the brands he carries. But while you're in his store, I don't feel you should begrudge the salesperson the chance to make his best case for the gear he carries. It's biased, of course, but doesn't need to influence your plans to consider other alternatives elsewhere. And you could potentially learn something about the brand he carries that you weren't necessarily aware of from your research.

 

I got the impression that Rt66Indierock wasn't open to the idea of any input from a salesperson, that he sees them all as scoundrels who want only to take his money and saddle him with a product that's entirely wrong for his purposes. Most audiophiles realize that this caricature is only infrequently reality—including, I gather, you. But it's like attitudes in general about classes of people as opposed to individuals you know: Congresspeople are lying blowhards—but not my congressman; doctors are unempathetic pill-pushers—but not my doctor. You trust your nearby audio dealer, at least to some degree. I hope there are at least a few writers at Stereophile and TAS whose reviews can be occasionally helpful, or at least you can find entertaining.

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Or from another point of view, there comes a moment when people have been bullied into being quiet. Sometimes on both sides of an argument. 

 

It is a puzzle to me why Chris is allowing such bad behavior, but this is his house and we all play by his rules, regardless of whether or not we agree with him. Everyone always has the option to go somewhere else or start their own forum. 

 

In this hobby, there is only one golden rule, and that is for each person to listen and decide for themselves.

 

The truth, whatever it may be, will always come out. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

 

Paul R’s presence on “Vaporwear”  appears to be profoundly annoying to at least some of the uber-partisans who have set the tone of this thread for over two years now.

 

• He has technical / math chops that are at least in the same realm as those who feel that MQA has been demonstrated to be fraudulent  on a theoretical and engineering basis—and surpass those of many of the loudest participants.

 

• He’s unequivocally anti-MQA.

 

• By no stretch of the imagination can he be considered a “shill”. Even the most conspiracy-minded have not maintained that he’s secretly in the employ of MQA, Inc.

 

And yet

 

• He has pointed out the sometimes anti-democratic nature of the atmosphere here—the attempt (increasingly successful, I think) to shut down dissenting voices by attacking not just what they have to say, but how they say it, as well their intellect, honesty and motivations. And, in addition to serving as a kind of conscience at this point in time for this long-lived thread, he also has taken pains to suggest that maybe the most vitriolic posters should lighten up a bit. Perhaps MQA does not represent the existential threat to our hobby that they maintain it is. As Paul says, when it comes Bob Stuart’s project: "The truth, whatever it may be, will always come out."

 

Which leads me to a question I’ve been meaning to ask for five months now.

 

I felt cheated by the course of events at Chris’s seminar in Denver last October—when he was derailed by the bad behavior of the MQA contingent, a group that showed up—it seemed to me and to plenty of others—expressly to shut him down.

 

The title of his session was MQA: The Truth Lies Somewhere in the Middle. Does this mean, Chris, that—had you been allowed to continue unimpeded—you would have described a middle ground? That you would have enumerated positive aspects of MQA in addition to the apparent negative ones? If so, that could have set the stage for a more productive discussion between those with differing viewpoints regarding the technology, both that afternoon in Denver and, more importantly, beyond—on forums like this one.

 

It seems that to me  that since the RMAF debacle, Chris has made less of an effort to give even the appearance of neutrality—that he no longer sees his role, as the boss of Audiophile Style, to broker a fair discussion. If the assault he endured at RMAF was the source of this change, I guess I can understand. But it is too bad. We were all cheated out of a chance to experience more light and less heat.

 

Andrew Quint

[ARQuint]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hi Andrew - Happy to hear you felt cheated because of the behavior of the MQA contingent at RMAF. That's honestly how I assume everyone felt, yet we have some who believe otherwise. I think you must the totality of the circumstances at this point in 2019 with respect to your desire for a middle ground presentation, given what we know now. 

 

If you were MQA and you had nothing to hide, would you have acted that way during my presentation?

 

If you were MQA and were presented with facts months prior to my presentation, would you elect to ignore them and instead attack the messenger at RMAF?

 

If you were MQA and had an opportunity to shut up all the critics by simply supplying valid and verifiable information for publication on the front page of this website, would you? 

 

I offered to make an "MQA Hero" out of anyone who could support MQA's claims. Granted my term "MQA Hero" was strange, but it's what came out of my mouth at the time. The point remains, I will happily publish verifiable objective data that counters the work of @mansr @Miska @Archimago and counters the opinions of all the engineers in the industry who I've talked to. Talk about click bait! I'd love to publish it. The facts is, there's no there there. 

 

If you remember, starting a couple years back, I fought the fight you wish we could discuss today. I pushed very hard for neutrality and asked all the MQA detractors to back up their claims with objective data. I was called a shill by many. However, I kept my eyes and ears open and continued to conduct my own research. 

 

Prior to my presentation I searched high and low for evidence of the middle ground. When I found cool stuff about MQA I made a point to discuss it in my presentation. Going back to old tapes and pulling sonic magic out of old recordings is truly commendable. However, as time went on and I learned quite a bit more, my balanced approach was toppled by the weight of the evidence. There comes a time when one can make a decision. This time was shortly after my presentation for me. I had all the research. The behavior of the MQA contingent was the nail in the coffin because it signified to me that this company truly thinks it has something to hide. 

 

Note: My phone conversations with Bob S, which I recorded, were also full of signals to me that this company not only had something to hide but was also willing to do whatever it takes to make MQA a success. I don't want to get into the details here, but I will say sketchy tactics were used to attempt to persuade me to not only change my mind but also change the mind of this community.

 

If I were to keep a balanced approach to this day, it would be a disservice to the HiFi community. As an analogy, given all the climate change objective data, it just doesn't make sense for journalists to give equal (or any) time to people who suggest it isn't happening because the weather outside is cold today. I feel the same way about MQA. I held the flag of balanced debate for a couple years. Now the evidence against MQA is simply too heavy. 

 

I suggest you have a look at @Jud's easy to read post with some serious issues about MQA. Perhaps @John_Atkinson would also like to read it, as I see he liked your post to me. I know you and john don't need to defend MQA, but I'd love to read your balanced thoughts about what Jud says in the post below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate the cogent and measured response, Chris. The continued evolution of your approach to the ultimate hot-button topic in audio makes sense to me and and reflects both open-mindedness and principle.

 

We have, I think, explored thoroughly the issue that matters to me, namely the way that audiophiles speak to one another in the public space. No matter how many times I say so, a small core of Vaporware posters can't get their heads around the idea that MQA really isn't of great importance to me—though I have learned a good deal here, even from the forum participants who detest me and my kind. I had, indeed, read Jud's post and found to be a concise, understandable, and reasonable summation of what's wrong with MQA. And I think that Lee S (anyone who thinks he has a "thin skin" is not a very good observer; "glutton for punishment" is more like it) has kept front and center the positions of MQA, Inc. In both cases, all the arguments on both sides were quite familiar—these are two entrenched constituencies. If Lee "regurgitates"—well, so do the Vaporware warriors when they get going on MQA-as-a-lossy-format or a MQA-is -DRM. That's not to say that they're not right and Lee is wrong—just that the positions they represent ossified about 400 pages ago on this epic thread, and I do wonder if Rt66indierock will see fit to shut it down before too much longer. There's so much more to talk about.

 

Paul's perspective was really very helpful, enlivening this forum in a positive way for the first time in a while—probably since the time that Archimago was most active here.  I've also noted that at least a few AS members have surfaced who are interested in talking to each other rather than at each other.

 

I look forward to saying hello to any and all of my AS friends and detractors at AXPONA, where I'll be covering lower-priced loudspeakers for my magazine. I'll be the guy with the armed guard. Armed Old Guard, that is...

 

Andrew Quint

 

 

 

 

[ARQuint]

17 minutes ago, crenca said:

According to:

 

http://www.axpona.com/sessions_byday.asp

 

MQA is giving a demo/seminar/sales pitch.  Have they been doing this on the show circuit lately?  Do they take questions?

 

This will be a presentation in a large room and I'm sure there will be questions/comments taken from the audience. I hope that Chris plans to attend. I won't miss it.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Hugo9000 said:

One would think professional reviewers would actually have pictures of the equipment under review set up in their own rooms, rather than just including promo shots provided by the manufacturers.  If I want to see those pics, I'll just look on the manufacturer's website, where the photos will generally be of higher resolution and/or zoomable.  In the days before the internet, it was perhaps more acceptable, as there wasn't much choice when it came to seeing what the gear even looked like.  You saw it in person if you had a dealer nearby, or you wrote to the manufacturer and requested their literature/product brochures, or you accepted that manufacturer photo in a magazine.  lol  We get endless flowery prose that attempts to describe what the reviewer claims to hear, and yet we can't even see the gear in his room.  In a print format.  smh

 

Can you imagine if Car and Driver and all the other hobbyist publications through the years tried to get away with that?  "Here's a stock photo of this Lamborghini from the manufacturer."  lmao  Even the cheapie 'women's magazines' like Better Homes and Gardens and Family Circle had their own photographers or paid freelancers for original pics.

 

I let all of my magazine subscriptions lapse years ago due largely to these pet peeves regarding what seems like sheer laziness on the part of the writers and publishers in general.  Articles that often seem to regurgitate manufacturer blurbs or press releases, accompanied by stock photos from the manufacturer or distributor, failure to examine extraordinary manufacturer claims critically (HDCD, MQA, green pens, whatever it may be, whether legitimate or snake oil or just delusional/wishful thinking on the part of the manufacturer), all of these types of things are so lazy and beneath real journalism.  Even the amateurs on sites like Head-Fi and reddit take their readers seriously enough to provide their own photos.  I realize that many say that the real customer is the advertiser and not the reader/subscriber, but if I were an advertiser, I'd still find it lazy that the magazines don't even try to disguise this.  The publishers seem far more cynical than the few readers who complain, if you ask me.  MQA is vaporware, you say?  Perhaps the concept of audio 'journalism' itself is vaporware.

 

Well, just the ramblings of an anonymous 'groupthink' nobody on the internet.  I've heard there are a couple of European magazines that don't fit the lazy mold in my above rant, but I've never seen one myself.  And there are a couple of writers that I respect, even if their work would be better served in a publication like Gramophone rather than the hobbyist magazines with lazy publishers or wherever they have to earn their living.  Maybe most reviewers have appallingly messy rooms and hideous 1970s decor.  Whatever.  Everyone carry on as you were...

 

 

The component that's the TAS "cover story" is photographed, professionally, in Austin, at a session supervised by NextScreen's creative director, Torquil Dewar. Take a look at the current (April) issue. (Oops, I guess you can't. Everyone with dismissive opinions of the print magazines on this thread claims to have let their subscriptions lapse....) Well, if you did you'd see a sexy photo of the T+A Talius S 300 loudspeaker and there are another seven shots of the speaker with the review itself. T+A shipped a second pair of speakers from Germany—in addition to the set I had—to Texas to be photographed. With routine reviews, sometimes it's stock  photos and sometimes it isn't. For my usual reviews, I have a friend who's recently retired as the photography professor at St. Joseph's University come over to shoot the equipment. To my wife's chagrin, we keep all the necessary lights, reflectors, backdrops, etc in a spare bedroom for this purpose. Some of the other writers happen to be quite good photographers—Steven Stone for example.

 

Andrew Quint

The Absolute Sound

 

 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Exactly. 

 

Yet people like @ARQuint think we are all a bunch crazies and he needs to come back here to do the heavy lifting of defending MQA. How do I know? He, on more than one occasion, has accidentally sent an email rather than responding to a PM from another member. These emails appear in my inbox with his unfiltered thoughts about us. 

 

The old guard never ceases to amaze me. 

 

 

 

I haven't sent many PMs in the time I've participated in this forum and I don't think any of them reflect any attitudes different than the ones that I present publicly. Namely my wish for civility and concerns that a few corners of Audiophile Style have been commandeered by zealots who ultimately suppress meaningful dialogue about important topics.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Thuaveta said:

 

butbutbut, they "liked it so much they bought it for themselves" !

 

C’mon guys (Botrysis, kumakuma, Thuaveta.). Chris C reviewed a dCS DAC, Constellation amplifiers, and Wilson loudspeakers - all very expensive components - that are now part of his reference system. You don’t consider that a “quid pro quo” arrangement, I hope! He bought them - at an accommodation price -  because he liked it so much, he bought it for himself.

[ARQuint]

7 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

No need to apologize. 

 

The old guard do it because they feel entitled to do so.

 

 

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

As I said a bit upthread, I don't know and don't care about motives, and don't think any speculation on that score is necessary, because of this: (1) There is very solid technical work showing MQA does not perform as advertised in a number of respects, and that it is in fact inferior to the non-proprietary Redbook and hi res material already available. (2) Real journalists would be all over this story. (3) Neither Stereophile nor Absolute Sound has been all over this aspect of the MQA story. Quite the opposite.

 

I think this is quite sufficient in itself to show these magazines haven't been doing anything that could be called serious journalism with regard to MQA, regardless of the presence or absence of any specific motive.

 

Would you disagree, and if so could you point to the articles that show my impression is incorrect?

 

Understanding that I'm speaking for myself and not as a representative of my magazine, this is a good opportunity to disentangle two issues - MQA and the role / value / integrity of the long-established publications.

 

There's a range of opinions regarding MQA at Stereophile and TAS. Most equipment writers have had nothing to say about it because they've had no interest or experience with it; a few (such as myself) have commented moderately in a positive direction on SQ. It's the guys at the top of the masthead whose advocacy has induced the hostility on this thread. By virtue of their editorial positions and technical fluency, they had early experience with the technology and have had longer  experience with it than anyone outside the company. John Atkinson, Jim Austin, and Robert Harley have a different assessment than do mansr and Archimago and, as was the case with tubes vs transistors and analog vs. digital, we ought to be able to agree to disagree. MQA is not the existential threat to high quality audio that its detractors make it out to be.

 

Because one can make the arguments regarding lossy / lossless and DRM only so many times, the focus of the Vaporware thread has slowly morphed into a continuing dismissal of the longer-established magazines as corrupt and out-of-touch: "Old Guard" is the echo-chamber talking point term. In recent days, the criticism has included as evidence the fact that writers of these publications get to purchase gear at a reduced cost.

 

I chose to ring in because this is an odd point to make as CC and others at AS - as I'm sure most forum members assumed - have taken advantage of accommodation pricing and for the same reason I did - I have a much better audio system than I'd otherwise have to evaluate equipment and recordings and, as a result, can produce more useful reviews. Of course, Chris doesn't have to apologize. But this serves to underscore points I've made before in this forum. First, that TAS (and Stereophile) is about much more than MQA - equipment and music reviews, interviews, etc. Second, Audiophile Style has an awful lot in common with the supposedly godless "Old Guard" publications in the way it obtains and evaluates equipment, as well as the content and style of the reviews themselves.  If you feel that TAS and Stereophile are "wrong" about MQA, fine. But recognize that AS isn't some completely new animal, a novel species that will transform the audiophile world. AS joins an ecosystem that's evolved continuously over half a century, to the benefit of sound-conscious music-lovers far and wide.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[ARQuint]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

.

This is a problem specifically with regard to MQA and the journalism around it.  MQA deliberately uses non-standard language like "deblurring" and "unfolding."  If they then produced white papers describing what these meant in standard terms - filters that aren't as subject to the Gibbs effect for "deblurring," upsampling or still better interpolation/sample rate conversion for "unfolding" - I'd give them a pass for using marketing-speak with laypeople and clearing it up for the technically savvy.  But they haven't done so.  This task then falls naturally to audio journalists.  But I've seen nothing of the kind from the larger audio magazines (as always, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).  It just seems so fundamental to me that audio journalists ought to be clearly explaining to audiophiles what is actually happening with the equipment and software being marketed to them.  Science journalists (good ones) do this about science, economics journalists do this about economics....  I think it's absolutely part of the job description, or should be.

 

@ARQuint - Andrew, I certainly don't have an axe to grind with regard to the magazines.  I haven't indulged in speculation about motives, or made personal or angry comments.  It's simply frustrating to me that the magazines haven't taken up more discussion of what I see as clearly put technical criticisms of MQA made here by quite reasonably competent people like mansr and Miska, aside from anything said by the pseudonymous Archimago.  As an audiophile, I want to know what's going on.  I'm not getting that.  I can't see a good reason why I shouldn't, since I do get it with journalism on other subjects, many quite a bit more complex than anything to do with audio.  So I hope you can understand my frustration as someone who would like to learn more from people who say they have another side to the story, but won't provide that story to me in clear and understandable terms.

 

 

I've read through the responses to my post, which range from vicious to...Jud. In between are a lot of people that are  irritable, accusatory, and unfriendly. Jud's note, I felt, was principled and unwavering, but also collegial and open to the possibility that there are actually two sides to an issue that should be reconciliated as much as possible. I think it makes sense for me to engage with Jud to perhaps move a discussion forward. To actually have a discussion about MQA.

 

To reiterate my personal feeling about MQA, it is not a technology that represents a new day dawning, in my opinion. My sole experience with MQA was with an Aurender A10 that I had in-house for review two years ago for 6 or 7 weeks. I did as much comparison of MQA'd files to their HDtracks high-resolution equivalents as I could and felt that the MQA-processed material consistently sounded better. But (A) not enough better to get me to purchase a different reference DAC and (B) I don't stream much, anyway.

 

My portal into the MQA "debate" was not as an advocate but, rather, as a commentator on the increasingly toxic reaction to the codec in some corners of the internet. In mid-2017, I wrote an editorial called "The Politics of MQA" that laid out my concerns. (It's on the TAS website.) In that piece, I noted that "the theoretical objections to MQA do deserve a thorough consideration. But that discussion is difficult to have when the naysayers too often resort to ad hominem attacks on MQA principals and prominent audio journalists, including TAS editor-in-chief Robert Harley and his capable counterpart at Stereophile."

 

I still feel that way. I'd love to have the oft-repeated technical objections to MQA thoroughly addressed. But if this was a daunting proposition two-and-a-half years ago, it's 10 times more challenging now. In order to occur, a few principles need to be accepted, or it's not going to happen.

 

(1) Pro-MQA needs to be represented by someone with full fluency with the technology, preferably someone with the company.

(2) Anti-MQA needs to be represented by someone willing to identified by name and qualifying credentials. "Archimago has his reasons" for anonymity just doesn't cut it; that stance is the full equivalent of the stonewalling that the most zealous critics of MQA accuse the company and magazines of on a daily basis.

(3) The two representatives will respond to written questions devised and agreed to by Jud and myself. Responses will limit themselves to engineering, psychoacoustics, and musical aspects of the technology, steering clear of accusations regarding motives and integrity. 

(4) Sound quality will be on the table, as that's a primary concern for many, if not most, listeners, when it comes to MQA.

(5) Finally, it's understood that this isn't "MQA on trial" - the public flogging of a presumed miscreant. MQA, Ldt. is a legally incorporated entity doing business in a legal fashion, and they have plenty of supporters among recording professionals, record labels, journalists, and consumers. The goal is to shed light, not more heat, so that that last constituency can make their own judgements.

 

I'll sign off now and contact Jud vs PM to see if he's interested in pursuing this. There's no guarantee, of course, that TAS or Stereophile will take on publishing a 4 or 5 page feature on the controversy - again, I'm not speaking here for my magazine - but I can pitch the idea.

[ARQuint]

24 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

That's who you are in real life?

 

Just warning you. The guy has a lot of sheep pictures.

[ARQuint]

On 12/25/2019 at 5:46 PM, bobbmd said:

@Paul R and @The Computer Audiophile Paul thanks for saying in a nicer way what I said or tried to convey and no Chris I wasn't having a rough day BUT like I said "I stuck my nose where it didn't belong" and should have kept my feelings to myself--I just contributed to the overload of incivility and apologize to anyone I might have offended(guess the abrasive comments and incivility become catching...)

I hope all you and yours had a Happy Holiday and have a good New Year.

bobbmd

 

I do understand where Bob and Paul are coming from, the two of them having paid the price of previously venturing into this thread without the single point of view acceptable to it's most partisan activists. But I hope they will note that something important has happened over the last few weeks. Joel Alperson's editorial and CC's now-shuttered request for commentary on "Forum Decorum" resulted in an outpouring of support for a more interventionalist response to bad behavior. There are now noticeably fewer gratuitous, sniping, two-sentence posts from members who have otherwise contributed nothing of substance to the discussion. Offensive posts are being deleted; threads that will inevitably lead to contempt-filled us-vs-them battles are being shut down. And I prefer to think that there's some self-moderation going on: people are waiting at least a few milliseconds longer before pressing "send."

 

I think Bob is right when he implies "Vaporware" is a vastly and unnecessarily bloated thread. It was bloated by angry, crude, and largely unsubstantiated attacks on people rather than ideas. I think this is what Chris meant when he said, regarding a growing skepticism among audiophiles about MQA: "I believe we would’ve got here way quicker without the incivility." So, I hope the thread will continue, accruing mass when there's something new and significant to talk about.

 

Andy