MQA is Vaporware

[beetlemania]

41 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Stereophile has enjoyed revenue from "MQA partners".

 

Disagree. Weeks ago you asked to know how often "MQA" showed up in S'phile's adverts. Without counting, I would characterize it as "not often". Other than, maybe, generating interest to increase sales at the newsstand I don't see how this is any kind of windfall for S'phile. All the more so given the fierce blowback on pretty much every online forum.

[beetlemania]

If you want to argue that advertising revenue is what motivates the fine folks at TAS, sure. But I don't think that explains JA's position on MQA, at least not wholly.

[beetlemania]

42 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Otherwise the alternative is alot worse.

 

Not the only two possibilities.

[beetlemania]

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Case closed.

 

LOL, what does that prove?

 

I don't think it's a secret that the industry is hurting. It might be interesting to compare total ad space post-MQA introduction but even that has untold confounding factors.

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Care to elaborate?

 

Well, I hinted at it earlier. I suspect JA has undue respect for BS as a designer and his interest was probably piqued by MQA's claims. And JA probably genuinely thinks his MQA'd files sound better (I'm not satisfied that he was comparing the same master, he may well have been duped by neer-do-wells at MQA; as an aside, apparently Stuart stole a John Curl circuit design decades ago, so Stuart's integrity is suspect). Why is it not possible that MQA's colorations may be pleasing to some?

 

Curious your opinion on the host of this website. IIRC, Mr. Connaker had an early, favorable opinion on MQA's SQ. More recently, he rebuffed MQA's attempt to have this thread, um, vaporized but also shut down Hansen's request to publish something like Archimago's front-pager. I don't intend any criticism of Mr. Connaker but I see only one professional writer who seems to have gotten this "right" from the beginning.

[beetlemania]

18 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

So we should lock up music distribution with a lossy codec for "pleasing colorations?

 

That is hardly my point. I was simply highlighting the possibility that there could be a legit reason some (including JA, who we'd like to think can sniff out nonsense - his credibility has taken a hit with this debacle) might prefer the sound of MQA.

 

I only brought Chris Connaker into this conversation to illustrate that opinions can change over time (even now, I don't recall having read a firm stance, from him, against MQA - his position is mostly implicit via the existence of this thread and his publication and support of Archimago's article). IMO, JA should get some credit for publishing the Iverson AWSI and for participating here and on AudioAsylum. I don't see, for example, Harley and company around here. They are too busy proclaiming the Schitt DAC "obsolete" because it lacks MQA decoding. If there is a "biggest MQA shill", surely it is RH.

[beetlemania]

12 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Then Herb Reichert essentially said the Yggy could no longer be his reference because of its non MQA status

 

Could you direct me to a link? I was only able to find this in regards to the Mytek:

Quote

If you were contemplating the purchase of a new DAC, why would you not want it to include MQA processing?

which is plenty bad but nothing quite to the level you describe.

 

Meanwhile, I have to admit there is less and less reason to continue subscribing to Stereophile. Perhaps ironically, JA is the biggest reason I continue to read it (well, also Robert Baird and the music reviews). Fremer mostly listens to the price tag - the latest review of the Ypsilon amp being a great example ($93K!!! In the measurements, JA wrote that he could not recommend it, especially given the price, but - surprise - it's recommended as Class A in the very same issue). I ignore his column and reviews. Dudley is a good writer but his column rarely interests me and his taste in music reproduction doesn't well match my own. The newer writers, including Reichert, seem to have dubious listening skills and credibility.

[beetlemania]

5 minutes ago, labjr said:

Kind of hard to now to imagine the magazine is anything but a business that operates similar to politics.

 

I agree that analogy works well for TAS. JA, I think, made a mistake but still has a good amount of integrity. Still, it disappoints me that he continues to evade direct engagement of the issues around MQA. In this case, going on about Archimago's anonymity rather than elaborate his judgements regarding MQA.

[beetlemania]

6 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Perhaps you missed this?

 

lol, I typed "schitt" into my search bar instead of "schiit"

 

Thanks. Yeah, shame on Reichert.

[beetlemania]

4 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

a profound realignment of the relationships between consumers, manufacturers and the press.

 

I agree that is consequence of the mags praising MQA without a critical look at its technical claims nor valid listening comparisons. Doug Schneider (and Soundstage) is going to come out of this in pretty good shape though. Outside of their main writers, I haven't been sure how much credibility is due to many of Soundstage's writers. But it's clear (to me) that they are more credible than Reichert!

 

 

[beetlemania]

1 minute ago, mcgillroy said:

my next DAC will be a Schiit

I'd like to think that folks on this forum will give some love to Schiit, Linn, Ayre, et al. and likewise avoid the manufacturers that signed up for MQA.

[beetlemania]

2 minutes ago, labjr said:

I really miss Charley Hansen

 

Yep, he was one-of-a-kind with his willingness to share his knowledge and his no-BS approach (pun intended, of course). He was also a lightning rod around here, especially during the DSD debates. Ayre will no doubt miss his direction and innovation but I am hopeful they will be fine. Engineer Ariel Brown worked with Hansen for over 20 years, so I expect they'll not go down the path of, say, Thiel which completely abandoned all of their founder's design principles. From Ayre's facebook the "EX-8" integrated with onboard DAC is now shipping. The "QX-8" is supposed to come out soon - that is a product I'm interested in.

[beetlemania]

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

What exactly are we left with?

 

JA inelegantly fumbling for the escape hatch?

BS' wife wondering what happened to the money?

Untold gazillion MQA posts, mostly on CA?

[beetlemania]

On 3/20/2018 at 6:31 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Give me a break. I host the worlds largest anti-MQA threads and pay someone to write a front page article on the same topic and you still say the same nonsense.

 

Curious why you responded almost 3 months later. Also, your latter point ("pay someone to write a front page article") was not true when @rwdvis wrote that post.

[beetlemania]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for bringing this up. @rwdvis was after me in another thread and I clicked on his user profile and saw his post here. I mistakenly figured it was more recent. My fault.

 

Aww, now it makes sense. That's for clarifying.

[beetlemania]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

Don't agree. Similar things have happened in other company takeovers.

 

Right. It would be as simple as TEN not telling JA anything. Seems the opposite of impossible.

[beetlemania]

25 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Anybody read the Austin piece on MQA DRM?! Curios to hear how they spin it.

 

Austin says it's not DRM - I know you're shocked! - but allows space for alternative interpretations.

[beetlemania]

20 minutes ago, labjr said:

It's not lossy either.

I think he wrote that it *is* lossy but quickly added that the discarded bits don't matter, or something to that effect. I can't believe we're still talking about this crap. Isn't MQA dead yet?

 

Meanwhile, every "hi-res" file I've seen on TIDAL (via Roon) is MQA'ed. Can we haz Qubuz yet?

[beetlemania]

37 minutes ago, labjr said:

I'm tired of MQA articles in Stereophile. They're only doing it to attract attention because from the controversy.

 

My guess is that it's JA's way of walking back his hype.

[beetlemania]

17 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Shoudn't Jim Austin at this point just be marginalized and basically ignored?

 

I mostly ignore him. His reviews are not wroth reading, IMO. He thought a PS Audio DAC sounded identical to a Benchmark. Hard to believe given the completely unique topologies in each. I've only read his MQA articles so that I can fairly understand the pro-MQA slant of Stereophile.

[beetlemania]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

If consumers want blue lights I'm all for giving them blue lights.

 

Hell, in a game of one-uppance, HugeCo should add a "ping" to the blue light. Nothing says "quality" like a machine that goes "PING"!

 

[beetlemania]

7 hours ago, shtf said:

Jim Austin of Stereophile called me an idiot for speaking negatively about MQA's sonics when I've never listened to MQA

 

How deliciously ironic given Austin's "Chips for Chumps" op-ed.

[beetlemania]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Now that Roon allows MQA decoding and more DAC chipsets will have MQA capability,  motivated audiophiles will be able to do the sort of familiar-environment comparisons that we're used to doing when we bring home a new amplifier, cartridge, or loudspeaker.

 

I recently did this very thing. To my ears, TIDAL MQA sounds fine in and of itself. But in direct comparison to 24 bit versions (of what I assume is the same master), the PCM original sounds a bit more liquid and full. I resent than I might be having to pay MQA licensing via Roon or TIDAL subscription fees for a product that is no better, apparently worse, than existing digital. And I'm hugely disappointed in JA for fawning over this farce (sadly, not surprised that RH jumped the shark).

[beetlemania]

6 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

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.) 

 

True that Ayre’s listen filter is similar to MQA’s filter. But I don’t recall that Ayre intended to engineer a closed system that all would have to adopt, from recording to user. Only one of your articles has addressed some of the downsides of MQA, and gently at that. I kindly suggest you interview some of the MQA critics for future articles. 

 

Meanwhile, many of us have compared MQA to true hi-res and we’re not impressed. 

[beetlemania]

3 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

Thanks for listening with your ears. 

 

Oh, the irony. MQA for chumps.

[beetlemania]

4 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

My work here is done. 

 

As is the waning credibility I had in Stereophile.