MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is interesting. I wish the xxxxxs I put in the following quote were place holders for mQa. It would be a refreshing statement from JA2. Alas, they aren’t. 
 

 

“it would be a travesty if the xxxxx version were the only version of this classic track easily available. That, to me, is the key point about xxxxxx and xxxxxxx: It's cool as far as it goes, but the original version must stay in circulation, in pristine form.”

 

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/respect-music-apple-dolby-atmos

 

Could the same be said for recent remixes of classic (not classical) recordings?  When DVD-A and multichannel SACD were at their peak, you could usually find a stereo mixdown of the multichannel content for those who wanted the original stereo, but with the added benefit of the new capture pass that was made of the session masters.

 

But in spite of all that effort, those stereo mixdowns always sounded so different from the original stereo masters that they were like completely new songs.  Very much like when a band can't get a good streaming deal on their original recordings and go into the studio to re-record the songs and pass them off on streaming services as those original recordings.  Def Leppard infamously did just that to just horrendous results.

 

So yes, let's keep the original, unadulterated recordings.  And please CLEARLY differentiate remixes of original session masters for the purposes of an "audiophile" release.  In my opinion, those recordings should have the word "remixed" put directly in the title, not a footnote as HDTracks often does.

 

For sure some will disagree with this decidedly intolerant take.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

This is one of those "eye of the beholder" things, Chris. Paul Seydor devoted 2400 words to his less-than-enthusiastic assessment of MQA SQ. It's a central subject of the review and it's appropriate to note that it is. To me, the capsule highlights an aspect of the product that the reviewer found "troubling". To you, it's just part of an etched-in-stone narrative that TAS is invariably supportive of MQA. Which we are not.

 

 

 

 

An interesting narrative you have there.  Is this the rallying cry against the "partisans" that your publication so often malign?

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I'm just saying that there are some who choose to paint with a pretty broad brush. That, because of the two print magazines' out-of-the-gate enthusiasm for MQA, everything they write about, even four years later, is worthless—every equipment write-up, every interview, every music review, every show report, every award feature. That JA's "legacy" has been sullied because of this one stance he took. This is not the best critical thinking, in my view. It's possible to be an uncompromising "partisan" about MQA and still find some value in the work of a group of writers with a lot of experience and who share your love of perfectionist audio.

 

The mQa taint is more difficult to wash off than you thought it would be?

[Samuel T Cogley]

@ARQuint regarding:

 

Quote

everything they write about, even four years later, is worthless—every equipment write-up, every interview, every music review, every show report, every award feature.

 

my reason for disregarding these publications is that there's no stated goal of consumer advocacy.  Perhaps you might consider publishing an essay on consumer advocacy and why your publication seems to avoid it at all costs.  Maybe you could discuss how you generate revenue and how consumer advocacy would jeopardize your revenue stream.

 

I hope this provides a little clue of why so many are so suspicious of your (and other) publication's motives.

[Samuel T Cogley]

So the lesson I learned here is that consumer advocacy is antithetical to the purpose of audiophile publications.

 

Why this transforms skeptical consumers into "partisans" is still not completely clear though.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

John Atkinson is the Technical Editor of Stereophile. Bob Harley was the "digital expert" when he was with Stereophile. Before giving MQA their ringing endorsement, did they do their due diligence and research MQA? Did they have a clear understanding of all aspects of MQA?

 

Due diligence suggests consumer advocacy.  Since we know that's not JA's and RH's jam, of COURSE they didn't research if consumers were being fed a load of bull manure by BS.

 

Paraphrasing a T-shirt I saw years ago, "Bob Stuart said it, I believe it, that settles it".

[Samuel T Cogley]

"measurements mean nothing" is a familiar mantra.

 

Vinyl playback objectively adds distortion, but it is beloved by many.  To some, being an audiophile means feeling good, not seeking the most accurate playback chain.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, and who are we to tell them otherwise?

 

If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. - Sheryl Crow

 

Happy people spend more money, right?

[Samuel T Cogley]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not necessarily. 

 

This guys is pretty happy and doesn't spend much. 

 

 

 

Edit: I've also not met an audiophile who is happy with his system, that keeps spending money. Happy and content audiophiles don't fix what isn't broken.

 

Touche

 

But I probably should have said "happy consumers"

[Samuel T Cogley]

With respect to the OP, we've gone WAAAAAAY off the rails.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just like the auto market. There are/were Yugos and Bentleys. Both get us to the grocery store. At least we have options. That's a great thing. 

 

...says the person with 10 or more DACs...

[Samuel T Cogley]

@John_Atkinson should elaborate on the white glove treatment that his sample files received vs. batch encodes done with no apparent regard to the ADC hardware used in the capture and/or production processes.  And also why mQa CDs are good for consumers.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I have a little sympathy for @BassFace 's view of a "clique" at work here.  Presumably, I'm part of this pro-consumer clique.

 

There's audio playback software that uses this forum for its ad-hoc support system.  Significant changes get made to the software, sometimes to the point of removing core features (like drag-and-drop) and there's nary a peep from the software's devotees.  Drag-and-drop was added back in a later release, but you'd never know there was any dissent based on this forum's "support thread".  So yes, this forum can be rife with sycophancy at times.

 

Is there a link between consumerism and narcissism/sycophancy? 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Lee, we are not going down the same road again. You are a hammer and mQa is your nail. You’re trying to rewrite history again. 
 

Time for you to go. Again. 

 

I can't imagine what Scoggins could have said to you over the phone to make you believe he'd changed somehow.  With all due respect (and I mean that), he totally played you.

 

But what's more unbelievable to me is he now posts as the Chief Executive Officer at Nextscreen, LLC and somehow he still doesn't feel any need to dial back the disingenuousness.

 

This makes me really question the integrity of the publications under his control.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, MikeyFresh said:

That was unbelievable, though he did not add his recent industry affiliation to his signature, so for the uninitiated it wasn't even entirely clear who Lee Scoggins is (was).

 

Ditto (queue the obligatory ARQ drive-by).

 

Oh yes, Quint will arrive soon complaining about the "anti-MQA partisans" fowling the forum and making it a terrible place for reasonable people like him.

[Samuel T Cogley]

That witch ain't dead just yet.  You anti-mQa partisans should be ashamed 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It would be terrible for people to show up and give Ken Forsythe the Ken Forsythe treatment. Not letting him speak and interrupting his presentation would be just terrible. He would never do such a thing :~)

 

 

I think the point is: you ARE better than that.

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Most of the objectivists asked for their accounts to be closed because they didn't want to abide by the site rules. I guess shouting from the hill tops (in the objective forum) is far less interesting when the subjective leaning audiophiles aren't listening.

 

I think that ultimately, the objectivists were antithetical to the way high end audio gear is marketed to consumers.  You had to choose.

 

It's interesting that you characterize them as "shouting from the hill tops" when the banner ads on this site are far, far "louder" than they ever were.  🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

My point about the banner ads is that the "objectivists" often weren't compatible with them.

 

Example:

 

Q) Is a DAC that costs as much as a car worth the money?

 

The "subjectivist" response would typically be something along the lines of, "OMG, have you **listened** to one?"

 

The "objectivist" response would typically be something along the lines of, "No way.  And the manufacturer certainly hasn't proved that it is".

 

Which response is more compatible with the banner ads?

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Defining worth is not an objective pursuit. 

 

Nope.  Value.

 

"Worth" is a subjective construct.

"Value" is an objective construct.

 

See the difference?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nobody gets to define value for others. 

 

Value is objective.  "How much will you pay me for this DAC that I bought?  I spent as much as a car!"

 

vs.

 

"I wouldn't part with this amazing DAC for all the money in the world".  <-- worth, not value.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

When a legitimate alternate opinion cannot be posted in the main forum by the site rules, I'd call it an echo chamber. 

 

Groupthink is a more descriptive term. 🙂

 

The rub seems to be calling delusional beliefs, "delusional beliefs".  But delusional beliefs sell lots and lots of audio gear, so those delusional beliefs are sacrosanct here.

[Samuel T Cogley]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I completely understand that science is updated when new information comes along. That site is far from real science. Real since has real scientists look at something before it's published to the masses. However, that takes time and doesn't whip up the crowd as much as throwing measurements at the wall for all to find errors. 

 

I never joined The Forum That Shall Not Be Named.  And you make a good point about mQa and how that site founder has a history with HDCD, so all proprietary codecs Must Be Good.

 

But that site sometimes playing fast and loose with "science" does not invalidate the need for testing.  Indeed, even Schiit now has three different versions of the Yggy.  One made specifically for those who want better measured performance.  They took a LOT of guff for the lackluster measurements of the OG Yggy.

 

Although I have some things in common with those who simply want the highest sound quality that they can afford, I also understand that audiophilia is first and foremost a consumerist activity.  There are very specific psychological tactics having to do with the advertising and marketing of consumer products.  mQa routinely uses all of the most egregious of these tactics.  But so do many others.  Some of which have banner ads on this very site.

 

And at the end of the day, it is the conflict between consumerist psychology and the questioning of the Audiophilia Status Quo that ultimately forced your hand to corral the people who might have made others question their consumerist motivations into their own segregated sub-forum.

 

We certainly don't want people questioning whether a DAC that costs as much as a car is really worth the money, right?

[Samuel T Cogley]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No.

 

You are always quick to delete any mention of the Audiophile Confidence Game.  And there is a strong case to be made that's it's an actual thing.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I haven't deleted anything.

 

I've certainly seen you delete references to it in the past.  You did this to one of my posts not too long ago.  Look at the delete history yourself.