MQA is Vaporware

[opus101]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

You are leaving out his saying those who disagreed with his mastering were old. 

 

And snobs too. He appeared to have an inability to accept differences of taste. To him, a person saying a particular artist or art form wasn't to one's taste meant in his world that you despised (rather than merely did not choose) that option. That's a fairly pernicious perceptual distortion.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, beetlemania said:

 

Yes, I saw the predictable car wreck when people were taking shots at Lucey's livelihood (and derailed the thread) but missed the part where Mr Connaker banned him. Then again, Mr Connaker was among those hucking the molotov cocktails.

 

sigh

 

It's true that some people here piled on about Volume compression. But Brian was unnecessarily nasty even to people who weren't arguing with him and just asking questions and trying to understand. He  didn't seem very willing to read and try and understand what other people were writing and kept up his own nasty talk based on preconceptions that didn't have much to do with reality. 

I don't think Chris threw any Molotov cocktails. Chris asked him to tone it down, and when he refused, he was banned. 

[the_bat]

58 minutes ago, esldude said:

No, I don't agree.  You are leaving out his saying those who disagreed with his mastering were old. 

 

To be fair, given that the main examples people were giving of good mastering were Nightfly (released 35 years ago) and Crime of the Century (released 43 years ago) he may have had a point.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, beetlemania said:

 

Yes, I saw the predictable car wreck when people were taking shots at Lucey's livelihood (and derailed the thread) but missed the part where Mr Connaker banned him. Then again, Mr Connaker was among those hucking the molotov cocktails.

 

sigh

 

Im guessing you missed most of his posts and the post where I offered to meet him in Los Angeles because I was sure we got off on the wrong foot. 

 

I dont think we need to rehash his banning, it’s all documented above. Although it was strange that a 50 year old Brian Lucey called me old because of my musical taste that includes many of the albums he touched and the fact that I’m in my early 40s. 

[4est]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Im guessing you missed most of his posts and the post where I offered to meet him in Los Angeles because I was sure we got off on the wrong foot. 

 

I dont think we need to rehash his banning, it’s all documented above. Although it was strange that a 50 year old Brian Lucey called me old because of my musical taste that includes many of the albums he touched and the fact that I’m in my early 40s. 

Yes, it was a bit of a cluster. Personally, I would have liked to see him get a little more slack from the pile on. He had strong opinions and stated them a bit forcibly, but he also had much to offer if we could have had it all toned down a bit.

[PeterSt]

It was the quite exceptional situation that someone kept on shouting while we kept on hoping he would stop that, even up to the point that we would be sorry when he would be banned, which feeling a few of us now practice.

 

Snowflakes are really of a different kind. No potential in a snowflake.

Missed opportunity. That's how I feel it.

[Confused]

For a while Brian Lucey's posting was so extreme that I did actually wonder if he was deliberately trying to get banned.  I suspect that in fact he was not, but when he was hurling abuse, not just at a number of members of this forum, but also at the site's owner and moderator, you can't help but wonder.  So maybe he had just gone into a bit of a rage and lost the plot a bit?  For me, I think his behaviour was unacceptable, but I do regret that we have lost someone with his experience and expertise.  Maybe a suspension rather than a ban might work?  This allows a 'cooling down' period, and after this, if civil posting ensues, then all is good.  That said, looking back at Brian's posts, I have to conclude that even following a suspension and a period of cooling down, civil posting would be highly unlikely.

[beetlemania]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Im guessing you missed most of his posts and the post where I offered to meet him in Los Angeles because I was sure we got off on the wrong foot. 

 

 

I think I *did* read most of those. My recollection is one or two from *you* criticized his role in the loudness war. For sure, there were several over-the-top flames directed at Lucey that you failed to moderate. In fact, you didn't see any problem whatsoever. Isn't it weird that manufacturers and professionals, who come to share their knowledge, are pilloried and often driven off this these fora? But, hey, it's your blog.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

I think I *did* read most of those. My recollection is one or two from *you* criticized his role in the loudness war. For sure, there were several over-the-top flames directed at Lucey that you failed to moderate. In fact, you didn't see any problem whatsoever. Isn't it weird that manufacturers and professionals, who come to share their knowledge, are pilloried and often driven off this these fora? But, hey, it's your blog.

Evidence please. 

 

I didn't criticize his role in the loudness war. Loudness is an artistic decision over which I don't want any control. I prefer more dynamic range, but I much prefer to hear what an artist wants to deliver. 

 

99% of comments directed at BL we not over the top flames. He couldn't handle any talk about loudness unless it fit his narrative. Even when the talk was a simple question. 

 

What you call my failure to moderate also included a warning to esldude that he would be banned if he made another comment like the one that was brought to my attention. I apply the rules evenly to everyone. 

 

Manufacturers and professionals aren't gods to be held on a higher pedestal and given a different set of rules. The truth is that most of them don't participate here because they are busy working a real job. If some of them can't handle criticism, then the internet isn't for them. Nobody gets to come here and act like an angry child insulting people. Those who can't control themselves need to take a hike. 

 

I wish BL could have got over his preconceived notions of audiophiles and had a normal discussion because most of the people in this thread were on his bandwagon and supported his cause. It's hard to believe that he could take an audience who liked him, wanted to learn from him, and supported him, and make them think the opposite. 

 

 

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I wish BL could have got over his preconceived notions of audiophiles and had a normal discussion because most of the people in this thread were on his bandwagon and supported his cause. It's hard to believe that he could take an audience who liked him, wanted to learn from him, and supported him, and make them think the opposite. 

 

 

 

I like how PeterSt put it:

 

"Snowflakes are really of a different kind. No potential in a snowflake."

 

MQA almost seemed to be a tangent for him as he was really interested in pounding the audiophile "myths" of DR and sample rates into submission.  I agree that DR can become a fetish, etc. but it is a real aspect of all music (even modern hip stuff) as well and thus not a "myth"...

 

As to the point of this thread and concerning Part-Time Audiophile, does it really even pretend to be a independant & a reporting mechanism of some sort?  At some point I ended up on their email list and they send me several postings a week.  Occasionally I will click on one, and it is all marketing/promotional copy in that late night TV 30 minute infomercial sort of way.  I have just been assuming that the whole enterprise is infomercial, but perhaps I am wrong...

[beetlemania]

The evidence is in the "spin-off" thread. One post questioned whether we could believe anything Lucey said given that his masterings were, in the opinion of the poster, overly compressed. Your participation there seemed only to fan the flames - I missed the part were you told esldude to dial it back. As I wrote in that thread:

 

LOL, yeah, none of you are "attacking" Brian Lucey. You're merely giving him unsolicited critiques of how he's doing his job wrong. Each of you would be totally cool with random people giving uninformed critiques of your work, right?

 

I often learn quite a lot when manufacturers and professionals post on the audiophile blogs (I'm really going to miss posts from Charles Hansen). Yes, no one should be put on a pedestal, but neither should they be targeted for harsh criticisms or assumed to have nefarious motives because of how they make a living. It is unfortunate, IMO, that you do not see any problem on this website regarding the latter behavior.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

13 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I want touch on the “I’m neutral,”  “I’m still studying MQA” responses of some of the audio press. Looking at the case of Lee Scroggins of The Part Time Audiophile is particularly illuminating.

 

I’ve had private email conversations with the now banned Peter Veth and it is my opinion you couldn’t become a member of his closed Facebook if you didn’t convince him you were pro MQA much less be listed as an administrator. So any comments of “I’m still studying MQA” are suspicious because it the same thing Peter was posting on John Darko’s site for about a year and a half. There were apparently discussions about how to discredit Brain Lucey and sure enough Lee manages to get a thread Brian was participating in taken down on Steve Hoffman Music Forums. Then Brain comes back to Computer Audiophile and Lee twists the conversation toward compression that sure appeared to be deliberate and calculated to antagonize many  members of the CA community. Understandably Brian has a short fuse about MQA since he posted his first objection to MQA in Stereophile December 2014 and real organized opposition didn’t start until two years later. So he pushed back on people and got himself banned here.

 

Lee also said he is getting an interview with an MQA representative something you can’t get unless you are a known supporter of MQA.  After all MQA Ltd announced after RMAF  they will not answer critics of MQA. He did his hit and run and vanished.

 

Actions speak louder than any words and Lee is pro MQA.  If you have press credentials in audio you are not neutral you are pro MQA with a handful of exceptions.

 

I don’t know how the press decided to support MQA but my research indicates that at least for the last seventeen years the same people have been pushing the same agenda and they are in a panic because if MQA is not successful there is no new format on the horizon to promote.

 

Lee was a fixture for many years over at the Hoffman forum.  His "reviews" always include copious name dropping of luminaries in audiophilia.  It always appeared to me (and others) that those relationships were far more important to him than providing objective information to consumers.  I remember a forum conversation where he said something along the lines of, "I'll always trust an industry insider more than someone attempting objective testing".  That was enough for me to filter his raves.  He caught a bit of flack for his unrelenting Shunyata advocacy.  Literally hundreds of pro-Shunyata posts over at Hoffman.

 

Lee has to be pro-MQA, because he wants Bob Stuart to like him so he can tell his readers how he met Bob and how amazingly awesome Bob is.

 

[Rt66indierock]

48 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I like how PeterSt put it:

 

"Snowflakes are really of a different kind. No potential in a snowflake."

 

MQA almost seemed to be a tangent for him as he was really interested in pounding the audiophile "myths" of DR and sample rates into submission.  I agree that DR can become a fetish, etc. but it is a real aspect of all music (even modern hip stuff) as well and thus not a "myth"...

 

As to the point of this thread and concerning Part-Time Audiophile, does it really even pretend to be a independant & a reporting mechanism of some sort?  At some point I ended up on their email list and they send me several postings a week.  Occasionally I will click on one, and it is all marketing/promotional copy in that late night TV 30 minute infomercial sort of way.  I have just been assuming that the whole enterprise is infomercial, but perhaps I am wrong...

 

Reading The Part Time Audiophile is like watching ads on the Golf Channel. And I like Scot Hull. I will get on an airplane and attend a service when he gets a church.

[The Computer Audiophile]

28 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

One post questioned whether we could believe anything Lucey said given that his masterings were, in the opinion of the poster, overly compressed.

One post. Big deal. Plus, questioning someone isn’t a bad thing. People in this thread are questioning Bob Stuart and MQA. Are you upset with this?

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Reading The Part Time Audiophile is like watching ads on the Golf Channel. And I like Scot Hull. I will get on an airplane and attend a service when he gets a church.

 

I'd never visited the site before but I see what you mean. At least Stereophile and the other trade rags try to have some Chinese wall between editorial content and advertising. 

 

[Rt66indierock]

13 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Stephen, FYI :

I've had private email conversations with Peter just the same and all I can say that I don't have any proof that I was invited to any Facebook group (I should be pro-MQA). Maybe I missed it.

 

Peter you didn’t convince him you are pro MQA. He would see you as an unreliable ally. You cannot be counted on to support Bob Stuart and MQA without turning the conversation to your ideas, software and products. I’m fine with you promoting your ideas and promoting your stuff here but anybody can see they are more important to you than MQA is.

[Samuel T Cogley]

57 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

The evidence is in the "spin-off" thread. One post questioned whether we could believe anything Lucey said given that his masterings were, in the opinion of the poster, overly compressed. Your participation there seemed only to fan the flames - I missed the part were you told esldude to dial it back. As I wrote in that thread:

 

LOL, yeah, none of you are "attacking" Brian Lucey. You're merely giving him unsolicited critiques of how he's doing his job wrong. Each of you would be totally cool with random people giving uninformed critiques of your work, right?

 

I often learn quite a lot when manufacturers and professionals post on the audiophile blogs (I'm really going to miss posts from Charles Hansen). Yes, no one should be put on a pedestal, but neither should they be targeted for harsh criticisms or assumed to have nefarious motives because of how they make a living. It is unfortunate, IMO, that you do not see any problem on this website regarding the latter behavior.

 

I guess you missed his rants about audiophiles "not getting it" for wanting some dynamic range.  His antipathy for audiophiles was palpable.  He said something like he came here to "speak truth", not "make friends".  In that context, I think it's perfectly reasonable to delve into the target demographics that BL's clients try to reach and discuss what devices those people use to consume their music.  One look at BL's client list and it's pretty clear that music isn't made for audiophiles.  Is it rude to discuss that?

[beetlemania]

I 'spose it could just be a coincidence that there is much more professional participation (Curl, Hansen, Khomenko, Karsten, Jim Smith, Rankin, et al.) over on AudioAsylum where the posts are more carefully moderated.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

I 'spose it could just be a coincidence that there is much more professional participation (Curl, Hansen, Khomenko, Karsten, Jim Smith, Rankin, et al.) over on AudioAsylum where the posts are more carefully moderated.

 

Sounds like you found your new favorite forum!  Congrats!

[Ralf11]

On 12/7/2017 at 11:33 PM, synn said:

Blind test completed.

I added all three tracks into a folder, set it to play in random and put the player in my pocket for a good hour or so. I lost track of the number of times I heard the song play, but it was a LOT. Now and then, I took the player out of the pocket and checked the screen to see if I got the format correct.

 

I picked the MQA file correctly every single time. Towards the end of the test I didn't even need to take the player out, I just knew when the MQA file was on.

 

 

The file overall sounds very brittle compared to the PCM and DSD versions. The highs have a certain "Cheesegrater" quality to it, which is quite evident in my test track with some prominent percussion and wind instrumentation. The PCM and especially, DSD files feel much more mellow in comparison. I felt that the MQA sounded a bit more compressed as well, but I can't say this with certain authority. No no no, do not want.

 

So overall, I have decided to give MQA a miss. No thank you. If I wanted grating highs, I'd buy an old Philips CD player and some Grados.

I should also add that I found the DSD file very pleasant. I should be spending a bit more time with the DSD format and give it a fair shake, which I haven't really done till now.

 

 

Were the 3 tracks all from the same 'album'?

 

It's possible that some other album sounds better with MQA

 

but...  why bother is the issue

[wushuliu]

Lucey didn't follow audiophile forum etiquette. Given his background, his posts made a lot of sense and his impatience understandable. How do you curb your arguments for a group of people who think debating MQA merits hundreds of pages despite that no matter what angle you're coming from it's been easily discredited? I mean, from an outside perspective it has to look ridiculous. It's like the People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front bit from Life of Brian. Who in their right mind has patience for that?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, beetlemania said:

I 'spose it could just be a coincidence that there is much more professional participation (Curl, Hansen, Khomenko, Karsten, Jim Smith, Rankin, et al.) over on AudioAsylum where the posts are more carefully moderated.

There are many more reasons why "professionals" chose to participate in forums than meets the eye. 

 

Where do you think Bob Stuart would rather talk about MQA, a forum that's heavily moderated where he is viewed with elevated status, or a forum where people like mansr and miska will ask him very technical and challenging questions that he may not want to answer?

[The Computer Audiophile]

57 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

Lucey didn't follow audiophile forum etiquette. Given his background, his posts made a lot of sense and his impatience understandable. How do you curb your arguments for a group of people who think debating MQA merits hundreds of pages despite that no matter what angle you're coming from it's been easily discredited? I mean, from an outside perspective it has to look ridiculous. It's like the People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front bit from Life of Brian. Who in their right mind has patience for that?

There is no audiophile etiquette. Or if there is, count me out. 

 

I have zero understanding for someone using the language he used to attack people. Attack arguments, not people. 

 

I also don't understand why people are holding BL up to be this god of pro audio. He has zero respect for many people, including most people here and even mastering engineers who paved the way for him. When asked about Doug Sax mastering dynamic recordings, all BL said is, "Doug is dead." 

 

All he had to do was respect people and he'd be encouraged to post here. That's really all I ask. 99.99% of people here have no problem with respecting others, even if a little shade is thrown there way. I guess we all handle things differently, but one can make life much harder by using spice rather than sugar. 

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There is no audiophile etiquette. Or if there is, count me out. 

 

I have zero understanding for someone using the language he used to attack people. Attack arguments, not people. 

 

I also don't understand why people are holding BL up to be this god of pro audio. He has zero respect for many people, including most people here and even mastering engineers who paved the way for him. When asked about Doug Sax mastering dynamic recordings, all BL said is, "Doug is dead." 

 

All he had to do was respect people and he'd be encouraged to post here. That's really all I ask. 99.99% of people here have no problem with respecting others, even if a little shade is thrown there way. I guess we all handle things differently, but one can make life much harder by using spice rather than sugar. 

 

Let's not forget what Brian Lucey accomplished this year. At the Los Angeles Audio Show this year he called Bob Stuart and Robert Harley liars and sent the MQA crowd up to hide in the Wilson room. Setting the stage for the avalanche of criticism The Absolute Sound received when they wrote their MQA articles. Accepted an invitation to appear on an MQA panel at RMAF causing its cancellation and causing MQA to announce they will not engage detractors. RMAF was left with Danny Kaey Sunday to try and at least turn down the volume. All Danny did was encourage MQA detractors to keep the pressure on and the volume up.

 

[Fair Hedon]

8 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Lee was a fixture for many years over at the Hoffman forum.  His "reviews" always include copious name dropping of luminaries in audiophilia.  It always appeared to me (and others) that those relationships were far more important to him than providing objective information to consumers.  I remember a forum conversation where he said something along the lines of, "I'll always trust an industry insider more than someone attempting objective testing".  That was enough for me to filter his raves.  He caught a bit of flack for his unrelenting Shunyata advocacy.  Literally hundreds of pro-Shunyata posts over at Hoffman.

 

Lee has to be pro-MQA, because he wants Bob Stuart to like him so he can tell his readers how he met Bob and how amazingly awesome Bob is.

 

absolutely 100% spot on. I mean bullseye. Bingo. Bam.

 

Not only name dropping..but FIRST name dropping..Bob Stuart is always "Bob"...as In "I am sure Bob has the good of all audiophiles in mind with MQA"...

 

You nailed it.