MQA is Vaporware

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, rando said:

So much ire towards anything to do with a first unfold.  The sociological conditioning is worthy of study.

 

Or maybe so much bullshit towards anything to do with a first unfold?

 

The industry pundit and Bob Stuart authored conditioning is worthy of study.

[botrytis]

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

[rando]

7 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Or maybe so much bullshit towards anything to do with a first unfold?

 

The industry pundit and Bob Stuart authored conditioning is worthy of study.

 

I fear there exists a need to explain dry Midwestern humor and it's place.

[Samuel T Cogley]

38 minutes ago, rando said:

 

I fear there exists a need to explain dry Midwestern humor and it's place.

 

One of the downsides to possessing a Jedi level of snark skill.  Sometimes your snark will be invisible to all but other Jedi 

[adamdea]

15 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I have seen a few posts on other forums that in Stereophile's new issue, they "As We See It" opening column may be the first

hedge against MQA they have published in almost 4 years, written by Jon Iverson.

 

Anyone with the issue, feel free to corroborate.

I've read Iverson's article. The conclusion is that becasue we can't separate the compression side of MQA from the deblurring there no ability to tell whether it is wirth it. Hence Iverson considers that MQA is not in the long-term interests of audiophiles. He hopes it's not too late.

[adamdea]

I'm not 100% sure I follow Iverson's reasoning, but it's interesting to note the independent thought. 

[rando]

54 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

One of the downsides to possessing a Jedi level of snark skill.  Sometimes your snark will be invisible to all but other Jedi 

The fourth riff on issues cracking open a magazine being yet further trouble with the first unfold should have grown in depth of meaning.  

[Brinkman Ship]

50 minutes ago, adamdea said:

I've read Iverson's article. The conclusion is that becasue we can't separate the compression side of MQA from the deblurring there no ability to tell whether it is wirth it. Hence Iverson considers that MQA is not in the long-term interests of audiophiles. He hopes it's not too late.

Interesting perspective. Compared to the rest of the MQA PR Staff at Stereophile, it is practically a knife in the back of Stuart.

[adamdea]

9 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Interesting perspective. Compared to the rest of the MQA PR Staff at Stereophile, it is practically a knife in the back of Stuart.

This reminds me of the cold-war discipline of kremlinology, where pundits would try to acertain shifts in the balance of power from snippets like who sat where during the Red Army march past.

Does  this reflect a change in editorial thought? A change in JI's thought. if he always thought it, why has he only now chosen (or been chosen) to say it. Is this the equivalent fo Kruschev's "On the cult of personality and its consequences"?

My guess is that it reflects a recognition (which took too long to sink in) that the punters and many of manufacturers really aren't happy, and that Stereophile was out of line but being so single-voiced. So maybe the herald of more diversity , rather than a shift in the single voice. But let's see. 

[labjr]

59 minutes ago, adamdea said:

I've read Iverson's article. The conclusion is that becasue we can't separate the compression side of MQA from the deblurring there no ability to tell whether it is wirth it. Hence Iverson considers that MQA is not in the long-term interests of audiophiles. He hopes it's not too late.

Exactly. They're forcing you to take the whole package because nobody would want to pay licensing for just some new filtering.

[adamdea]

Ok whoa @Kal Rubinson on p. 169. He prefers DXD and DSD multichannel from 2L to the MQA without room correction- "more even, continuous and convincing", and much preferred them with DRC.

Holy smoke- Stereophile has now gone subjective on MQA's ass!

 

Ignore my previous post, it seems we have real shift. 

 

"I don't see the need for [MQA]."

[Brinkman Ship]

22 minutes ago, adamdea said:

This reminds me of the cold-war discipline of kremlinology, where pundits would try to acertain shifts in the balance of power from snippets like who sat where during the Red Army march past.

Does  this reflect a change in editorial thought? A change in JI's thought. if he always thought it, why has he only now chosen (or been chosen) to say it. Is this the equivalent fo Kruschev's "On the cult of personality and its consequences"?

My guess is that it reflects a recognition (which took too long to sink in) that the punters and many of manufacturers really aren't happy, and that Stereophile was out of line but being so single-voiced. So maybe the herald of more diversity , rather than a shift in the single voice. But let's see. 

Superb post!! Excellent analysis...

 

[Brinkman Ship]

22 minutes ago, labjr said:

Exactly. They're forcing you to take the whole package because nobody would want to pay licensing for just some new filtering.

B-I-N-G-O

[Brinkman Ship]

17 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Ok whoa @Kal Rubinson on p. 169. He prefers DXD and DSD multichannel from 2L to the MQA without room correction- "more even, continuous and convincing", and much preferred them with DRC.

Holy smoke- Stereophile has now gone subjective on MQA's ass!

 

Ignore my previous post, it seems we have real shift. 

 

"I don't see the need for [MQA]."

Call off the dogs!!!!! Has the emperor of Rome, errr. the editor, seen The Light?

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Call off the dogs!!!!! Has the emperor of Rome, errr. the editor, embraced Jeezus?

I don't know, but this seems big to me.

[Indydan]

On 06/03/2018 at 11:54 AM, eclectic said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

While I was browsing another forum, I saw recent posts from Lee. I asked him February 27 if he would be coming back to CA with some answers. He has not replied... 

 

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?24817-Alpha-and-Delta-NR-VS-Zitron-and-Older-Line/page3

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, adamdea said:

I've read Iverson's article. The conclusion is that becasue we can't separate the compression side of MQA from the deblurring there no ability to tell whether it is wirth it. Hence Iverson considers that MQA is not in the long-term interests of audiophiles. He hopes it's not too late.

 

Does he lend credence to the marketing speak of "de-blurring", or is he skeptical of it based on what we actually know about digital sampling, filters, etc. etc.

[Indydan]

7 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Call off the dogs!!!!! Has the emperor of Rome, errr. the editor, seen The Light?

 

I'll play Devil's advocate a little. Maybe Atkinson is just doing what he has always claimed: he lets his writers express their opinions. It just happens that Iverson sees no benefit to MQA. 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Indydan said:

 

I'll play Devil's advocate a little. Maybe Atkinson is just doing what he has always claimed: he lets his writers express their opinions. It just happens that Iverson sees no benefit to MQA. 

 

I actually think this is the case.  However, what took him so long?  It is very likely (very very) is he became skeptical because of the consumer pushback, and formed/changed his opinion.  In other words, his skepticism it is in spite of the culture of Audiophiledom in general and his trade publication in particular, not because of it.

[Kal Rubinson]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

I actually think this is the case.  However, what took him so long?  

With all due deference to my editor, these are independent contributions and, as far as I know, unsolicited but welcomed by him.

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

With all due deference to my editor, these are independent contributions and, as far as I know, unsolicited but welcomed by him.

 

Not sure how this is relevant, perhaps you could say more.  First, when I look up the name on the Stereophile web site I see he is a regular (several contributions a month) going back several years - not sure what "independant" at this context means.  Second, I wonder how and when he came to his conclusion - "what took him so long" still stands, as well as where did he get his basic data from which to be skeptical?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Indydan said:

 

While I was browsing another forum, I saw recent posts from Lee. I asked him February 27 if he would be coming back to CA with some answers. He has not replied... 

 

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?24817-Alpha-and-Delta-NR-VS-Zitron-and-Older-Line/page3

 

That thread is about Shunyata cables... 

[adamdea]

47 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

With all due deference to my editor, these are independent contributions and, as far as I know, unsolicited but welcomed by him.

Thanks 

Perhaps it's just synchronicity. Either way it's interesting. One former member of this forum insisted to me on the Stereophile forum only a day or so ago that no one thought MQA sonically inferior to ordinary hi res.

 

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Does he lend credence to the marketing speak of "de-blurring", or is he skeptical of it based on what we actually know about digital sampling, filters, etc. etc.

He doesn't express a view on that part of the argument.

[miguelito]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No matter what content is playing, I can select any of the dCS filters as long as they are for the correct format (PCM or DSD). For example, I can listen to an MQA track and select any of the following filters:

 

Filter 1
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Filter 6
Filter M1

 

M1 is the MQA filter. I can even select the MQA filter for nonMQA content if I wish.

Also: The setting is MQA stream sensitive. By default, a non-MQA file will play with F1, and an MQA file will play with M1. It switches automatically back and forth based on the file type.