MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

8 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have known Amir for a long time, back to the HD DVD days and the early days of WBF. Can’t take him seriously. Perhaps this will be the first dent in the cult like thinking over there at ASR.

 

Wow!

I just went over there.

Amir is just losing it. He's obsessing on Chris.

Normally I would feel sorry for someone devolving like that. But he is such an arrogant, condescending narcissist that I can't.

I guess that is what MQA does to people. Must be something in the ultrasonics that sets them off.

[KeenObserver]

25 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I just wish mQa would just go away.

 

You and I. And probably many others.

[KeenObserver]

Chris

There has been activity everywhere. There have been a slew of people pushing the MQA line of BS.

You have your ear to the ground.

Are they just desperate or is something coming?

[KeenObserver]

There is a smell to all this.

Suddenly there are people all over the internet regurgitating the talking points that MQA has been spouting since its inception. They are spouting the same BS in ever changing terms over and over.

Nobody initiates a covert advertising campaign like this unless they expect a return on their money.

Something is brewing.

People need to remember, there is no benefit to the music consumer, only cost.

There is nothing that MQA does, or more accurately, claims to do, that cannot be done by open source technology.

Having MQA take over the distribution of music would be a major screwing of the music consumer.

[KeenObserver]

9 minutes ago, Confused said:

So maybe something is brewing, or maybe the "pro MQA" contingent is simply getting a little panicky and going in for a final battle?

 

Perhaps so. But it seems too coordinated and the language seems too carefully crafted.

[KeenObserver]

20 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

For you, maybe. But had GoldenSound/GoldenOne or Archimago offered me their work to publish, as a professional editor I would have insisted they do so using their real names.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

You, Sir, are magnificent!

[KeenObserver]

18 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Sorry, NO. As I said, that is spurious at best and utter arrogance at the worst. If the data can't stand on it's own merit, it wouldn't have produced the vitriol in response that it did.

 

The data produced the vitriol it did because of what it exposed. If a name was associated with it , it would have produced the same vitriol.

[KeenObserver]

I'm beginning to think there are subliminal messages in the MQA ultrasonics!

[KeenObserver]

The fact that MQA's defense of its process is a never ending attempt to define "lossless" should say everything you need to know about MQA.

[KeenObserver]

I think there are two old British gentlemen that should retire gracefully, rather than continue to embarrass themselves.

[KeenObserver]

The endless argument about the meaning of lossless. The question of anonymity. The endless repetition of ridiculous claims. The ridiculous questioning of credentials of someone putting forth facts.

These are all misdirection to steer us away from the fact that MQA offers nothing of value to the music consumer.

[KeenObserver]

I'll repeat it.

I'll be glad when this MQA BS is no longer hanging over our heads.

[KeenObserver]

19 hours ago, opus101 said:

@GoldenOne's thread over on ASR seems at long last to be generating more light than heat. Things are looking up 

 

Looks like a setup.

Mansr was banned.

A new poster appears that posts something like 180 post on this thread, repeating every MQA talking point. He makes every snide remark in the book.

When other posters refute the BS, they are told to be "scientific" or some such.

The direction of the thread is being tightly controlled.

But, yes, some truth is getting out.

[KeenObserver]

On 6/2/2021 at 5:08 PM, John_Atkinson said:

 

Not at all. Having worked in audio magazine publishing for 45 years, I strongly believe that if you are going to publish opinions and test results that may result in financial consequences for those whom you write about, you must do so using your actual name. With one exception - an exception that was agreed to before I joined the magazine - every contributor to Stereophile signs his work with his real name.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

I admire your ethical standards.

For the sake of full disclosure and openness, could you answers the following questions.

During your tenure at Stereophile, what percentage of the market did Meridian hold?

During your tenure at Stereophile, how many reviews were made of Meridian equipment?

What is your relationship with Bob Stuart?

 

This will help the audiophile to make an honest assessment of the value of your pronouncements on things related to Bob Stuart.

[KeenObserver]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

24 Meridian products were reviewed in that period. To put that number into context, there were 41 reviews of Audio Research products, 37 reviews of Sony products, 32 reviews of PS Audio products. 23 reviews of PSB products, etc etc.

 

To put that in perspective, in the market that Stereophile served, what would be the ratio of products sold by Sony and Meridian?

10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?  Possibly a million to one?

[KeenObserver]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

How many people could afford the Meridian products also.

 

Maybe the audiophile press (I use that in the totality) would better serve the public if they actually would review more kit that people can afford than can't afford.

 

Looking at the financials of Meridian, it looks like not a lot afforded the equipment.

I suspect that if not for the support of the Journals, Meridian would have folded long ago.

Much like MQA.

 

The bright spot for Meridian is that now that Bob Stuart has left, it looks like they are turning the corner to profitability.

[KeenObserver]

I have to give credit to Bob Stuart and John Atkinson. They are both in their seventies, a time when most are retired and enjoying their golden years.

And yet they are still manning the ramparts against the "anonymous bloggers" that are launching truth bombs.

[KeenObserver]

Facts are facts.

If you don't believe them, disprove them.

Opinions are opinions. They are relatable to the person that gave them.

Since the majority of what was produced in Stereophile was opinion, it was important to relate that to the author.

If you had a three or four page review that was all hyperbole, it was important to know who the author was.

If you had a music reviewer that gave a glowing review of music that you thought sounded like the death screams of a hyena, you wanted to know who that reviewer was.

If you tested equipment you knew that the tests could be duplicated by others, so your reputation depended on accurately testing and reporting.

If you want to refute what GS published, refute the facts and produce the proof!

 

If you attack him personally, it means you have NOTHING!

[KeenObserver]

I was a subscriber to Stereophile from the early days of JGH. I read TAS when there was something that particularly interested me, but I did not subscribe to it. They were enthusiast's publications.

Stereophile turned into a business. Every month there was a three, four, or five page review of the next best thing, full of hyperbole. It became obvious to me that the purpose of Stereophile was to create "churn" in the market and sell ad space. I let my subscription run out in the mid 90's.

A few years back, when I was looking for a new pre-pro, I read Kal's reviews, because I respect his opinion.

I have not even looked at anything on Stereophile in recent times.  Mr. Atkinson's support of the MQA scheme has completely poisoned my opinion.

Stereophile is a business. I would not consider it an enthusiast's publication. It made a business decision to support the MQA scheme.

[KeenObserver]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Well, I am 60 and still doing cutting edge biotech research. Most people though may need to be pushed out because they are not cutting edge, just also ran type of stuff. I ran into this during my Post Doc.

 

I love Mr Atkinson's objective measurements, that is something I totally respect and look forward to seeing. He gets my whole hearted thanking on that.

 

First off, you're just a young whipper-snapper. Oh, to be sixty again!

Frankly, after reading " a veil was lifted, the blackness between the notes" reviews for the hundredth time, the only thing I read was the specs and the tests.

[KeenObserver]

"Their lips are moving"

[KeenObserver]

And the question is: how do you know the salesman is feeding you a line?

[KeenObserver]

You think that's something. MQA tells people that it improves the original master!

[KeenObserver]

Probably like most people, I am sick of MQA.

However, MQA is like Groundhog Day. The same ridiculous BS gets repeated over and over. Now, it's a ridiculous argument over and over about the meaning of lossless.

Looking at MQA LTD's most recent financial postings, they report that they received financing to bring them to 2021, with the promise of additional funding in 2021 that would finance them to 2022.

We are looking at another year of listening to MQA BS. But, we cannot give up now. I mentioned earlier about "anonymous bloggers" firing truth bombs at the MQA ramparts. The fact is there are many firing truth bombs at the MQA ramparts, and the truth is engulfing MQA.

More and more people are realizing that MQA is a money grab that has no benefit for the music consumer. We need to continue getting that word out.

The big question is: Will Reinet continue funding MQA. They, along with the big three studios, would have to be willing to ram MQA down the throats of the music consumer. They did it with "Tot". they might be arrogant enough to think that they can do it with MQA.

Tidal, the main user of MQA, has changed hands. Project Panther Bidco, the holding company of Tidal, had the same address and entity on their board as Secretary, Reed Smith Corporate Services. Recently Project Panther Bidco changed address and the entity that was Secretary.  Perhaps that means that they are divorcing themselves from MQA. But I wouldn't count on it until it actually happens.

We must continue to get the truth about MQA out there if we want to keep the future of music free from MQA.

[KeenObserver]

17 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

As I've mentioned before, data is data until it isn't.

 

Case in point, electron flow.  Is it from positive to negative, or the opposite?  For the sake of argument, presume this is before the semiconductor evolution and the realization of majority and minority carriers.

 

Scientists performed elaborate and exhaustive testing of current flow using the best tools they had - a spark gap test and visual observation.  

 

The results are conclusive, and cannot be disputed.  Current flow is from positive to negative.  We publish text books for the next century explaining exactly that.  

 

And then, with advanced testing methods, we discover that, for Chrisake, it's the exact opposite - it's from negative to positive.  

 

Now, mind you, you would have a hard time designing a circuit that wouldn't work otherwise, but we have all those text books with the wrong information that we need to manage somehow.

 

Oh, I know!  We'll call positive to negative "conventional current flow" and negative to positive as "Engineering current flow."

 

And that's the way it's been ever since.  The electrons don't care.  

 

Data is data.

 

And your point is what?

That the laws of physics as we now understand them don't apply to MQA?

That we are looking at a new dawn on the order of Copernicus?

 

Are you Robert Harley?