MQA is Vaporware

[FredericV]

Hans Beekhuyzen / member Evangelist at CA busted for being unscientific!

Remember Hans Beekhuyzen's latest video about his time smearing simulation?

Well he does not care about science:

 

He made this video up, without any technical backing of how the files were made. Off course he is clueless and cannot scientifically define/prove what time smearing is. So instead of admitting his fault, he falls back to "this is no science channel". He does not provide any info how to peer review his video, as he does not explain how the files were crafted.

I also noticed technical comments are disappearing on this video. There was a link to Peter Moncrieff's MQA article, and now it is gone. The comment mentioned MQA changes the phase (and thus the time domain) because of their minimum phase filters. But hey, no science is being done at the HB channel, so any critical comments must be eliminated.
 

[shtf]

5 hours ago, crenca said:

....

Instead, they go with cool kid Bob S who moves the goalposts. 

....

@Jim Austin@Jim Austin

 

 

I think the real question is why? 

 

I don't think I've ever knowingly listened to any piece of Meridian gear and as I recall Meridian's reputation was at best middle-of-the-road, though I think the mags used to give Meridian and Stuart higher praise than that.  There's Stuart's interview in 2014 published in TAS where he seemed a bit illogical and contradictory, then more recently hearing about the Meridian's financial struggles, his questionable character, etc, it just doesn't seem to fit that he would have the wherewithall to come up with MQA all by his lonesome.  It's certainly possible but just doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility.

 

That's why I think potentially everything about MQA, its measurements, performance, intents, etc can be greatly simplified if not entirely eliminated when I give consideration to the possibility that Stuart was approached by the music industry and was annointed as the "inventor" of a new format whose primary purpose was to simplify inventories, recordings, pressings, productions, purchases, and downloads all to a single format and acquire royalties, licensing fees and monopolize the entire music world.  All under the guise of listeners all over the world hearing for the first time exactly what the recording engineers heard in the studio.

 

And just as I suspect Stuart was approached, I also suspect Harley and Atkinson and other insiders were approached in much the same way.

 

This scenario seems by far the most logical and in fact, it's the only strategy that makes complete sense to me and explains everything about the controveries surrounding MQA.  And because playback music is so dang subjective, everybody involved thought it would be an easy sell.  A no brainer if you will.  This was my suspicion since reading my very first article about MQA in TAS.  And it makes more sense today than it did 4 years ago.

[Indydan]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

Hans Beekhuyzen / member Evangelist at CA busted for being unscientific!

Remember Hans Beekhuyzen's latest video about his time smearing simulation?

Well he does not care about science:

 

He made this video up, without any technical backing of how the files were made. Off course he is clueless and cannot scientifically define/prove what time smearing is. So instead of admitting his fault, he falls back to "this is no science channel". He does not provide any info how to peer review his video, as he does not explain how the files were crafted.

I also noticed technical comments are disappearing on this video. There was a link to Peter Moncrieff's MQA article, and now it is gone. The comment mentioned MQA changes the phase (and thus the time domain) because of their minimum phase filters. But hey, no science is being done at the HB channel, so any critical comments must be eliminated.
 

 

That Hans Beekhoser is so full of it... 

 

 

[Fokus]

5 hours ago, shtf said:

y hearing about the Meridian's financial struggles, his questionable character, etc, it just doesn't seem to fit that he would have the wherewithall to come up with MQA all by his lonesome.  It's certainly possible but just doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility.

 

 

Why the personal attacks? There is no need to attack BS, his wife, dog, and finances, when MQA itself is a nice fat target.

 

First, I assure you that BS is quite capable of dreaming this up.

 

Second, he was not alone in doing this: there has been a decades-long cooperation with Peter Craven (who brings a lineage going back to Michael Gerzon). Ages ago Craven and Stuart started a war with orthodox steep linear phase reconstruction filters. This informed the design of Meridian CD players and DACs for a while. MQA is just the next step, getting rid of the filters altogether.

 

5 hours ago, shtf said:

 

the possibility that Stuart was approached by the music industry and was annointed as the "inventor" of a new format whose primary purpose was to ...

 

I think that unlikely. What I do find likely is that after the concepts of MQA were laid down (stealing here and adding original ideas there), the company's board gave the instruction to monetise the hell out of it, making it as closed as possible.

(Some of) the idea would have found more success and acceptance if it were open from day one, as a mastering tool and philosophy.

[Brinkman Ship]

11 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Why the personal attacks? There is no need to attack BS, his wife, dog, and finances, when MQA itself is a nice fat target.

 

First, I assure you that BS is quite capable of dreaming this up.

 

Second, he was not alone in doing this: there has been a decades-long cooperation with Peter Craven (who brings a lineage going back to Michael Gerzon). Ages ago Craven and Stuart started a war with orthodox steep linear phase reconstruction filters. This informed the design of Meridian CD players and DACs for a while. MQA is just the next step, getting rid of the filters altogether.

 

 

I think that unlikely. What I do find likely is that after the concepts of MQA were laid down (stealing here and adding original ideas there), the company's board gave the instruction to monetise the hell out of it, making it as closed as possible.

(Some of) the idea would have found more success and acceptance if it were open from day one, as a mastering tool and philosophy.

which Meridian DACs are you referring to..? to the best of my knowledge they were one of the only high end audio manufacturers without a stand alone DAC until MQA came along...

[Fokus]

21 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 to the best of my knowledge they were one of the only high end audio manufacturers without a stand alone DAC until MQA came along...

 

You may want to improve your knowledge. There always have been DACs or standalone processors.

 

https://www.meridian-audio.com/en/product-support/dacs/

 

Meridian were also one of the first UK companies with a standalone DAC in the late 80s.

[adamdea]

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Jim Austin

 

I also encourage the CA community to offer names of experts. 

 

 

Jim lesurf? I don't know whether he would be considered parti pris because he has already written on it.

Alan V. Oppenheim, if he is still going.

In the industry Daniel Weiss? Jim Lavry? John Siau

I guess it depends whether you want an independent expert (who has not expressed any view) or just someone to balance your view and test what BS has said.

[Brinkman Ship]

8 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

You may want to improve your knowledge. There always have been DACs or standalone processors.

 

https://www.meridian-audio.com/en/product-support/dacs/

 

Meridian were also one of the first UK companies with a standalone DAC in the late 80s.

I did say to the best of my knowledge..but quite frankly, their offerings are/were paltry.

 

I see CD Players with digital inputs, and products only recently introduced. When DACs were the single

most in demand components they were MIA.

 

Is there an accurate list of Meridian's legacy products?

[Bill Brown]

"Brinkman Ship," your willingness to speak so strongly and so frequently with such a lack of background knowledge is truly astounding.

 

Regardless of their absolute quality, Meridian has been in this game a really, really long time.  I quite enjoyed a 602/606 combination (transport/DAC) in the early 90's, for example (haven't owned one of their products since).

 

Though it may pain your soul to do so, I am sure a search of Stereophile's archives would turn up many reviews of the company's DAC offerings (at prices from low to very high), accompanied by comprehensive measurements.

 

Your "best of my knowledge" seems not very good.

[crenca]

9 hours ago, Fokus said:

Second, he was not alone in doing this: there has been a decades-long cooperation with Peter Craven (who brings a lineage going back to Michael Gerzon).

 

Looking up Michael Gerzon I found this from 1995:

 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7964

[Brinkman Ship]

17 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"Brinkman Ship," your willingness to speak so strongly and so frequently with such a lack of background knowledge is truly astounding.

 

Regardless of their absolute quality, Meridian has been in this game a really, really long time.  I quite enjoyed a 602/606 combination (transport/DAC) in the early 90's, for example (haven't owned one of their products since).

 

Though it may pain your soul to do so, I am sure a search of Stereophile's archives would turn up many reviews of the company's DAC offerings (at prices from low to very high), accompanied by comprehensive measurements.

 

Your "best of my knowledge" seems not very good.

"...your willingness to speak so strongly and so frequently with such a lack of background knowledge is truly astounding."

 

Really, you are very easily astounded.

 

They have been in the game a "really, really long time" to the tune of 35 millions dollars plus in losses.

That is a great game, and really speaks to how desirable their products were.

[ARQuint]

15 hours ago, shtf said:

 

I think the real question is why? 

 

I don't think I've ever knowingly listened to any piece of Meridian gear and as I recall Meridian's reputation was at best middle-of-the-road, though I think the mags used to give Meridian and Stuart higher praise than that.  There's Stuart's interview in 2014 published in TAS where he seemed a bit illogical and contradictory, then more recently hearing about the Meridian's financial struggles, his questionable character, etc, it just doesn't seem to fit that he would have the wherewithall to come up with MQA all by his lonesome.  It's certainly possible but just doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility.

 

That's why I think potentially everything about MQA, its measurements, performance, intents, etc can be greatly simplified if not entirely eliminated when I give consideration to the possibility that Stuart was approached by the music industry and was annointed as the "inventor" of a new format whose primary purpose was to simplify inventories, recordings, pressings, productions, purchases, and downloads all to a single format and acquire royalties, licensing fees and monopolize the entire music world.  All under the guise of listeners all over the world hearing for the first time exactly what the recording engineers heard in the studio.

 

And just as I suspect Stuart was approached, I also suspect Harley and Atkinson and other insiders were approached in much the same way.

 

This scenario seems by far the most logical and in fact, it's the only strategy that makes complete sense to me and explains everything about the controveries surrounding MQA.  And because playback music is so dang subjective, everybody involved thought it would be an easy sell.  A no brainer if you will.  This was my suspicion since reading my very first article about MQA in TAS.  And it makes more sense today than it did 4 years ago.

 

That there's been, so far, no censure of this post from the man in charge is disappointing. Perhaps it's telling that Chris identifies himself as the "Founder" of CA, without acknowledging any editorial function. On the one hand, he functions as CA's lead reviewer and otherwise curates the content of the site. On the other, he stands off to the side as inflammatory (and, in this case, defamatory) comments are made. It's quite correct for Chris to tout the presence of MQA experts in the CA community but if trolls and other snarky hangers-on overshadow them, their utility to rank-and-file readers is considerably diminished.

 

Go ahead: accuse me of more "finger-wagging." The silence from the top, in this instance, is deafening.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@ARQuint I can give you a little view into how things at CA work.

 

• I haven't read all 800,000+ posts on the site.
• I just returned from Munich and have quite a bit to catch up on. 
• We rely heavily on the CA Community to use the "report post" function available above every post.
• I haven't seen a single report of the post you mentioned. 

[Bill Brown]

18 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Really, you are very easily astounded.

 

Maybe you are right; perhaps I shouldn't be amazed by peoples' willingness to put their ignorance on full display.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Bill Brown said:

 

Maybe you are right; perhaps I shouldn't be amazed by peoples' willingness to put their ignorance on full display.

HI Bill - Calling someone ignorant on CA isn't allowed. 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Maybe you are right; perhaps I shouldn't be amazed by peoples' willingness to put their ignorance on full display.

Meridian-

 

-developed MLP on the audio side when 24 downloading was on the horizon..bust

(I understand it is used in some form on some blu ray movies)

 

-$25,000 CD players when that market was dying a death

 

-Invested in hardware when clearly software was the future of computer audio playback

 

-bought, Sooloos, which was quickly antiquated, hardware based, and a massive over priced ca solution.

within a few years, a $500 lap top could outpeform it by a infinite factors.

 

the list goes on..and leads us to MQA, yet another against the grain "solution" that nobody wants..

 

What were you saying again?

[Brinkman Ship]

19 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

That there's been, so far, no censure of this post from the man in charge is disappointing. Perhaps it's telling that Chris identifies himself as the "Founder" of CA, without acknowledging any editorial function. On the one hand, he functions as CA's lead reviewer and otherwise curates the content of the site. On the other, he stands off to the side as inflammatory (and, in this case, defamatory) comments are made. It's quite correct for Chris to tout the presence of MQA experts in the CA community but if trolls and other snarky hangers-on overshadow them, their utility to rank-and-file readers is considerably diminished.

 

 

 

Go ahead: accuse me of more "finger-wagging." The silence from the top, in this instance, is deafening.

 

 

Dear Lord, your pious, self righteous tone is actually...amusing..be careful not to catch a cold when you poke your head out that ivory tower...

[Bill Brown]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

HI Bill - Calling someone ignorant on CA isn't allowed. 

Interesting.  I didn't call someone "ignorant."  He self-professed his ignorance on the topic of which he spoke strongly.

 

Citing "ignorance" of a topic (clearly demonstrated) isn't an accusation of someone being "ignorant" or "stupid," I would have thought you would see the difference and calling someone stupid is NOT what I intended.

 

Your response to my post v Mr. Quint's certainly stand out in sharp contrast.

[Bill Brown]

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Meridian-

 

-developed MLP on the audio side when 24 downloading was on the horizon..bust

(I understand it is used in some form on some blu ray movies)

 

-$25,000 CD players when that market was dying a death

 

-Invested in hardware when clearly software was the future of computer audio playback

 

-bought, Sooloos, which was quickly antiquated, hardware based, and a massive over priced ca solution.

within a few years, a $500 lap top could outpeform it by a infinite factors.

 

the list goes on..and leads us to MQA, yet another against the grain "solution" that nobody wants..

 

What were you saying again?

 

What I was saying is that, financials aside, you don't have a good grasp of the company's historical products of which you spoke strongly.  I never (and had no intention of) defended the business.

[crenca]

42 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

That there's been, so far, no censure of this post from the man in charge is disappointing. Perhaps it's telling that Chris identifies himself as the "Founder" of CA, without acknowledging any editorial function. On the one hand, he functions as CA's lead reviewer and otherwise curates the content of the site. On the other, he stands off to the side as inflammatory (and, in this case, defamatory) comments are made. It's quite correct for Chris to tout the presence of MQA experts in the CA community but if trolls and other snarky hangers-on overshadow them, their utility to rank-and-file readers is considerably diminished.

 

 

 

Go ahead: accuse me of more "finger-wagging." The silence from the top, in this instance, is deafening.

 

 

 

Ok, I will - your wagging your finger 

 

Here is the deal Mr. Quint, your complaining of "trolls", "snarky", and the like does not go over so well because of your own (as a writer for the TAS trade publication) far greater deficiencies.  Yes the open, crowd sourced forums such as this one have real drawbacks.  Sometimes the signal to noise ratio drops, etc.  However, the trade publications have far greater sins.  They give us only industry provided and approved information, lack real technical depth, etc. etc.  Your publication promotes the fraud known as MQA, whereas the forums have actually helped the musical consumer by uncovering what MQA really is.

 

So when you come up with a better solution let us know.  In the meantime why don't you put your finger back in your pocket, listen, and learn something...

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

What I was saying that, financials aside, you don't have a good grasp of the company's historical products of which you spoke strongly.  I never, and had no intention of, defending the business.

 

I got to agree with Mr. Brown on this one @Brinkman Ship, I think you originally missed the point.  Whatever the truth, you guys are now in a pissing contest and probably should let it go...

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 hours ago, shtf said:

 

I think the real question is why? 

 

I don't think I've ever knowingly listened to any piece of Meridian gear and as I recall Meridian's reputation was at best middle-of-the-road, though I think the mags used to give Meridian and Stuart higher praise than that.  There's Stuart's interview in 2014 published in TAS where he seemed a bit illogical and contradictory, then more recently hearing about the Meridian's financial struggles, his questionable character, etc, it just doesn't seem to fit that he would have the wherewithall to come up with MQA all by his lonesome.  It's certainly possible but just doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility.

 

That's why I think potentially everything about MQA, its measurements, performance, intents, etc can be greatly simplified if not entirely eliminated when I give consideration to the possibility that Stuart was approached by the music industry and was annointed as the "inventor" of a new format whose primary purpose was to simplify inventories, recordings, pressings, productions, purchases, and downloads all to a single format and acquire royalties, licensing fees and monopolize the entire music world.  All under the guise of listeners all over the world hearing for the first time exactly what the recording engineers heard in the studio.

 

And just as I suspect Stuart was approached, I also suspect Harley and Atkinson and other insiders were approached in much the same way.

 

This scenario seems by far the most logical and in fact, it's the only strategy that makes complete sense to me and explains everything about the controveries surrounding MQA.  And because playback music is so dang subjective, everybody involved thought it would be an easy sell.  A no brainer if you will.  This was my suspicion since reading my very first article about MQA in TAS.  And it makes more sense today than it did 4 years ago.

 

12 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

That there's been, so far, no censure of this post from the man in charge is disappointing. Perhaps it's telling that Chris identifies himself as the "Founder" of CA, without acknowledging any editorial function. On the one hand, he functions as CA's lead reviewer and otherwise curates the content of the site. On the other, he stands off to the side as inflammatory (and, in this case, defamatory) comments are made. It's quite correct for Chris to tout the presence of MQA experts in the CA community but if trolls and other snarky hangers-on overshadow them, their utility to rank-and-file readers is considerably diminished.

 

 

 

Go ahead: accuse me of more "finger-wagging." The silence from the top, in this instance, is deafening.

 

 

 

 

I struggle to see what in that post is deserving of censure. Someone provides an opinion / hypothesis and calls is his suspicion, yet you believe it should be censured? I believe the old guard press has much different rules than we do here at CA. This community prefers to error on the side of letting people voice opinions and lay out their suspicions, leaving everyone to judge for themselves if s/he buys it or thinks it's BS. 

 

When the initial MQA discussion started here on CA and some of the experts here raised their hands saying something doesn't look right, many people wanted the discussion censured. I received a few phone calls from Bob S. about the discussions and I know he would've loved to see a heavy hand used in moderation. That's not how we, or the internet work now days. 

 

 

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

well...back on topic..

 

I see after numerous Munich reports from Stereophile, only one mention of MQA that I saw, ironically from Art Dudley. Since JVS and Jim Austin are not there it seems..no bombastic MQA PR. This, after MQA claimed a record number of demonstrations this year. But let us wait for JA's reports...

 

We should also thank our lucky stars that Jon Valin despises computer audio and file playback and thinks it is all a wasteof time, which basically makes it impossible for him to get on board the MQA bus.

[Brinkman Ship]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I got to agree with Mr. Brown on this one @Brinkman Ship, I think you originally missed the point.  Whatever the truth, you guys are now in a pissing contest and probably should let it go...

Ok, I agree to move on and apologies to @Bill Brown

[The Computer Audiophile]

27 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Interesting.  I didn't call someone "ignorant."  He self-professed his ignorance on the topic of which he spoke strongly.

 

Citing "ignorance" of a topic (clearly demonstrated) isn't an accusation of someone being "ignorant" or "stupid," I would have thought you would see the difference and calling someone stupid is NOT what I intended.

 

Your response to my post v Mr. Quint's certainly stand out in sharp contrast.

 

Bill - I have a feeling there's no reasoning with you. Suggesting that you didn't call someone ignorant even though you said he put his ignorance on display, is like Bill Clinton (I know probably your favorite guy, based on your signature line) saying it depends on what the meaning of the word is is. 

 

Communicating via the internet is difficult. Expecting someone to glean that "people's willingness to put their ignorance on display" actually means that the person isn't ignorant, is a bit of a stretch. It seems much more like a move to score points in an imaginary game of internet debate club. 

 

I'm lost with respect to what you mean about my response to yours vs @ARQuint's post.