MQA is Vaporware

[Jim Austin]

46 minutes ago, phosphorein said:

I have no objections to reasoned arguments based on a clear understanding of the subject under discussion. Mr. Austin has stated that he does not understand the theory behind MQA and from his writings appears to not understand FT and sampling theory. My first lesson in the classroom was that if I did not understand fully the material I would be caught out. I think Mr. Austin has been clearly shown to be deficient in his understanding. I do not wish him ill, but I think he should be a bit more judicious in his choice of “experts” to defer to.

 

No one here understands the mathematics from the papers I presented earlier; I'd bet serious money on that. But you're profoundly wrong about "FT and the sampling theorem." You only betray your own ignorance. (Ban me Chris, go ahead.)

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Jim Austin said:

 

This is what, when pugs box? 

 

This is why I use the "circle jerk" metaphor a couple of days ago. You have a nice little insular community here, in which you reliably reinforce each other's opinions. Feels good, doesn't it? 

You lack even a little understanding of this community. 

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

This is what, when pugs box? 

 

This is why I use the "circle jerk" metaphor a couple of days ago. You have a nice little insular community here, in which you reliably reinforce each other's opinions. Feels good, doesn't it? 

INSULAR???? Dear lord. Unlike the 3 70 year old full time employees of Stereophile...LOL.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

No one here understands the mathematics from the papers I presented earlier; I'd bet serious money on that. But you're profoundly wrong about "FT and the sampling theorem." You only betray your own ignorance. (Ban me Chris, go ahead.)

 

So it is clear your agenda was to provoke, troll, and look for a banning so you could wear it as a badge of honor then condemn CA for banning all pro MQA operatives. You are incredibly transparent and not nearly as smart as you think you are.

 

The term pseudo intellectual comes to mind. And you have no clue what science really is.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

No one here understands the mathematics from the papers I presented earlier; I'd bet serious money on that. But you're profoundly wrong about "FT and the sampling theorem." You only betray your own ignorance. (Ban me Chris, go ahead.)

 

 

I will happily put $10,000 on people (plural)  here at CA understanding the mathematics. 

 

You’re sparring with people who send rockets to the ISS. 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I will happily put $10,000 on people (plural)  here at CA understanding the mathematics. 

 

You’re sparring with people who send rockets to the ISS. 

The term Dear In the Headlights clearly applies..

 

this is my very favorite example. Lavorgna attempting to interview Charlie Hansen.

 

Lavornga: uh uh uh. um yeh, uh yeh..nodding...more nodding....it was like watching Mike Tyson and a toddler.

 

 

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

No one here understands the mathematics from the papers I presented earlier; I'd bet serious money on that. But you're profoundly wrong about "FT and the sampling theorem." You only betray your own ignorance. (Ban me Chris, go ahead.)

 

I bet there are but most do not want to give away where they work, etc. People wat to engage you in a discussion but since you don't know anything about MQA,why are you writing about it. It would be like the current head of the EPA, writing about pollution.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

Ban me Chris, go ahead.

Reminds me of the cowards who provoke suicide by cop.

 

I don’t believe you’re a coward and suicide isn’t something to joke about. I was just reminded of the practice after reading your comment. 

[Jim Austin]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You lack even a little understanding of this community. 

 

Sorry, I forgot about your objectivity. 

[Jim Austin]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Reminds me of the cowards who provoke suicide by cop.

 

I don’t believe you’re a coward and suicide isn’t something to joke about. I was just reminded of the practice after reading your comment. 

 

That comparison is ... psychotic. 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

That comparison is ... psychotic. 

So is your MQA worship, same for your magazine.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Mordikai said:

I disagree, this is boring.

 

avoid the Psych. courses with "abnormal" in the title

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I know nothing about Mayer and Moran...There's nothing left but appeal to authority--but which authority? 

 

1 hour ago, phosphorein said:

 

I have no objections to reasoned arguments based on a clear understanding of the subject under discussion. Mr. Austin has stated that he does not understand the theory behind MQA and from his writings appears to not understand FT and sampling theory. My first lesson in the classroom was that if I did not understand fully the material I would be caught out. I think Mr. Austin has been clearly shown to be deficient in his understanding. I do not wish him ill, but I think he should be a bit more judicious in his choice of “experts” to defer to.

 

 

This is right. @Jim Austinon the one hand explicitly admits his own inadequacies - he does not have the depth of technical skills (math, signal processing theory, etc.) to judge MQA one way or the other.  So he picks his authorities.  Well, two of them (Bob & Craven), the very ones who are trying to $sell$ us something.  Jim himself is with a trade publication that has an known bias as well and they depend on $selling$ us (i.e. readers) to their advertisers.  He then speaks out of both sides of his mouth - admitting the problems with MQA while he spends most of his time, and ALL of his publication, giving Bob S the microphone and attempting to make MQA sound plausible by not asking the hard questions, telling one side of the story, and otherwise completely ignoring even the slightest hint of skepticism.

 

On the other side are the consumers, manufacturers - everyone else.  We don't limit our judgement of MQA on it's "sound quality" alone as Bob S and his culture of art & wine Audiophiledom would have us do.  We do take it into account, but we look at the business, legal, software/digital ecosystem, musical industry and artistic impact of MQA as well.  Jim and company have openly admitted they don't even understand the need for this, let alone how to go about doing this sort of evaluation (Jim I's piece and John A's piece are the exceptions that prove the rule or in this case the fundamental culture at these trade publications).   

 

So, yes the average poster here has also chosen his authorities, but unlike Jim Austin they have chosen wisely.  Jim Austin has chosen his authorities based on reputation alone.  The average poster here has chosen a multiplicity of authorities based on reputation as well, but also on their bias (i.e. do they have a $stake$ in MQA), and perhaps most importantly whether these authorities are being supported by the overall community of audio engineers and experts.  Jim Austin has chosen to go with the extraordinary, the unlikely, the revolutionary, and of course the MQA $sales job$.  The average poster here has chosen to go with the skeptical, the cautious, the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  They have understood that Audiophiledom is based in part on a confidence game and they have chosen to ask for - to demand - Bob S show us the math.  Jim Austin has chosen to live in an audiophile tree stand indefinitely, his not-so-sharp eyes peeled for the unicorn.  Trust us Jim, we are all well aware of bias and see yours for exactly what it is.

 

@Jim Austin, I and most posters here are truly embarrassed for you.  You have dug your own hole and have lost all real credibility.  I don't see a way back for you, excepting the passage of time and the fading of memory.   In the meantime you will have to wear your MQA scarlet letters like a badge of shame.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

That comparison is ... psychotic. 

 

It wasn’t a comparison. 

[wdw]

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

INSULAR???? Dear lord. Unlike the 3 70 year old full time employees of Stereophile...LOL.

Ok,....three seventy year old guys.....so JA, likely Herb (the guy who wrote he was broke and overdrawn in his Munich report) so that must leave M. Fremer.  

Sounds kinda freaky/funny when you put it like that.

 

[Brinkman Ship]

16 minutes ago, wdw said:

Ok,....three seventy year old guys.....so JA, likely Herb (the guy who wrote he was broke and overdrawn in his Munich report) so that must leave M. Fremer.  

Sounds kinda freaky/funny when you put it like that.

 

Reichert is an not an employee..believe it or not, he is an artist by trade.

 

Dudley, Fremer, Atkinson are all that are left..all others are freelance unless someone has other information...

[botrytis]

Just now, Jim Austin said:

 

Sorry, I forgot about your objectivity. 

Chris has objectivity. He has to as owner and chief cook and bottle washer of this site.

 

 

[rickca]

A message for @Jim Austin re the status of MQA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH7KYmGnj40

 

[james45974]

30 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

This is what, when pugs box? 

 

This is why I use the "circle jerk" metaphor a couple of days ago. You have a nice little insular community here, in which you reliably reinforce each other's opinions. Feels good, doesn't it? 

Jim, I try to have an open mind but I am unconvinced that you know what the hell you are talking about! The evidence is all there in your Stereophile pieces!

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, rickca said:

A message for @Jim Austin re the status of MQA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH7KYmGnj40

 

They can join:

 

DCC, Mini Disc, DAT, DVD-A, HDCD, and, last but not least, 8 Track in the scrap heap.

[crenca]

As far as @Jim Austin continuous assertion that Bob S and Crave are surely not lying - it has been documented here and elsewhere the various ways they have already lied.  Whether they are lying "scientifically" is a matter for their peers, but we should note that they peers are in no way rushing to defend them.  As far as the product MQA, it has been revealed to be a kind of complicated, multilayered lie.  As Charles Hanson and others have pointed out, Bob as a businessman is a Big Fat Liar, just as Bill Clinton (whom I like and supported) was a Big Fat Liar when he lied about having sex with that young women.  

 

None of this is extraordinary, in fact it is common.  White Collar crime is so prevalent even well funded government agencies admit they can only begin to scratch the surface of it.  A huge and well watched organization like Volkswagen can lie about things for years, and dozens within the organization support and enable the lies.

 

What is extraordinary is @Jim Austinstubborn refusal to see any of this...is he a kind of Audiophile bubble boy?  Someone who just wants to see what he wants to see??

 

“Today, everyone wants to see things in the way that suits them. I prefer not to play this game.”

- Lionel Messi 

 

 

[Thuaveta]

41 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

This is what, when pugs box? 

 

This is why I use the "circle jerk" metaphor a couple of days ago. You have a nice little insular community here, in which you reliably reinforce each other's opinions. Feels good, doesn't it? 

 

Please - uphold science's traditions of precision, self-deprecation, and understatement, and convince us with facts. Prove the circle-jerkers wrong, using science. For someone of your intellect, of your abilities as an investigator, someone with your scientific, methodical mind, someone with a PhD, a real one, in hard sciences, not one of those handout PhDs in basket-weaving, someone who has nothing better to do with his time and, even if modestly, is paid to do it, and enjoys the unwavering support of the most prestigious audiophile publication in the world to facilitate his access,  it should be a walk in the park... anything less would be quite a tragic indictment not of a community of circle-jerkers, but of your abilities as a writer and a scientist, don't you think ?

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

As far as @Jim Austin continuous assertion that surely Bob S and Crave are surely not lying - it has been documented here and elsewhere the various ways they have already lied.  Whether they are lying "scientifically" is a matter for their peers, but we should note that they peers are in no way rushing to defend them.  As far as the product MQA, it has been revealed to be a kind of complicated, multilayered lie.  As Charles Hanson and others have pointed out, Bob as a businessman is a Big Fat Liar, just as Bill Clinton (whom I like and supported) was a Big Fat Liar when he lied about having sex with that young women.  

 

None of this is extraordinary, in fact it is common.  White Collar crime is so prevalent even well funded government agencies admit they can only begin to scratch the surface of it.  A huge and well watched organization like Volkswagen can lie about things for years, and dozens within the organization support and enable the lies.

 

What is extraordinary is @Jim Austinstubborn refusal to see any of this...is he a kind of Audiophile bubble boy?  Someone who just wants to see what he wants to see??

 

“Today, everyone wants to see things in the way that suits them. I prefer not to play this game.”

- Lionel Messi 

 

 

I think it is important we all realize that once Atkinson reported on the "Birth Of A New World "(the introduction of MQA was equated with introduction of the CD) and that his "socks were blown off" there was no going back. To back track from that would have been humiliating. Hence, the agenda was set...

[psjug]

8 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

self-deprecation, and understatement

You mean like this http://www.jimaustin.org/

[shtf]

3 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Exactly right. 

 

 

Seriously guys?