MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Well, perhaps by you. But if we are talking about the relevance of SQ to a consideration of MQA, in recent days many CA posters have been ringing in on the issue. For those on either side of the issue or those who are undecided, this is clearly a metric that's worthy of discussion.

 

Says the little boy who cried wolf

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bill - You haven’t used the Report Post function a single time. 

 

Don't do it Bill, don't do it...resistance is not futile!

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I am ok with the discussion of sound quality. As long as everyone is equal, and all views are taken for what they are - an opinion.

 

The problem has been, with the people who are journalists who respond on this site, is that they do not answer those questions which are difficult, or show MQA to be a false solution. This is not because they are incapable of understanding, they choose to not answer. Hence the suspicion that they are not being open and honest.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Not only that, they have been exposed as being incompetent.  The "Jaw dropped", "birth of a new world" reactions were because they were duped - bamboozled by a "demo" that used in no particular order, differing masters, a little DSP, about a 3db increase, etc. It was all too easy

 

 

Others at these very same demo's were able to see through the ruse (and have written about it here and elsewhere), why they could not is really what we should be discussing, not their "opinion".

[Bill Brown]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bill - You haven’t used the Report Post function a single time. 

 

That is true.  I have a strong aversion to being a "tattle-tale."

 

Maybe I should have; I just have higher expectations of folks, I guess.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Bill Brown said:

 

That is true.  I have a strong aversion to being a "tattle-tale."

 

Maybe I should have; I just have higher expectations of folks, I guess.

The Report Post feature is the only way to police things. It's not possible to read everything in context. Rules are rules and the community counts on everyone to help police the place. 

 

Plus, it's anonymous to everyone else so you won't be viewed as a tattletale. 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

That is true.  I have a strong aversion to being a "tattle-tale."

 

Maybe I should have; I just have higher expectations of folks, I guess.

 

Bill, you might be an ML fanboi, but your alright.  

 

 

I have one of these as well even though I clicked the no thank you box when I renewed my membership.  You would think that an organization that is able to control the direction of US Constitutional Polity would be able to run a web site better...

[adamdea]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I am not disputing (or misunderstanding) the conclusions Archimago drew from his Internet exercise. Rather, I looked at his data and noted that there were plenty of instances (78, to be specific) when a listener heard a "moderate difference" or "clear difference" between the high-resolution PCM file and the MQA-treated one. I mention them as examples of a perceived positive effect of MQA on SQ outside of the audiophile press.

 

 

To quote the main himself

 

 

An exact 50:50 coin toss even within the group of listeners who thought they heard significant differences to a moderate or obvious degree. Again, there is no preference towards MQA Core or just standard hi-res PCM playback. "

 

Seriously have you thought this through, Mr Quint?

[Bill Brown]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The Report Post feature is the only way to police things. It's not possible to read everything in context. Rules are rules and the community counts on everyone to help police the place. 

 

Plus, it's anonymous to everyone else so you won't be viewed as a tattletale. 

 

Understood.  Thank you.

[mevdinc]

13 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..he called other-speaker companies..”furniture makers”...lol

 

I have a fine pair from one of those "furniture makers" LoL

[beetlemania]

5 minutes ago, mevdinc said:

 

I have a fine pair from one of those "furniture makers" LoL

 

 

My furniture measures pretty much as well as this $40K pile of aluminum and borrowed ideas.

But we're getting off topic.

[ARQuint]

15 minutes ago, adamdea said:

To quote the main himself

 

 

An exact 50:50 coin toss even within the group of listeners who thought they heard significant differences to a moderate or obvious degree. Again, there is no preference towards MQA Core or just standard hi-res PCM playback. "

 

Seriously have you thought this through, Mr Quint?

 

I have. The fact that half preferred PCM and half preferred MQA is interesting but not the point at all. People have different tastes / value systems when it comes to reproduced sound. The point is that these people heard a difference and then decided which version they liked better—Archimago required that they do so.

 

Imagine this hypothetical scenario. You need to replace a failing power amplifier and have a budget of $5000. Your dealer lets you take home, for the weekend, two solid state products, "A" and "B", that have a similar design and power ratings. "A" costs $4000 and "B" costs $5000. You listen to both for the weekend with familiar recordings, taking copious notes, and conclude that you prefer "B" for its smoother top end, better spatiality and superior bass clarity. You're then provided with the information that in a blinded trial with 100 experienced audiophiles, all heard a difference between the two amps—but 50 preferred "A" and 50 preferred "B". Would that information effect your decision regarding which product to buy? Would you choose to save $1000 because of the results of the trial?

 

I also want to emphasize that my own modest preference for MQA-encoded files comes not from demos at shows but from my experience of reviewing the Aurender A10 when I had a couple of months to make my own comparisons of streamed MQA Tidal files with files of the same resolution downloaded from HDtracks.

 

Andrew Quint

[Indydan]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

And yet others are allowed to repeatedly make baseless accusations, invent names ("shill bill"),  etc.

 

Whatever; I'd still like to see ONE post where I supported MQA or ANY evidence that I have an industry affiliation or stand to benefit as a "shill" from MQA.

 

I have read all 43 of your posts. You do not defend MQA in your posts. But, everyone of your posts is to criticize or create conflict; usually against anti MQA posters. 

 

True, sometimes you may simply have been defending yourself. But, I could not find one post in which you constructively add something to the discussion (MQA or otherwise). It is as if you only signed up to CA to create or participate in conflicts with people. That doesn't automatically make you a shill, but it does shine a spotlight on your motivations for participating here. 

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bill - You haven’t used the Report Post function a single time. 

 

Why would he? He wants to provoke people into making unpleasant comments, then play the martyr. 

[Brinkman Ship]

15 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

I have read all 43 of your posts. You do not defend MQA in your posts. But, everyone of your posts is to criticize or create conflict; usually against anti MQA posters. 

 

True, sometimes you may simply have been defending yourself. But, I could not find one post in which you constructively add something to the discussion (MQA or otherwise). It is as if you only signed up to CA to create or participate in conflicts with people. That doesn't automatically make you a shill, but it does shine a spotlight on your motivations for participating here. 

Accurate. i was going to post something similar. .just defending/attacking, I see nothing added to discussion.

 

BTW, I don't think he is a shill...

[Brinkman Ship]

12 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Why would he? He wants to provoke people into making unpleasant comments, then play the martyr. 

Yes, that seems to be a trend..

[tmtomh]

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I have. The fact that half preferred PCM and half preferred MQA is interesting but not the point at all. People have different tastes / value systems when it comes to reproduced sound. The point is that these people heard a difference and then decided which version they liked better—Archimago required that they do so.

 

Imagine this hypothetical scenario. You need to replace a failing power amplifier and have a budget of $5000. Your dealer lets you take home, for the weekend, two solid state products, "A" and "B", that have a similar design and power ratings. "A" costs $4000 and "B" costs $5000. You listen to both for the weekend with familiar recordings, taking copious notes, and conclude that you prefer "B" for its smoother top end, better spatiality and superior bass clarity. You're then provided with the information that in a blinded trial with 100 experienced audiophiles, all heard a difference between the two amps—but 50 preferred "A" and 50 preferred "B". Would that information effect your decision regarding which product to buy? Would you choose to save $1000 because of the results of the trial?

 

I also want to emphasize that my own modest preference for MQA-encoded files comes not from demos at shows but from my experience of reviewing the Aurender A10 when I had a couple of months to make my own comparisons of streamed MQA Tidal files with files of the same resolution downloaded from HDtracks.

 

Andrew Quint

 

Thanks for this explanation and comment.

 

If this were really all MQA were about - an A or B choice based on personal preference - I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

My concern is that MQA could spell the end, or at least extreme reduction, of the availability of traditional lossless PCM digital files even being available as a choice. Not to mention that a good number of MQA hardware devices appear to implement some degree of MQA filtering even when not playing MQA files.

 

So it's not only as if one happened to prefer amplifier B and amp B also happens to be more expensive. It's also as if one happened to prefer amplifier A for sonics, but because amplifier B's manufacturer and circuit designer had created agreements  with parts suppliers and distributors, amplifier A now suddenly cost $5,000 as well, and it had been modified to use part of amp B's circuit topology - or amp A simply no longer were available.

 

That's my concern about MQA, and where the 50-50 preference takes on a more worrying connotation: If MQA offers no sonic advantage - many hear no difference, and of those who do, the preference vs PCM is 50-50 - then what is the point of consumers incurring the added cost created by MQA inserting itself in the mastering, software-development, and hardware-production chains with new licensing expenses? And what is the point of consumers losing the ability to freely copy and play on any device the full, high-resolution file as one can with regular PCM?

[crenca]

42 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Imagine this hypothetical scenario. You need to replace a failing power amplifier and have a budget of $5000. Your dealer lets you take home, for the weekend, two solid state products, "A" and "B", that have a similar design and power ratings. "A" costs $4000 and "B" costs $5000. You listen to both for the weekend with familiar recordings, taking copious notes, and conclude that you prefer "B" for its smoother top end, better spatiality and superior bass clarity. ....Would you choose to save $1000 because of the results of the trial?

 

 

There is that hammer again Mr. Quint.  Perhaps you are getting closer to your and your cohorts failure on MQA however.  You should ask yourself why - why do yourself and your cohorts, subjectively, find "smoother top end, better spatiality and superior bass clarity" (when it comes to MQA) when the tested group does not, and why does the control group (as represented by the consumer reaction against MQA and here and elsewhere - everywhere except your cohort) also correlate with the tested group.

 

In other words, what is it about your subjectivism that is disconnected and in in conflict with consumers subjectivism?  Another way to ask this question is what is special about your subjectivism?  Not special in a good way, but rather special in that you come to subjectivised conclusions at odds with the other groups who you ostensibly serve?  

 

You see Mr. Quint, we are past your scenario - way past it.  It is irrelevant, as irrelevant as a monkey on the moon with a hammer.  When will you put down your hammer, and start asking yourself the hard questions?

 

 

[beetlemania]

10 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

That's my concern about MQA, and where the 50-50 preference takes on a more worrying connotation: If MQA offers no sonic advantage - many hear no difference, and of those who do, the preference vs PCM is 50-50 - then what is the point of consumers incurring the added cost created by MQA inserting itself in the mastering, software-development, and hardware-production chains with new licensing expenses? And what is the point of consumers losing the ability to freely copy and play on any device the full, high-resolution file as one can with regular PCM?

 

ARQuint et al. care not for these matters. That's quite obvious at this point. We can only hope that MQA fails in the market despite the out-sized praise by TAS, Atkinson, Austin, and Darko.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

ARQuint et al. care not for these matters. That's quite obvious at this point. We can only hope that MQA fails in the market despite the out-sized praise by TAS, Atkinson, Austin, and Darko.

Correct...at this point it is about saving face...

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

There is that hammer again Mr. Quint.  Perhaps you are getting closer to your and your cohorts failure on MQA however.  You should ask yourself why - why do yourself and your cohorts, subjectively, find "smoother top end, better spatiality and superior bass clarity" (when it comes to MQA) when the tested group does not, and why does the control group (as represented by the consumer reaction against MQA and here and elsewhere - everywhere except your cohort) also correlate with the tested group.

 

In other words, what is it about your subjectivism that is disconnected and in in conflict with consumers subjectivism?  Another way to ask this question is what is special about your subjectivism?  Not special in a good way, but rather special in that you come to subjectivised conclusions at odds with the other groups who you ostensibly serve?  

 

You see Mr. Quint, we are past your scenario - way past it.  It is irrelevant, as irrelevant as a monkey on the moon with a hammer.  When will you put down your hammer, and start asking yourself the hard questions?

 

 

another question...why do musicians and mastering engineers also NOT hear what Quint and his "cohorts" hear?

[firedog]

Agree with Kal about the products that "force" the MQA filters onto all playback (some allow you to manually  switch filters) should be censored. It's one of my big problems with MQA: it is so costly to implement properly (both iFi and dCS report spending over a 1000 hours of specialized software engineering to do so) that most manufacturers take the easy/cheap way out and leave MQA as the default. Whether coincidentally or not, that gives MQA playback an unfair SQ advantage on those machines, I think. Probably a reason some say they prefer it. 

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

I have. The fact that half preferred PCM and half preferred MQA is interesting but not the point at all. People have different tastes / value systems when it comes to reproduced sound. The point is that these people heard a difference and then decided which version they liked better—Archimago required that they do so.

 

Imagine this hypothetical scenario. You need to replace a failing power amplifier and have a budget of $5000. Your dealer lets you take home, for the weekend, two solid state products, "A" and "B", that have a similar design and power ratings. "A" costs $4000 and "B" costs $5000. You listen to both for the weekend with familiar recordings, taking copious notes, and conclude that you prefer "B" for its smoother top end, better spatiality and superior bass clarity. You're then provided with the information that in a blinded trial with 100 experienced audiophiles, all heard a difference between the two amps—but 50 preferred "A" and 50 preferred "B". Would that information effect your decision regarding which product to buy? Would you choose to save $1000 because of the results of the trial?

 

I also want to emphasize that my own modest preference for MQA-encoded files comes not from demos at shows but from my experience of reviewing the Aurender A10 when I had a couple of months to make my own comparisons of streamed MQA Tidal files with files of the same resolution downloaded from HDtracks.

 

Andrew Quint

No Mr Quint you have not thought this through

Unfortunately your hypothetical example is of no application here. The 50/50 split did not show a consistent preference. It is not the case that 50% of listeners consistently favoured MQA. Only 9 out of 83 voted MQA for all three tracks. This is exactly what you would expect if they were guessing. The 50/50 is an aggregate of what people chose when they thought they were hearing a clear difference.

 

Guessing heads or tails correctly 50% of the time does not make you a part-time genius.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

Agree with Kal about the products that "force" the MQA filters onto all playback (some allow you to manually  switch filters) should be censored. It's one of my big problems with MQA: it is so costly to implement properly (both iFi and dCS report spending over a 1000 hours of specialized software engineering to do so) that most manufacturers take the easy/cheap way out and leave MQA as the default. Whether coincidentally or not, that gives MQA playback an unfair SQ advantage on those machines, I think. Probably a reason some say they prefer it. 

Even MORE of a reason to punish companies that go near MQA. Screw them.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I can imagine a big market for old pre-MQA versions of products that have implemented the MQA filter on everything. 

[Brinkman Ship]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I can imagine a big market for old pre-MQA versions of products that have implemented the MQA filter on everything. 

hmmmm..interesting notion...?