MQA is Vaporware

[rickca]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

We all need to carefully review the McGill report when it's widely available, as the "bottom line" might be different depending on ones point of view. (For example, what does the word "necessarily" mean in Archimago's summary of the findings, and we do need to hear more about the caveats in the paper's conclusion that he alludes to.) And I don't have to tell you that some will feel that the methodology is flawed on the most basic philosophical grounds: the debate about blind A/B testing as a way of judging sound has been a topic of controversy for as long as I've been in this hobby.

So now you're saying we might be misinterpreting the results of this study or that the study may be invalid ... so don't come to any premature conclusions.  Anything to keep those plates spinning.

[mansr]

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

But we can't read more into it than what is known. My point based on 50:50 preferences alone was simply we can't know if their choice of chocolate or Vanilla was a clear preference or random ( nor if they would flip next time asked). It could conceivably be either, therefore not wise to make conclusions.

Let's say someone is given two samples of ice cream and picks chocolate as his favourite. MQA now goes "oh, you like chocolate" and proceeds to put chocolate everywhere. Chocolate on pizza. Chocolate flavour potato crisps. Chocolate on your steak.

[rickca]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

MQA now goes "oh, you like chocolate" and proceeds to put chocolate everywhere.

Yeah but you get 16 different varieties of chocolate.  MQA is like a box of chocolates.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

Let's say someone is given two samples of ice cream and picks chocolate as his favourite. MQA now goes "oh, you like chocolate" and proceeds to put chocolate everywhere. Chocolate on pizza. Chocolate flavour potato crisps. Chocolate on your steak.

 

Mans you might be experiencing a little MacArthur park icing cream melt down moment....

 

[Don Hills]

17 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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

 

Journalists tend to have certain character traits. One of them is to never admit being wrong. If forced to retract a headline, do it with a small sentence hidden on an inside page. Realistically, you aren't going to get people in Andrew's position to "publicly" change their opinion.  The best you can do is reasonably counter his arguments and present a credible alternative viewpoint for the audience. Rabid anti-MQA sentiment and personal attacks destroy your credibility. He wins because of your lack of self control.

[james45974]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Rabid anti-MQA sentiment and personal attacks destroy your credibility. He wins because of your lack of self control.

Hasn't he lost on his lack of credibility already, or do two wrongs make a right?

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Journalists tend to have certain character traits. One of them is to never admit being wrong. If forced to retract a headline, do it with a small sentence hidden on an inside page. Realistically, you aren't going to get people in Andrew's position to "publicly" change their opinion.  The best you can do is reasonably counter his arguments and present a credible alternative viewpoint for the audience. Rabid anti-MQA sentiment and personal attacks destroy your credibility. He wins because of your lack of self control.

I missed the part where Andrew presented a credible viewpoint. He has a public platform, but things like MqA coverage have eroded much credibility that once would have been granted the publication.

 

The fact such people calmly pretend they've any credibility left to counter the reality of mqa just causes me to dismiss them on other matters. I don't think that's an uncommon reaction these days. They no longer control the flow of information.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Journalists tend to have certain character traits. One of them is to never admit being wrong. If forced to retract a headline, do it with a small sentence hidden on an inside page. Realistically, you aren't going to get people in Andrew's position to "publicly" change their opinion.  The best you can do is reasonably counter his arguments and present a credible alternative viewpoint for the audience. Rabid anti-MQA sentiment and personal attacks destroy your credibility. He wins because of your lack of self control.

I am not sure what you are on about.

 

Mr Quint's job is to keep a sleeper hold on this thread and keep the same circular flawed counter arguments going.

 

He admitted MQA is of no personal interest to him. He clearly is here to defend the honor of his magazine and editor.

 

There is no way he does not know deep in his heart, with a collection of 40TB(!!!!) of digital music that MQA is totally unnecessary and inferior pseudo format.

 

His editor has put him in a tough position by elevating Bob Stewart to the levels of Newton, and Einstein.

 

He HAS not arguments to counter. He has been give the same fully accepted, factual indictments of MQA, including studies, measurements, and seems sometimes acknowledge them, then dismiss them. 

 

He has not once yet addressed the shameful, bombastic, and outright ridiculous coverage by his peers of MQA.

 

He wins nothing.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

I missed the part where Andrew presented a credible viewpoint. He has a public platform, but things like MqA coverage have eroded much credibility that once would have been granted the publication.

 

The fact such people calmly pretend they've any credibility left to counter the reality of mqa just causes me to dismiss them on other matters. I don't think that's an uncommon reaction these days. They no longer control the flow of information.

Has Quint once even addressed the tone of the press coverage? I don' t think so..not once.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

3 hours ago, rickca said:

So now you're saying we might be misinterpreting the results of this study or that the study may be invalid ... so don't come to any premature conclusions.  Anything to keep those plates spinning.

[Brinkman Ship]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

I missed the part where Andrew presented a credible viewpoint. He has a public platform, but things like MqA coverage have eroded much credibility that once would have been granted the publication.

 

The fact such people calmly pretend they've any credibility left to counter the reality of mqa just causes me to dismiss them on other matters. I don't think that's an uncommon reaction these days. They no longer control the flow of information.

..The latest reason to "not dismiss" MQA entirely is it might be good for the young people...

 

Yep, that is the latest he came up with.  Still waiting for an explanation on that theory

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..The latest reason to "not dismiss" MQA entirely is it might be good for the young people...

 

Yep, that is the latest he came up with.  Still waiting for an explanation on that theory

 

This just in:

 

[adamdea]

13 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

But we can't read more into it than what is known. My point based on 50:50 preferences alone was simply we can't know if their choice of chocolate or Vanilla was a clear preference or random ( nor if they would flip next time asked). It could conceivably be either, therefore not wise to make conclusions. I believe Archimago agreed but added additional clarifications so all good. Such distributed tests have their limitations as Archimago mentioned but I agree with him that the whole evidence thus far is not supporting MQA as a better SQ medium. To the extent that there is doubt the burden of proof is on those promoting MQA.

I agree with all of this in principle, but we do know rather more than 50:50 aggregate preferences. We know that only 9/83 look like candidates for having a clear and consistent preference for MQA.

Particularly when you factor in the McGill result then it does all look pretty random.

But I accept that you couldn't rule out some people having most subtle preferences.

 

I agree that the distributed file tests have their limitations but at least people get to decide for themselves based on preference rather than identification, and can do so at home on a familiar system.

 

Anyway, bearing in mind Archimago's previous results, one shouldn't be too surprised.

[crenca]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

Well @ARQuint, I suggest you get a copy of the article then and divine what "necessarily" means. That's a quote from the article so it's the author's words. Feel free to E-mail: [email protected] as a journalist to get the full scoop.

 

 

8 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

So, audio industry writers, do the right thing: apologize, join the side of your consumers, help the community ensure those responsible are permanently shunned, and that this never happens again.

 

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I missed the part where Andrew presented a credible viewpoint. He has a public platform, but things like MqA coverage have eroded much credibility that once would have been granted the publication.

 

The fact such people calmly pretend they've any credibility left to counter the reality of mqa just causes me to dismiss them on other matters. I don't think that's an uncommon reaction these days. They no longer control the flow of information.

 

Look guys, it is long past time to stop calling these guys "journalists".  They are no more a "journalist" then a guy who runs a moon landing denying site.  I won't say they don't have personal integrity (they all could be saints for all I know) but what they do for a living in audio is not about integrity or the truth - it is about trying to sell you something.  They are promotion and ad copy writers, nothing more or nothing less.  They do not have a clue as to how to go about investigating and judging something like MQA - not a clue and they are not going to find one any time soon.  They don't have the skill, experience, and knowledge and they are not interested in obtaining it.

 

If you are interested in high fidelity, in good sound, in music and the equipment you need for its reproduction, then stop reading the audiophile trade publications.  I no longer read their print or click on their websites unless it is brought up here.

 

I know, I know too many in "Old Guard" audiophiledom pay attention to them but that is to is slowly changing.  We simply present MQA as it actually is, informing the consumer through the most important information source about High Fidelity there is - the consumer driven audio forum.

 

Manufacturers are learning an important lesson, that the trade publications are not on their side.  They might be a necessary evil for them in the short term, but this too is changing.  Manufactures have spent real time and money (though probably not as much as some have said) implementing a codec that is DOA.  You will see in the coming months, probably years "major announcements" and new MQA implementations in hardware/software, and some of these might even look impressive and seem important.  Yet, like the fish flapping on the deck MQA is already dead, it just does not know it yet.  

 

We should all thank our host for having the vision and thick skin to endure what has no doubt been a thrashing from the Old Guard behind the scenes.  

[Brinkman Ship]

 

 

[psjug]

25 minutes ago, crenca said:

They don't have the skill, experience, and knowledge

I don't believe this to be true, at least not for all of them.  I think they are just choosing to shrug off the problems with MQA.  Obviously there has been a lot of talk here about why they might do that.

[Thuaveta]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Look guys, it is long past time to stop calling these guys "journalists".

 

Absolutely.

 

Which is why yours truly used the word "writers", and has never used the word journalist to describe what it is these folks do, other than in a clearly ironic manner.

 

 

38 minutes ago, psjug said:

I don't believe this to be true, at least not for all of them.  I think they are just choosing to shrug off the problems with MQA.  Obviously there has been a lot of talk here about why they might do that.

 

@crenca is right here. It's quite simple, really: just because these guys might be venal or corrupt doesn't mean they can't simultaneously be incompetent and that some of them aren't also stupid.

[skikirkwood]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This just in:

 

 

Wow, you might get a bunch of us started on wild photoshop hacking after seeing this.  I was concerned about my Darth Vader / MQA Death Star hack, but I now know I have to up my game.

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, skikirkwood said:

 

Wow, you might get a bunch of us started on wild photoshop hacking after seeing this.  I was concerned about my Darth Vader / MQA Death Star hack, but I now know I have to up my game.

 

Did you see the part where an EPA spokesman calls a reporter a 'piece of trash' in the part that wasn't Photoshoped ?  And Andrew Quint is worried about what has been said about Robert Harley and The Absolute Sound. 

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Did you see the part where an EPA spokesman calls a reporter a 'piece of trash' in the part that wasn't Photoshoped ?  And Andrew Quint is worried about what has been said about Robert Harley and The Absolute Sound. 

May I remind everyone also that Michael Fremer, on his blog, called a WSJ reported an "asshole".

 

So clearly the rules are different depending on what side you are on.

[Brinkman Ship]

For reference, here is one of the most unhinged, personal attacks on a reporter you are ever going to see:

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/why-wsj-writer-neil-shahs-career-over

[tmtomh]

35 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

For reference, here is one of the most unhinged, personal attacks on a reporter you are ever going to see:

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/why-wsj-writer-neil-shahs-career-over

 

I'm not a fan of Fremer, but this piece is neither unhinged nor a personal attack. He calls out specific passages and quotations from the articles and provides point-by-point rebuttals. One or two of Fremer's points here are not persuasive IMHO, but the majority of them sound reasonable, even if the level of Fremer's vitriol is a bit excessive. But of course, when it comes to critiques of polemical tone, it's hard for a lot of us here to make that critique - it's like throwing stones in a glass house. ?

[Brinkman Ship]

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm not a fan of Fremer, but this piece is neither unhinged nor a personal attack. He calls out specific passages and quotations from the articles and provides point-by-point rebuttals. One or two of Fremer's points here are not persuasive IMHO, but the majority of them sound reasonable, even if the level of Fremer's vitriol is a bit excessive. But of course, when it comes to critiques of polemical tone, it's hard for a lot of us here to make that critique - it's like throwing stones in a glass house. ?

Are were reading the same piece?

 

He calls the guy dishonest, cynical, incompetent, and a liar.  He says his "career is over"..is that a threat?

 

He also "thinks" he was misquoted...

 

He also wrote, which apparently has been removed as a few months ago, "what an asshole", right in the text.

 

I wish I had done a screenshot.

[crenca]

22 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm not a fan of Fremer, but this piece is neither unhinged nor a personal attack. He calls out specific passages and quotations from the articles and provides point-by-point rebuttals. One or two of Fremer's points here are not persuasive IMHO, but the majority of them sound reasonable, even if the level of Fremer's vitriol is a bit excessive. But of course, when it comes to critiques of polemical tone, it's hard for a lot of us here to make that critique - it's like throwing stones in a glass house. ?

 

I lean toward Brinkman here tmtomh  - I read that piece as much more "excessive" and personal than you did.  Also, as Brinkman notes it has been edited as his "asshole" quip got some press I recall.

 

Interesting about the pot calling kettle black is it not?  In Fremer's world, an over the top, poorly researched, "biased" take on something is not ok as long as it is directed to his bread and butter (i.e. vinyl).  Too bad he is not into digital, as perhaps he would have been critical of his cohorts over the top, poorly researched, biased take on MQA.

 

It also points to just how eccentric most of these guys are.  I take a personal interest in Vincent Van Gogh.  I like his art, I have read a couple of biography's etc.  Yet despite this, I would not actually be all that interested in his "reviews" of other artists, or his intellectual take on what art is or is not, or his opinions on mental health, love, or life.  The man was seriously eccentric and broken.

 

Look at these audio trade publication writers such as Fremer, or ML, or Herb Reichert, Jim Austin, Mr. Quint, etc.  They are all clearly eccentric to put it mildly.  They don't come across as the kind of people that should be trusted for an opinion on just about anything - they are neither balanced nor especially insightful.  Yet somehow they are the ones that consumers are supposed to trust even relatively non-complex matter of the sound of a speaker, to say nothing of a complex and multifaceted subject like MQA?!?  Then, when they get it wrong like they have on MQA, they are bold enough to complain of the "nastiness" (Jim Austin's description) of the consumer reaction to MQA?!?  Really, you can't make this stuff up...

[Brinkman Ship]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I lean toward Brinkman here tmtomh  - I read that piece as much more "excessive" and personal than you did.  Also, as Brinkman notes it has been edited as his "asshole" quip got some press I recall.

 

Interesting about the pot calling kettle black is it not?  In Fremer's world, an over the top, poorly researched, "biased" take on something is not ok as long as it is directed to his bread and butter (i.e. vinyl).  Too bad he is not into digital, as perhaps he would have been critical of his cohorts over the top, poorly researched, biased take on MQA.

 

It also points to just how eccentric most of these guys are.  I take a personal interest in Vincent Van Gogh.  I like his art, I have read a couple of biography's etc.  Yet despite this, I would not actually be all that interested in his "reviews" of other artists, or his intellectual take on what art is or is not, or his opinions on mental health, love, or life.  The man was seriously eccentric and broken.

 

Look at these audio trade publication writers such as Fremer, or ML, or Herb Reichert, Jim Austin, Mr. Quint, etc.  They are all clearly eccentric to put it mildly.  They don't come across as the kind of people that should be trusted for an opinion on just about anything - they are neither balanced nor especially insightful.  Yet somehow they are the ones that consumers are supposed to trust even relatively non-complex matter of the sound of a speaker, to say nothing of a complex and multifaceted subject like MQA?!?  Then, when they get it wrong like they have on MQA, they are bold enough to complain of the "nastiness" (Jim Austin's description) of the consumer reaction to MQA?!?  Really, you can't make this stuff up...

I have to say, you put together a near perfect analysis and synopsis of the ironies and absurdities.  I think many CA members see things as you framed them here.