MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, Brinkman Ship said:

That may be but he was still praising MQA's sound quality in this post...

 

Changing John Darko's mind is like turning a battleship it will take awhile. To quote my favorite Tom Clancy character John Clark "you don't want to know where we got him from."

[Brinkman Ship]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Changing John Darko's mind is like turning a battleship it will take awhile. To quote my favorite Tom Clancy character John Clark "you don't want to know where we got him from."

Good one...Darko has always been a follower, not a leader IMO...he seems to check what the "hot topics" are then latch on..

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I’m not going to defend an adult fully capable of defending himself, but I’ll say that I like Darko very much. He’s a really nice guy that I’ve had enjoyed talking to over the years. I’m happy he has made his business successful. 

[Rt66indierock]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - I’m not going to defend an adult fully capable of defending himself, but I’ll say that I like Darko very much. He’s a really nice guy that I’ve had enjoyed talking to over the years. I’m happy he has made his business successful. 

 

I've had more than a few conversations with John over the years and am convinced he  wanted to believe MQA was better. In part because of who told him it was better. I just don't he would notice what has been going on lately with MQA. It wasn't lost on me that Paul Seydor made public McIntosh's concerns with MQA's distortion today. Others have the same concerns. J Haagenstad said some interesting things this weekend if you put them on a timeline. I said something similar when I said MQA Ltd had gotten about 150 NDA but had only converted about a quarter of them to licensees. MQA Ltd has a lot of companies that have studied it and done nothing. What does that tell you? That they are finding things wrong with it what it tells me. I just don't think John is comfortable with where we took the MQA arguments technically so he will be slow come to grips with high end audio slowly moving away from it.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I've had more than a few conversations with John over the years and am convinced he  wanted to believe MQA was better. In part because of who told him it was better. I just don't he would notice what has been going on lately with MQA. It wasn't lost on me that Paul Seydor made public McIntosh's concerns with MQA's distortion today. Others have the same concerns. J Haagenstad said some interesting things this weekend if you put them on a timeline. I said something similar when I said MQA Ltd had gotten about 150 NDA but had only converted about a quarter of them to licensees. MQA Ltd has a lot of companies that have studied it and done nothing. What does that tell you? That they are finding things wrong with it what it tells me. I just don't think John is comfortable with where we took the MQA arguments technically so he will be slow come to grips with high end audio slowly moving away from it.

 

I think McIntosh taking a pass (if true - Paul is just another trade publication writer right?) is pretty significant.  No matter what you really think of their sound, their position in "High End" is undeniable

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, crenca said:

 

I think McIntosh taking a pass (if true - Paul is just another trade publication writer right?) is pretty significant.  No matter what you really think of their sound, their position in "High End" is undeniable

 

You might want check out what Paul really does. I met him a couple of times and we talked about his books not audio and his latest film projects. He thinks its funny I consider his wife the best speaker reviewer ever.

 

And you missed some stuff this weekend see my response to Chris above. 

[crenca]

35 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

You might want check out what Paul really does. I met him a couple of times and we talked about his books not audio and his latest film projects. He thinks its funny I consider his wife the best speaker reviewer ever.

 

And you missed some stuff this weekend see my response to Chris above. 

 

Well, what does he "really" do?  As near as I can tell, he is yet another successful fill-in-the-blank (in this case filmmaker - think of all the doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs that are somehow Audio engineering experts) who would not know a waveform from a strand of copper. 

 

If you are referring to the NDA vs licensee conversion rate, I agree that truly significant!

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Well, what does he "really" do?  As near as I can tell, he is yet another successful fill-in-the-blank (in this case filmmaker - think of all the doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs that are somehow Audio engineering experts) who would not know a waveform from a strand of copper. 

 

If you are referring to the NDA vs licensee conversion rate, I agree that truly significant!

I believe Seydor is a film editor.

 

Seydor knows precious little about digital audio, and in fact, until this review had never streamed or played back digital files not on optical discs.

 

This was a GREAT thing in my opinion, because it allowed him to defer to the engineers at McIntosh in regards to MQA. I am sure he softened the blow, when they told him it was distorted, lossy slop.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I've had more than a few conversations with John over the years and am convinced he  wanted to believe MQA was better. In part because of who told him it was better. I just don't he would notice what has been going on lately with MQA. It wasn't lost on me that Paul Seydor made public McIntosh's concerns with MQA's distortion today. Others have the same concerns. J Haagenstad said some interesting things this weekend if you put them on a timeline. I said something similar when I said MQA Ltd had gotten about 150 NDA but had only converted about a quarter of them to licensees. MQA Ltd has a lot of companies that have studied it and done nothing. What does that tell you? That they are finding things wrong with it what it tells me. I just don't think John is comfortable with where we took the MQA arguments technically so he will be slow come to grips with high end audio slowly moving away from it.

You fleshed out exactly what I said..Darko is a follower. And very, very badly wants to be in the thick of it. If joining the MQA love fest was what it took, that is what it took. He has jumped on many bandwagons the Old Guard has pushed down a hill.

[Fokus]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Changing John Darko's mind is like turning a battleship it will take awhile.

 

So ignorant ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edk_mAeU2kU

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Well, what does he "really" do?  As near as I can tell, he is yet another successful fill-in-the-blank (in this case filmmaker - think of all the doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs that are somehow Audio engineering experts) who would not know a waveform from a strand of copper. 

 

 

Yeh, I agree, you can't trust those Indian Chiefs ! Lawyers maybe iffy, but the rest of your list, no problems!

[mansr]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - I’m not going to defend an adult fully capable of defending himself, but I’ll say that I like Darko very much. He’s a really nice guy that I’ve had enjoyed talking to over the years. I’m happy he has made his business successful. 

He can be a nice guy and still follow the pack when it comes to his writing.

[firedog]

From the latest issue of the German "Stereo Magazine", reflecting on the Munich show:

 

Quote

 

MQA: THE UNBELOVED FORMAT?

 

In many conversations we met a growing scepticism towards MQA‘s HighBit format. Whether at Bluesound, T+A or Denon/Marantz, in discussions with developers and product managers everywhere we heard critical undertones about licensing policies and the purpose of the format.

 

After all, in FLAC there is a completely lossless alternative on the market, which is now also streamable due to increasing web speed – as Qobuz  demonstrates. At XiVero we got the chance to experience a weak point in Tidal‘s MQA streaming at first hand: Owner Stefan Hotto has extended his versatile analyzer „MusicScope“ so that web streams could also be measured. In a random sample from Tidal‘s master range, we immediately caught a title that was unmistakably artificially trimmed to HighBit. But even if all else fails: due to the rapidly increasing Roon-support, the distribution of MQA, being the implemented sound format there, is also increasing.

 

 

[crenca]

10 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

So ignorant ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edk_mAeU2kU

 

OMG.  That is the most I have ever watched of that movie, and I pray to all the gods (and I do mean all of them) that it will the most I ever have to watch.

[crenca]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yeh, I agree, you can't trust those Indian Chiefs ! Lawyers maybe iffy, but the rest of your list, no problems!

 

LOL.  In a way it is about trust - do they have any basic competency in the subject?  Audiphiledom is strange in that it attracts all sorts of experts (and they really are) in other fields that come in and are suddenly "reviewing" electronics and subjects such as MQA

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

LOL.  In a way it is about trust - do they have any basic competency in the subject?  Audiphiledom is strange in that it attracts all sorts of experts (and they really are) in other fields that come in and are suddenly "reviewing" electronics and subjects such as MQA

My favorite expression is “Audiophiles are experts on everything”...

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, firedog said:

From the latest issue of the German "Stereo Magazine", reflecting on the Munich show:

 

'...In a random sample from Tidal‘s master range, we immediately caught a title that was unmistakably artificially trimmed to HighBit...."

 

I suppose this is a translation bot issue.  I can't tell what "HighBit" means (16/44?)

 

17 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

LOL.  In a way it is about trust - do they have any basic competency in the subject?  Audiphiledom is strange in that it attracts all sorts of experts (and they really are) in other fields that come in and are suddenly "reviewing" electronics and subjects such as MQA

I remember TAS bragging about their reviewing staff when it was still  4 times a year in small format.  They had something like 9 PhDs on the review staff of maybe 12 people.  Of course I don't think any were in science, math or physics.  And one of the other three, AHC, was a national security advisor to the govt.  

 

This lead to the curious experience during the first Iraq war of seeing your TAS leading reviewer on TV being consulted by the media about how the war was going.  

[Brinkman Ship]

It should be pointed out that when Seydor said the following"

 

"The C52’s DAC will accept PCM sample rates of 16, 24, and 32 bits, 32kHz–384kHz; DSD64, DSD128, and DSD256; and DXD 352.8kHz and DXD 384kHz. About the only standard digital format the C52 doesn’t support is Master Quality Authenticated (MQA, about which McIntosh’s engineers prefer to take a wait-and-see position, finding the format too lossy, with distortion that doesn’t meet the company’s high standards)."

 

...he erred when he claimed Maser Quack Audio is a "standard" format..it is anything but standard.

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, esldude said:

I remember TAS bragging about their reviewing staff when it was still  4 times a year in small format.  They had something like 9 PhDs on the review staff of maybe 12 people.  Of course I don't think any were in science, math or physics.  And one of the other three, AHC, was a national security advisor to the govt.  

 

This lead to the curious experience during the first Iraq war of seeing your TAS leading reviewer on TV being consulted by the media about how the war was going.  

"I recommend using silver cables, sir. The enemy won't stand a chance."

[rothosand]

Has anyone noticed the letters to the editor published in the July issue of Stereophile ?

5 of them are about MQA, and all are far from positive towards the format.

 

Things are really (but slowly) beginning to change in the audiophile press...

 

 

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, rothosand said:

Has anyone noticed the letters to the editor published in the July issue of Stereophile ?

5 of them are about MQA, and all are far from positive towards the format.

 

Things are really (but slowly) beginning to change in the audiophile press...

 

 

 

I just ran over to my window to see the pigs flying.... ?

 

No seriously in my opinion Stereophile is being forced into such a "balanced" offering (such as it is) on MQA because their default methodology gained them some negative press.  I also suspect that their customers (who are the manufactures/providers who advertise with them - not readers such as you and I) wanted some space to maneuver.  

 

IF it is a real substantive change from the status quo then great!  Probably not however...

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

LOL.  In a way it is about trust - do they have any basic competency in the subject?  Audiphiledom is strange in that it attracts all sorts of experts (and they really are) in other fields that come in and are suddenly "reviewing" electronics and subjects such as MQA

 

what would Bruce Rozenblit say?

[Jud]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

I remember TAS bragging about their reviewing staff when it was still  4 times a year in small format.  They had something like 9 PhDs on the review staff of maybe 12 people.  Of course I don't think any were in science, math or physics.  And one of the other three, AHC, was a national security advisor to the govt.  

 

This lead to the curious experience during the first Iraq war of seeing your TAS leading reviewer on TV being consulted by the media about how the war was going.  

 

Yes, I remember the same.  At that point AHC was doing reviews with his “sonic checklist,” which made reading them a rather dry experience.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

 

LOL.  In a way it is about trust - do they have any basic competency in the subject?  Audiphiledom is strange in that it attracts all sorts of experts (and they really are) in other fields that come in and are suddenly "reviewing" electronics and subjects such as MQA

 

6 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

My favorite expression is “Audiophiles are experts on everything”...

 

I cannot disagree, of course. There are "armchair experts" in all fields. That said, I do believe the consumer/end-user/hobbyist have valid opinions. They can be based on for example the non-technical aspects eg political issues, preference issues etc. They can also be based on an educated and informed analysis of the technical aspects as presented and explained by the various technical/professional experts.

 

Relevantly, it is often observed that the 'real experts' do not always agree. So by definition, there is no one and obvious answer. This happens in Medicine FAR more than the public realize, far more. I suppose this is partly why the so called "appeal to authority" is a fallacy. Which authority?

 

In some regions the issue of medical causation in compensable injuries is left to the 'experts' ie the relevant medical experts, in some regions causation is left to non medical people like judges in a court. The point being, the judge is left to weigh the evidence of the experts. They end up "preferring" the evidence of one expert over the other.

 

I still remain of course, at least for me, very interested in the quals and background of people making analyses. For example, do you care to share your background? I would also be interested in Brinky's and others on these controversial threads. I have been previously asked and provided details. I have also asked Mansr in the past (his background is known).