MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

You guys

 

If you really believe that MQA is "unwanted, and technically and audibly flawed money making scheme for a few", why aren't you more involved?  Seems you're just claiming some moral high ground and tossing pies.  Haven't seen you active in the discussions against MQA, but maybe I missed them.

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

And as long as we're on about ad hominem, is it ad hominem when the target of ridicule is demonstrably a stooge or engages in disingenuous "internet influencer"  behavior?

It's always valid to examine someone's motivations. This is why author affiliations are disclosed in scientific publications.

[Mordikai]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

If you really believe that MQA is "unwanted, and technically and audibly flawed money making scheme for a few", why aren't you more involved?  Seems you're just claiming some moral high ground and tossing pies.  Haven't seen you active in the discussions against MQA, but maybe I missed them.

Most of the people who are against MQA don't participate much or at all in this thread because it is boring and repetitive.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Mordikai said:

Most of the people who are against MQA don't participate much or at all in this thread because it is boring and repetitive.

 

What would make it exciting and fresh?

[daverich4]

15 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

If you really believe that MQA is "unwanted, and technically and audibly flawed money making scheme for a few", why aren't you more involved?  Seems you're just claiming some moral high ground and tossing pies.  Haven't seen you active in the discussions against MQA, but maybe I missed them.

 

The “discussion” in this thread was over several hundred pages ago. All it appears to be now is a contest to see who can come up with the most clever put down. 

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Haven't seen you active in the discussions against MQA, but maybe I missed them.

 

 Perhaps you missed them ? I listened to earlier provided samples and much preferred the original non MQA version

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, daverich4 said:

 

The “discussion” in this thread was over several hundred pages ago. All it appears to be now is a contest to see who can come up with the most clever put down. 

 

But the post I'm replying to is not in that category? 

[Mordikai]

15 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

What would make it exciting and fresh?

I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but I'm not sure there is anything that can be done. How do you creatively engage with the MQA trolls? It will be nice when all this MQA nonsense is in the rear view mirror.

[crenca]

34 minutes ago, Mordikai said:

I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but I'm not sure there is anything that can be done. How do you creatively engage with the MQA trolls? It will be nice when all this MQA nonsense is in the rear view mirror.

 

Not just trolls, but astroturfers & guerilla marketers

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Internet "culture" has evolved even since this forum was founded.  Many keystrokes have been offered here recounting something like the "good old days" of Computer Audiophile when everyone just got along and the forum was the paragon of civility.

 

But now many if not most of us have been in some way affected by internet disinformation.  It wasn't that long ago (I've been posting in internet forums, including USENET, since the 1980s) that the idea of someone knowingly posting false information was hard to believe.  Now it happens thousands of times per day.  If you don't believe me, just look at your Facebook feed.  And if you don't have a Facebook account, you have my deepest respect.

 

The internet has evolved to the point where there are a relatively small number of people who literally post things to the internet (pictures, video, and text of course) as their primary source of income.  Inevitably, there will be those who can't get the level of attention (views, subscribers, etc.) they seek without posting some mix of provocative, false, sensational, or otherwise dubious content.  How many years has "click bait" been in our vernacular?

 

It is against this backdrop that we find ourselves swimming in digital disingenuousness.  Back in the day, we had the saying, "don't feed the trolls" and it was sage advice.  But now we have seen, first hand, lies repeated until some significant percentage (and in some unfortunate cases, a plurality or a majority) of people believe them.  And I don't mean they believe them with mild conviction.  I mean they're willing to harm others to protect what they believe to be unmitigated "truth".

 

I'm certainly not lumping MQA advocates into that group.  But I think it's important to acknowledge that cultures change and the tactics of messengers have entered a dark, dangerous place.  In the past, the word "propaganda" was used in the U.S. as mostly hyperbole.  Now it's real.  And I personally still find it disconcerting that so many people, seeing "success" in various propaganda campaigns, have utterly embraced it as a "means to an end".  Our civilization suffers.  Perhaps we're truly witnessing the fall of western civilization, albeit agonizingly slowly.  Or maybe not.  History will have the final say, if it survives the torrential onslaught of propaganda.

 

So, with respect, I push back against the torch bearers of civility.  Deliberately false information is the most heinous of incivilities in my opinion, and I for one will not just let it happen because the "trolls" aren't trolls any more.  They're witting purveyors of lies.  Ignoring them helps them greatly.

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

And if you don't have a Facebook account, you have my deepest respect.

 

Who needs Farcebook ?

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Internet "culture" has evolved even since this forum was founded.  Many keystrokes have been offered here recounting something like the "good old days" of Computer Audiophile when everyone just got along and the forum was the paragon of civility.

 

But now many if not most of us have been in some way affected by internet disinformation.  It wasn't that long ago (I've been posting in internet forums, including USENET, since the 1980s) that the idea of someone knowingly posting false information was hard to believe.  Now it happens thousands of times per day.  If you don't believe me, just look at your Facebook feed.  And if you don't have a Facebook account, you have my deepest respect.

 

The internet has evolved to the point where there are a relatively small number of people who literally post things to the internet (pictures, video, and text of course) as their primary source of income.  Inevitably, there will be those who can't get the level of attention (views, subscribers, etc.) they seek without posting some mix of provocative, false, sensational, or otherwise dubious content.  How many years has "click bait" been in our vernacular?

 

It is against this backdrop that we find ourselves swimming in digital disingenuousness.  Back in the day, we had the saying, "don't feed the trolls" and it was sage advice.  But now we have seen, first hand, lies repeated until some significant percentage (and in some unfortunate cases, a plurality or a majority) of people believe them.  And I don't mean they believe them with mild conviction.  I mean they're willing to harm others to protect what they believe to be unmitigated "truth".

 

I'm certainly not lumping MQA advocates into that group.  But I think it's important to acknowledge that cultures change and the tactics of messengers have entered a dark, dangerous place.  In the past, the word "propaganda" was used in the U.S. as mostly hyperbole.  Now it's real.  And I personally still find it disconcerting that so many people, seeing "success" in various propaganda campaigns, have utterly embraced it as a "means to an end".  Our civilization suffers.  Perhaps we're truly witnessing the fall of western civilization, albeit agonizingly slowly.  Or maybe not.  History will have the final say, if it survives the torrential onslaught of propaganda.

 

So, with respect, I push back against the torch bearers of civility.  Deliberately false information is the most heinous of incivilities in my opinion, and I for one will not just let it happen because the "trolls" aren't trolls any more.  They're witting purveyors of lies.  Ignoring them helps them greatly.

 

That is quite a good post, and definitely was great to read. 

 

Except the very last part - civility is the last defense against the barbarians. Those whose goal is to win their point and get noticed at any cost. 

It's all that's left I think.  

 

And yes, I had an arpanet account too, and remember being astonished at the odd postings that turned out to be the first "spam" messages. Irritating no end since I was paying LD telephone bills to route our traffic through Rutgers at the time. This was when LD telephone bills really added up, and Trailblazers were a dead certain necessity. 

 

Those messages made me feel like a very special time had come to an end.  I guess history repeats itself. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

Except the very last part - civility is the last defense against the barbarians

 

I disagree Paul.  Barbarians murder.  That's just what they do.  Civility, in that context, is something like quaint or just silly.  I for one would not be civil to the person who's about to murder me.

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Internet "culture" has evolved even since this forum was founded.  Many keystrokes have been offered here recounting something like the "good old days" of Computer Audiophile when everyone just got along and the forum was the paragon of civility.

 

But now many if not most of us have been in some way affected by internet disinformation.  It wasn't that long ago (I've been posting in internet forums, including USENET, since the 1980s) that the idea of someone knowingly posting false information was hard to believe.  Now it happens thousands of times per day.  If you don't believe me, just look at your Facebook feed.  And if you don't have a Facebook account, you have my deepest respect.

 

The internet has evolved to the point where there are a relatively small number of people who literally post things to the internet (pictures, video, and text of course) as their primary source of income.  Inevitably, there will be those who can't get the level of attention (views, subscribers, etc.) they seek without posting some mix of provocative, false, sensational, or otherwise dubious content.  How many years has "click bait" been in our vernacular?

 

It is against this backdrop that we find ourselves swimming in digital disingenuousness.  Back in the day, we had the saying, "don't feed the trolls" and it was sage advice.  But now we have seen, first hand, lies repeated until some significant percentage (and in some unfortunate cases, a plurality or a majority) of people believe them.  And I don't mean they believe them with mild conviction.  I mean they're willing to harm others to protect what they believe to be unmitigated "truth".

 

I'm certainly not lumping MQA advocates into that group.  But I think it's important to acknowledge that cultures change and the tactics of messengers have entered a dark, dangerous place.  In the past, the word "propaganda" was used in the U.S. as mostly hyperbole.  Now it's real.  And I personally still find it disconcerting that so many people, seeing "success" in various propaganda campaigns, have utterly embraced it as a "means to an end".  Our civilization suffers.  Perhaps we're truly witnessing the fall of western civilization, albeit agonizingly slowly.  Or maybe not.  History will have the final say, if it survives the torrential onslaught of propaganda.

 

So, with respect, I push back against the torch bearers of civility.  Deliberately false information is the most heinous of incivilities in my opinion, and I for one will not just let it happen because the "trolls" aren't trolls any more.  They're witting purveyors of lies.  Ignoring them helps them greatly.

 

When it comes to audio, which is just consumer electronics, the estimates vary just what the signal to noise ratio is.  Some believe as high as 40% of all "reviews" are pure propaganda.  I am not sure it is that high, but I do believe the culture of auidophiledom forces a "read between the lines" style upon almost all reviewers.

 

As far as the forums, it depends.  Some of them are little more than industry advertisements.  This one is pretty good.  Lee has found a way to keep the noise up against the signal, but any/all rule/moderation schemes have the strengths and weaknesses.  

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

When it comes to audio, which is just consumer electronics, the estimates vary just what the signal to noise ratio is.  Some believe as high as 40% of all "reviews" are pure propaganda.  I am not sure it is that high, but I do believe the culture of auidophiledom forces a "read between the lines" style upon almost all reviewers.

 

As far as the forums, it depends.  Some of them are little more than industry advertisements.  This one is pretty good.  Lee has found a way to keep the noise up against the signal, but any/all rule/moderation schemes have the strengths and weaknesses.  

 

Having suffered Scoggins' disingenuousness over at Hoffman for many years, I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably oversensitive to his internet tactics.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

If you really believe that MQA is "unwanted, and technically and audibly flawed money making scheme for a few", why aren't you more involved?  Seems you're just claiming some moral high ground and tossing pies.  Haven't seen you active in the discussions against MQA, but maybe I missed them.

 

I am going to step in to answer this, at least for myself.  

 

Fighting MQA does not f'ing matter, not in the least. MQA has zero chance of creating a corporate lock on the audiophile community, and even less so on the general music loving Apple Music subscribing populace. Zero point zero zero zero for as long as you want to keep repeating zeros. 

 

Which is why the heat, and the hating, and general un-civil behavior is less than useless from the opposition. If anything, it is helping MQA. Any publicity is good publicity, remember? 

 

And when you put it in perspective, it is a first world problem. One that is not worth fighting over. No babies being killed here, no puppies being drowned, not even any Klingon Puppies around to chew on things.  

 

If someone likes MQA, more power to them. If someone does like it, there is again, zero chance that the only music you will be able to buy, stream, or listen to is going to be in MQA format.  That makes it no more important that one person liking Jazz, and another thinking Jazz is going to take over the world, and the only music you will ever be able to listen to is Jazz.  

 

(shrug) 

 

-Paul 

 

 

[Paul R]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I disagree Paul.  Barbarians murder.  That's just what they do.  Civility, in that context, is something like quaint or just silly.  I for one would not be civil to the person who's about to murder me.

 

I would simply politely shoot them first, not try to nag them to death.  

 

Seriously, I do not think the cases are comparable. These barbarians are accosting you with MQA - and that is not a lethal weapon. (grin)

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

MQA has zero chance of creating a corporate lock on the audiophile community, and even less so on the general music loving Apple Music subscribing populace. Zero point zero zero zero for as long as you want to keep repeating zeros.

 

I appreciate the conviction, and I hope you're right, but the future of "audiophile streaming" is far from certain and I don't share your confidence.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Having suffered Scoggins' disingenuousness over at Hoffman for many years, I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably oversensitive to his internet tactics.

 

It's insane, literally DSM-5 level stuff on the surface.  However, the surface is just there to stay within the rules of the forum - sound reasonable, never address substance, constantly change subject - but be "nice" enough to remain.  Mr. Scold and the like are more interested in their principles than the truth and so they tolerate/ignore it - and then high mindendly scold you for not following their rules which, are are so important they are literally going to save civilization, or so they tell us 😂

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

I would simply politely shoot them first, not try to nag them to death.  

 

Seriously, I do not think the cases are comparable. These barbarians are accosting you with MQA - and that is not a lethal weapon. (grin)

 

Sometimes metaphors do not work.  IMHO, "barbarians" is not a good moniker for MQA shills.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

What would make it exciting and fresh?

 

Perhaps the results of a correctly implemented DBT session performed by a group of USA Audiophile Style Forum members ?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

Perhaps the results of a correctly implemented DBT session performed by a group of USA Audiophile Style Forum members ?

 

Sounds like we have a volunteer 😄

 

[Ralf11]

It would be nice if MQA has zero chance of creating a corporate lock on our music, but that is merely speculation.

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I appreciate the conviction, and I hope you're right, but the future of "audiophile streaming" is far from certain and I don't share your confidence.

 

Your caution is a good thing, IMNSHO of course.  Still, every time corporate culture has tried to put a lock on the wild and woolly internet culture, corporate interests have lost big time. Everything from trying to keep commercial interests off the internet, to "You have Mail" as the preferred email carrier, to peer to peer file sharing, to... well, *anything*. The internet is probably one of the true phase changes in human history. Society was one thing, slowly changing and evolving. Along came the internet, and golly gee whiz bang - everything  changed almost overnight. 

 

Should the worst happen, my money would be on a vast new peer to peer file sharing network, but one designed from the get go to frustrate the record labels and make it near impossible to track down who did what. Distributed on a vast scale and impossible to shut down. That would truly be the labels worst fear I think.  

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

It would be nice if MQA has zero chance of creating a corporate lock on our music, but that is merely speculation.

 

As is the idea that MQA could create such a lock on our music. Purest speculation. 

 

-Paul

 

I meant that a little differently than it sounded - I meant it is *all* speculation, and what "side" one falls on is purely a matter of perspective. First world problem.   -PR