MQA is Vaporware

[Hugo9000]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

 

He is the same person that wrote this:

"Your actions certainly suggest you and a few others here definitely have an agenda.  I wish you well, but doing bad things like you are doing will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.  That isn't a threat by the way, just a prediction. 

 

Have a nice life"

 

What I think the MQA shills mean is that the people that are closely examining MQA should shut up and say nothing.

People should accept the decrees issued from on high from the demi-gods john Atkinson and Robert Harley, even though Harley's paradigm change article was the most laughable article ever published.

 

Those days are gone.  It is a whole new world, where everything is closely examined.

 

If you think that critics can be silenced by accusing them of being "uncivil" when they criticize your sacred cow, you have a warped perspective.

(my bold in the quote above)

 

The irony is that Mr. Harley was right about a paradigm change, as was Mr. Atkinson about witnessing the birth of a whole new world*, but it isn't MQA itself, it's the response of skeptics to the "authorities" of the audio world haha!

 

The actual paradigm shift is away from the old publications, and the new world is one in which their statements and reviews are no longer accepted as holy writ, but are increasingly treated with skepticism or distrust.  

 

Incidentally, for those who objected (lol) to Chris (in his presentation) or anyone else mentioning/showing use of the "old" MQA Lossless (sic) logo, please note that Stereophile has not removed it or made an editiorial note regarding its inaccuracy/deception in this online article where it still appears:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

 

 

Obviously, they cannot do anything about print editions of the magazine, other than print a retraction or correction or other editorial note in a later issue, but this is the current state of the online article, which should have been updated if they were interested in accuracy or objectivity.  An additional editorial comment about the disinformation that follows the use of that dishonest logo would be useful as well.

 

 

*Apologies if that wasn't the exact wording of his metaphor, I was distracted by seeing the MQA Lossless still in place and not corrected or editorialized after the fact in any way.  lol

[KeenObserver]

On 2/11/2019 at 10:12 PM, ARQuint said:

 

OMG.

I hear it too!

 

Read the last 4 or 5 of his posts. If its not him, it's  as pitch-perfect an imitation as I could have imagined possible—and I'm full of admiration

 

Are you sure you're not Lee Scoggins?

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Quint, like the MQA executives, and Scoggins, is still trying to shoot the messenger.  Archimago's meatspace identity is utterly irrelevant to the technical issues he has highlighted.

 

I did not read it like that. Seemed to me there is still a lot of trauma from RMAF, and he was trying to address what he sees as an important point. Which is in fact an important point. Do you think that things would have gone better if the table pounding had not happened and the facts in Chris' presentation had been calmly addressed by the pro MQA team? Whether or not those facts were resolved, proved true, explained, or proven false? 

 

Sometimes you have to give people a second chance. Or even a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 999th chance. . 

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Why is Lee, in your view "not truthful" rather than simply "wrong"?

 

Because in the years that I've been reading his posts, here and in other audio forums, he always, always sides with the vendor, and never the consumer.

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I did not read it like that. Seemed to me there is still a lot of trauma from RMAF, and he was trying to address what he sees as an important point. Which is in fact an important point. Do you think that things would have gone better if the table pounding had not happened and the facts in Chris' presentation had been calmly addressed by the pro MQA team? Whether or not those facts were resolved, proved true, explained, or proven false? 

 

Sometimes you have to give people a second chance. Or even a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 999th chance. . 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the trauma is what you think it is.  The trauma is that the true nature of an organization came out.

[MikeyFresh]

16 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

(my bold in the quote above)

 

The irony is that Mr. Harley was right about a paradigm change, as was Mr. Atkinson about witnessing the birth of a whole new world*, but it isn't MQA itself, it's the response of skeptics to the "authorities" of the audio world haha!

 

The actual paradigm shift is away from the old publications, and the new world is one in which their statements and reviews are no longer accepted as holy writ, but are increasingly treated with skepticism or distrust.  

 

Incidentally, for those who objected (lol) to Chris (in his presentation) or anyone else mentioning/showing use of the "old" MQA Lossless (sic) logo, please note that Stereophile has not removed it or made an editiorial note regarding its inaccuracy/deception in this online article where it still appears:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

 

 

Obviously, they cannot do anything about print editions of the magazine, other than print a retraction or correction or other editorial note in a later issue, but this is the current state of the online article, which should have been updated if they were interested in accuracy or objectivity.  An additional editorial comment about the disinformation that follows the use of that dishonest logo would be useful as well.

 

 

*Apologies if that wasn't the exact wording of his metaphor, I was distracted by seeing the MQA Lossless still in place and not corrected or editorialized after the fact in any way.  lol

 

Fantastic post, some great points made there.

[beetlemania]

Inspired to revisit this classic.

 

Meanwhile, Jim Austin is taking over for JA at Stereophile. 🤯😬😂

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Actually I do.  I have been building predictive models since 1996 and I have won two competitions for machine learning applications, one with gated neural networks and one with cluster weighted modeling from MIT.  It's literally my job but now I have the luxury of leading data engineers and data scientists and finding more problems to solve.

 

What journal was your research on gated neural networks published in? 

I'd like to get the citation and read about it.  Thank you.

[rickca]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I have been building predictive models since 1996 and I have won two competitions for machine learning applications, one with gated neural networks and one with cluster weighted modeling from MIT.  It's literally my job but now I have the luxury of leading data engineers and data scientists and finding more problems to solve.

Hmm.  All my stuff is classified.  You'll have to discuss it with Jared Kushner.

[rickca]

I sure hope K-Pop gets the MQA treatment.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/k-pop-band-bts-sold-out-londons-huge-wembley-stadium-in-just-90-minutes-2019-03-01

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

Then you should continue to debunk them.

 

 

 

Chris put together the RMAF presentation in hopes to get some answers to what appears to be objective data contradicting claims made by MQA.  Lee's recent reply concerning the presentation slides was merely a regurgitation of many of the same unsubstantiated marketing points that brought about the idea of holding that RMAF presentation in the first place.

 

MQA continues to be coy about providing any confirmable facts and has been ignoring serious questions with regards to their product's technical capabilities.

 

It is clear to me that MQA has no answers to provide that would satisfactorily refute some of the discoveries that have been made publicly availble.  I don't expect anyone that supports MQA to be able to defend some of the questionable ideas behind the technology without obfuscation or outright deception.

 

If they had a real answer, we would already have it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

(my bold in the quote above)

 

The irony is that Mr. Harley was right about a paradigm change, as was Mr. Atkinson about witnessing the birth of a whole new world*, but it isn't MQA itself, it's the response of skeptics to the "authorities" of the audio world haha!

 

The actual paradigm shift is away from the old publications, and the new world is one in which their statements and reviews are no longer accepted as holy writ, but are increasingly treated with skepticism or distrust.  

 

Incidentally, for those who objected (lol) to Chris (in his presentation) or anyone else mentioning/showing use of the "old" MQA Lossless (sic) logo, please note that Stereophile has not removed it or made an editiorial note regarding its inaccuracy/deception in this online article where it still appears:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

 

 

Obviously, they cannot do anything about print editions of the magazine, other than print a retraction or correction or other editorial note in a later issue, but this is the current state of the online article, which should have been updated if they were interested in accuracy or objectivity.  An additional editorial comment about the disinformation that follows the use of that dishonest logo would be useful as well.

 

 

*Apologies if that wasn't the exact wording of his metaphor, I was distracted by seeing the MQA Lossless still in place and not corrected or editorialized after the fact in any way.  lol

Exactly. How many audiophiles actually know MQA ltd has changed its tune and admitted the product isn't lossless? As long as the Lossless logo and narrative are still out there, it must be mentioned.

 

People who follow our community know this, but many have no clue it's lossy. They read the old guard say it's lossless and then proceeded to drink the kool aid.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

If they had a real answer, we would already have it.

Absolutely. 

 

And, real engineers would substantiate MQA's claims. Do date, nobody has. 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, new_media said:

 

I have also been amazed to see people who claim that "everything matters" settle for a lossy format.

 

As a side note ... the goal is all important - "whatever it takes!" is the mantra. Sometimes, you find taking one step back allows two or more steps forward - later in the journey one can finesse, refine every aspect of the system, to fully optimise and make 'perfect' every part - when one fully understands.

 

This has nothing to do with saying that MQA is part of a solution to something - just, that one may need to 'compromise', or do something silly to make the bigger picture happen, at that moment.

[christopher3393]

What is the only thing that can save MQA now?

Rebranding.

 

What is at the very heart of rebranding?

Creating a new logo.

 

What is the key resource for selecting the best possible design for the new logo?

Machine-learning algorithms.

 

PS: I prefer "lossless-esque" as an alternative.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As a side note ... the goal is all important - "whatever it takes!" is the mantra. Sometimes, you find taking one step back allows two or more steps forward - later in the journey one can finesse, refine every aspect of the system, to fully optimise and make 'perfect' every part - when one fully understands.

 

This has nothing to do with saying that MQA is part of a solution to something - just, that one may need to 'compromise', or do something silly to make the bigger picture happen, at that moment.

 

With respect, this is just gibberish.  Mind numbing gibberish.

 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With respect, this is just gibberish.  Mind numbing gibberish.

 

 

IOW, you refuse to buy a piece of sofware that isn't certified to be 100% perfect - it is "gibberish" to allow real world systems to operate that may possibly have long term 'defects' in them, which have had a bit of rough plumbing put in place to make the core functionality behave itself?

 

BTW, which OS do you use - and where is its certificate of perfection?

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

IOW, you refuse to buy a piece of sofware that isn't certified to be 100% perfect - it is "gibberish" to allow real world systems to operate that may possibly have long term 'defects' in them, which have had a bit of rough plumbing put in place to make the core functionality behave itself?

 

BTW, which OS do you use - and where is its certificate of perfection?

 

I'm sorry.  It looks a lot like English.  But I'm just not getting it.  Please don't try again.  I apologize for responding to you in the first place.

[fas42]

Ahhh, I see ... the concept of system integrity, and attempting to refine such, is foreign to you ...

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Maybe because it's not truthful.

It’s opinion. Just exactly as truthful as any other opinion. 

 

I do not agree with a lot of it, and I think some of it is just wrong - but so what? 

 

 

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As a side note ... the goal is all important - "whatever it takes!" is the mantra. Sometimes, you find taking one step back allows two or more steps forward - later in the journey one can finesse, refine every aspect of the system, to fully optimise and make 'perfect' every part - when one fully understands.

 

This has nothing to do with saying that MQA is part of a solution to something - just, that one may need to 'compromise', or do something silly to make the bigger picture happen, at that moment.

 

Do some people need an alternative wording ... ? How about this,

 

For some people, MQA improves the subjective quality of their rigs - they don't care that it's "taken something away!" ... it sounds better, because it's a means of getting around some other weakness in their setup. And the importance of what it's given overrides the losses.

 

Again, I have zero interest in MQA. It has no value for a competent playback chain, and is an annoying detour, distracting from the real job of getting best sound.

 

 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

It’s opinion.

[asdf1000]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The MQA solution has finally found its problem to address. Oh wait, just kidding. 

 

Ha good call.

 

I'm now way more scared of future contracts (new and renewed) battles than I am of MQA.

 

The labels and streaming services can digitally manage rights to access large chunks of music. This has always been the case in the background of course (in the T's and C's)... but these two notable headlining examples I've shared from this week bring it to the fore. Yikes.

 

That's another topic though.

 

 

[Racerxnet]

25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Do some people need an alternative wording ... ? How about this,

 

For some people, MQA improves the subjective quality of their rigs - they don't care that it's "taken something away!" ... it sounds better, because it's a means of getting around some other weakness in their setup. And the importance of what it's given overrides the losses.

 

Again, I have zero interest in MQA. It has no value for a competent playback chain, and is an annoying detour, distracting from the real job of getting best sound.

 

 

 

Sounds like 2 weaknesses are a step forward in your example. 

 

MAK

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

For some people, MQA improves the subjective quality of their rigs - they don't care that it's "taken something away!"

 

 MQA is incapable of improving the subjective quality of their rigs,  provided that they are already capable of doing justice to the original high resolution music files, unless the originals have suffered badly from greatly excessive compression, and they also  took the opportunity to remaster the file when making the MQA release.