MQA is Vaporware

[Don Hills]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Once again, there are no such savings. Much of the MQA catalogue is made from 48 kHz masters where it actually increases the file size. For the rest, they could simply offer an honest 96 kHz version rather than fake higher numbers.

 

True. I was just being charitable, showing that even a favourable comparison doesn't tip the balance to MQA.

[Jud]

8 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Hmm..What did Bill Shakespeare say about lawyers?😄

 

I know more lawyer jokes than you do.   

[Paul R]

And now, for a dose of reality - what the big boys are arguing over, and it ain’t MQA...

 

https://apple.news/AgsY32FXTTEOd8cAPZPkReg

 

 

-Paul

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

And now, for a dose of reality - what the big boys are arguing over, and it ain’t MQA...

 

https://apple.news/AgsY32FXTTEOd8cAPZPkReg

There's one thing in common: greed.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

There's one thing in common: greed.

 

I was going to ask whether on Apple's part or Spotify's, before realizing the answer is yes.

[psjug]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

There's one thing in common: greed.

You are supposed to use the word ecosystem.

[Paul R]

22 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I was going to ask whether on Apple's part or Spotify's, before realizing the answer is yes.

Now now, nothing particularly wrong with greed, it is a very effective force. Just when it gets out of control, it’s like a forest fire.

 

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Now now, nothing particularly wrong with greed, it is a very effective force. Just when it gets out of control, it’s like a forest fire.

 

Isn't it one of the deadly sins ?

 

Surely the word in itself indicates a bad characteristic or trait ?

 

In what circumstance is "greed" of a benefit ?  (serious question)

[mav52]

12 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Things might've been different if everyone in my college science classes hadn't been spending all night every night in the library trying to get perfect grades to get into medical school.  I did fine my first year, but decided I didn't want that to be my college experience.  (Another way of looking at it is that I was lazy and wanted to party more.)

 

Been there and done that LOL

 

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Isn't it one of the deadly sins ?

 

Surely the word in itself indicates a bad characteristic or trait ?

 

In what circumstance is "greed" of a benefit ?  (serious question)

 

 

 

[crenca]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

He's one of the many (yes) people who thinks MQA often sounds very good. And that's all he cares about. Don't bother him about blind testing, tech arguments etc. Doesn't interest him.

 

He's not alone, many people have that approach: "I did a basic comparison in my system and thought it sounded good...."

 

BTW, when MQA was first released he highly praised the high frequency sound of a particular Doors cut. The late Charlie Hansen (they were friends) then came online and explained to him that what he was hearing was actually the fact that the MQA version had removed some of the resolution/subtle  detail in the track and that he was hearing "less" of what was there..... https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/87573.html

 

ML's methodology sums up the obvious limitations of the way almost every review is done in the trade publications.  Knock those who want to see some sort of unsighted testing all you want (for all the real problems/limitations of this or any other method), the reason we have a voodoo infested hobby is due in part to the accepted methodology.  

[rando]

"The office of of the scholar is to cheer, to raise, and to guide men by showing them facts amidst appearances.  He plies the slow, unhonored, and unpaid task of observation... But he, in his private observatory, cataloguing obscure and nebulous stars of the human mind, which as yet no man has thought of as such,-watching days and months sometimes for a few facts; correcting still his old records; must relinquish display and immediate fame. In the long period of preparation he must portray often an ignorance and shiftlessness in popular arts, incurring the disdain of the able who shoulder him aside."

 

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Tintinabulum]

19 hours ago, John Dyson said:

it is more of an issue that those who are technically competent know what the MQA thing is going to lead to if it is universally adopted

 

19 hours ago, John Dyson said:

The mumbo-jumbo being espoused by the advocacy should be considered either specious or manipulative.

 

Nice balanced view there thanks, soothsayers and know alls. Opinion.

[firedog]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Things might've been different if everyone in my college science classes hadn't been spending all night every night in the library trying to get perfect grades to get into medical school.  I did fine my first year, but decided I didn't want that to be my college experience.  (Another way of looking at it is that I was lazy and wanted to party more.)

I was taking some science classes with premed honors students my Freshman year, and none of them had any idea I was considering going to medical school (I was in a liberal arts program and had not told anyone about it). Anyway, some of them realized my grades in science were better than theirs, and they started getting competitive (and a little obnoxious about grades) with me, even though they had no I idea I was considering med school as a future option.
That convinced me to drop the med school idea, as I knew I didn't want to spend my life around such people.
Apologies to any nice MD's reading this.

[fung0]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Now now, nothing particularly wrong with greed, it is a very effective force. Just when it gets out of control, it’s like a forest fire.

 

Like fire, greed is an inherently destructive force. It can't be eradicated from existence, but it is dangerous and must be tightly controlled at all times.

 

Human systems are not fundamentally driven by greed, but by cooperation. Humans have risen to dominate this planet by virtue of their unrivaled ability to band together in vast, highly complex cooperative endeavors.

 

What's more, most individual people are not driven by greed. For the vast majority of us, enough really is enough. All of us have ambitions, but the few who preach 'greed is good' are parasitic outliers, who ask us to accept the gospel that would justify their own pathological craving for dominance.

 

It's worrisome that so many people have bought into this con. Gullibility is an unfortunate consequence of our innate need to cooperate, and is a primary mechanism exploited by those cancerous individuals who really are motivated by greed. Reason and communication are parts of the immune system that have been broken down of late, and must be rebuilt.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

ML's methodology sums up the obvious limitations of the way almost every review is done in the trade publications.  Knock those who want to see some sort of unsighted testing all you want (for all the real problems/limitations of this or any other method), the reason we have a voodoo infested hobby is due in part to the accepted methodology.  

 

When you think about the history of subjective reviewing, there are some parallels to the history of Calvinism, as discussed at length in Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism."

 

Calvinism (the Pilgrims and their successors, such as the Presbyterian denomination) includes a belief in predestination - that God, being all-knowing, knows your fate before you are born, including the all-important question of whether you are destined for Heaven or Hell.  Well, of course inquiring minds wanted to know - where am I going?  Little by little, the idea took hold that you could tell what God intended for you by seeing how your life was going here on Earth.  Successful here?  God favors you.  Bad off?  Sorry son, bring ice.  Thus was born the notion that you should go all out to be successful here, because that meant you were a good person who was going to Heaven.  Poor people were not just poor, they were bad.  And so an ethic that began with "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" was turned completely on its head.

 

Similarly, subjective reviewing began back in a day when measurements were everything, as a check on the notion that filling in the usual specifications boxes automatically meant a piece of equipment sounded great.  50 years ago, reviews began daring to actually be critical of equipment that measured well in terms of the common specifications of the time.  And so we had people saying some solid state amps sounded bad, leading to explorations into measurements that might explain this, like TIM (transient intermodulation distortion); or later that some CDs/players didn't sound perfect, leading to further exploration of the subjects of jitter, brickwall filtering, etc.  But little by little the idea took hold that how something sounded was the only thing that mattered.  Instead of listening as a final check after a piece of equipment passed all the measurement tests, now measurements were viewed as unnecessary or even bad.  So an ethic that began essentially from a standpoint of skepticism and consumer protection - "Yeah, you've got your measurements in order, but now the final test to see if you've actually covered everything with your measurements is to make sure it doesn't sound like crap" - has been turned on its head to become something that ignores measurements, skepticism, or consumer protection, or even regards them as evil, and simply asks, "Did I listen to it and like it? Great, that makes any measuring and testing to determine if it's well designed completely meaningless!"

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Now now, nothing particularly wrong with greed, it is a very effective force. Just when it gets out of control, it’s like a forest fire.

 

 

Like the Carr Fire?

[crenca]

40 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

When you think about the history of subjective reviewing, there are some parallels to the history of Calvinism, as discussed at length in Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism."

 

Calvinism (the Pilgrims and their successors, such as the Presbyterian denomination) includes a belief in predestination - that God, being all-knowing, knows your fate before you are born, including the all-important question of whether you are destined for Heaven or Hell.  Well, of course inquiring minds wanted to know - where am I going?  Little by little, the idea took hold that you could tell what God intended for you by seeing how your life was going here on Earth.  Successful here?  God favors you.  Bad off?  Sorry son, bring ice.  Thus was born the notion that you should go all out to be successful here, because that meant you were a good person who was going to Heaven.  Poor people were not just poor, they were bad.  And so an ethic that began with "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" was turned completely on its head.

 

Similarly, subjective reviewing began back in a day when measurements were everything, as a check on the notion that filling in the usual specifications boxes automatically meant a piece of equipment sounded great.  50 years ago, reviews began daring to actually be critical of equipment that measured well in terms of the common specifications of the time.  And so we had people saying some solid state amps sounded bad, leading to explorations into measurements that might explain this, like TIM (transient intermodulation distortion); or later that some CDs/players didn't sound perfect, leading to further exploration of the subjects of jitter, brickwall filtering, etc.  But little by little the idea took hold that how something sounded was the only thing that mattered.  Instead of listening as a final check after a piece of equipment passed all the measurement tests, now measurements were viewed as unnecessary or even bad.  So an ethic that began essentially from a standpoint of skepticism and consumer protection - "Yeah, you've got your measurements in order, but now the final test to see if you've actually covered everything with your measurements is to make sure it doesn't sound like crap" - has been turned on its head to become something that ignores measurements, skepticism, or consumer protection, or even regards them as evil, and simply asks, "Did I listen to it and like it? Great, that makes any measuring and testing to determine if it's well designed completely meaningless!"

 

I wonder what the motivating factors were behind this.  Why did the idea take hold?  I don't think it is a coincidence that todays radical subjective reviewer (or call it what you like) and his methodology also fits in quite well with a reviewing culture that is industry and sales specific, as opposed to focused on consumers interests such as a balanced objective/subjective evaluation and value.  Take value for instance.  Todays reviewer is very careful to place (though, notice he always does so positively) the product in a certain price category.  He would never upset the industry apple cart by saying in a non qualified manner that a $1k piece of equipment is as good or better than products in the $10k category.  

 

So if predestination is the metaphysical "cause" of the protestant ethic, what is the "cause" of this shift in Audiophiledom?

[Jud]

54 minutes ago, crenca said:

So if predestination is the metaphysical "cause" of the protestant ethic, what is the "cause" of this shift in Audiophiledom?

 

I'd call predestination the "lever" through which the actual cause - co-optation of morality by greed, or however you'd like to characterize it - operated.

 

In the case of reviews, subjectivity was the "lever."  The actual cause?  I doubt it's a coincidence that the most sharply critical mag back in the day, The Absolute Sound, began elevating a technique (subjective review) over the original purpose (representation of the consumer's interest in having equipment that actually sounded good) after it began to accept advertising.

[botrytis]

56 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I wonder what the motivating factors were behind this.  Why did the idea take hold?  I don't think it is a coincidence that todays radical subjective reviewer (or call it what you like) and his methodology also fits in quite well with a reviewing culture that is industry and sales specific, as opposed to focused on consumers interests such as a balanced objective/subjective evaluation and value.  Take value for instance.  Todays reviewer is very careful to place (though, notice he always does so positively) the product in a certain price category.  He would never upset the industry apple cart by saying in a non qualified manner that a $1k piece of equipment is as good or better than products in the $10k category.  

 

So if predestination is the metaphysical "cause" of the protestant ethic, what is the "cause" of this shift in Audiophiledom?

 

There is a commonality between this, anti-vaxxers and also fake news. All come from the point of people wanting to be right and the common issue of finding others with the same ideals. There was a great article on this type of topic about the Flint Water Crisis - https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/opinions/flint-water-myths-scientific-dark-age-roy-edwards/index.html

 

They call it the Scientific Dark Age. I mean, maybe it is a little too alarmist but the gist is definitely there. Flat earther, anti-vaxxers, Fake news, Climate change deniers, and pseudo-science audiophile Dom all fit into this category. It is hard to fight it, when people do not want to admit they are wrong.

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Isn't it one of the deadly sins ?

 

Surely the word in itself indicates a bad characteristic or trait ?

 

In what circumstance is "greed" of a benefit ?  (serious question)

 

I would suggest greed is just like any other human emotion, it can be directed to good or bad ends. 

 

If someone wants to make a lot of money, the best way to satisfy that greed is to build or create something other people are willing to pay for.

 

Building well means you can charge a fair price and retain the profits. Building poorly means either it won't sell, or you will be involved in so much litigation that the profits will disappear. 

 

 

[new_media]

18 hours ago, crenca said:

 

The Roon forums even more than this one clued us in to how much of this was (and still is, though the volume seems lower lately) going on.  When seemingly half of posters suddenly are "very excited" about a product or have uniform "birth of a new world" experiences, then it is all probably too good (for said product) to be true.  Contrast those alleged experiences with the known members here who, though a handful of which genuinely like the sound of MQA most of which report "meh" experiences, and it all become too obvious even before the full technical picture was known...

 

The only quantum leap I have experienced in audio was in switching from cassette tapes to CDs when I was 15. Everything else has been only an incremental improvement, or a step backwards in some cases.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, new_media said:

 

The only quantum leap I have experienced in audio was in switching from cassette tapes to CDs when I was 15. Everything else has been only an incremental improvement, or a step backwards in some cases.

I was so disappointed when I got my first CD player for Christmas and put in Tom Petty’s Full Moon Fever, this was the first CD I’d ever heard. The sound? Underwhelming to say the least. 

 

I had some decent sounding cassettes 😀

[John Dyson]

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

There is a commonality between this, anti-vaxxers and also fake news. All come from the point of people wanting to be right and the common issue of finding others with the same ideals. There was a great article on this type of topic about the Flint Water Crisis - https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/opinions/flint-water-myths-scientific-dark-age-roy-edwards/index.html

 

They call it the Scientific Dark Age. I mean, maybe it is a little too alarmist but the gist is definitely there. Flat earther, anti-vaxxers, Fake news, Climate change deniers, and pseudo-science audiophile Dom all fit into this category. It is hard to fight it, when people do not want to admit they are wrong.

This is a slight deviation off the subject, and NOT, NEVER meant to be disrespectful to anyone...  However, in the rock-hard professional audio/recording community (I am on the periphery only), there is a disrespectful term sometimes used when chortling about some of the misguided audio lovers who REALLY want to do the right thing, but have been misled in a very  very cruel way -- 'audiofool'.  Now, DO NOT take offense, because I had been an audiophile in the past -- but as a technically knowledgeable person, seldom (never) ventured into the insanely esoteric realm -- just the technically best that I could afford.

 

However, there is a big group (I don't know how large) of people who *love* audio, and want their experience to be as good as possible given their limitations.  It is sometimes best to have 'financial lmitations', common sense, and a bit of ACCURATE technical knowledge. There ARE profit mongers who are so much in love of taking advantage of the (affluent) audio lovers, that it is sickening. (This is similar to the MQA issue, and advocacy that is either misguided (term intended kindly by me) or misleading (intended unkindly by me.)

 

MQA seems to be a media/software variant on the general l$100K CD player theme:  How can we 'soak' people for their money?

 

These snake oil people are not stupid (usually), but seem to be willing to claim half-truths to vulnerable people.  I don't care if someone has lots of money to waste, but PLEASE I hope that those with the ability to waste spend their money in a way that it benefits more than their egos.  Get the reasonbly technical best equipment that you can, really DO THAT!!!  Get the best, not 'better' than the best!!!

 

If someone is planning to purchase something that is 'better than the best', or somehow 'elite' -- please tell them caveat emptor in the kindest way possible.  I truly feel bad for people who misspend their money, or the similar idea about schemes like MQA -- it is for the purpose of control and/or money -- it is not intended to benefit either the customer or the artist!!!

 

My two cents -- again...  And I did NOT mean to disrepect anyone, but rather to make a kind and supportive wakeup call.  I could make stronger emotional complaints about MQA, but I now suspect that the knowledgeable person, who doesn't have a specific financial/political interest has already been dissuaded (by others cogent comments and explanation.)  It (and other unnecessary complexities)  just aren't in the best interests of most people in the audio community.

 

John

[botrytis]

37 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

This is a slight deviation off the subject, and NOT, NEVER meant to be disrespectful to anyone...  However, in the rock-hard professional audio/recording community (I am on the periphery only), there is a disrespectful term sometimes used when chortling about some of the misguided audio lovers who REALLY want to do the right thing, but have been misled in a very  very cruel way -- 'audiofool'.  Now, DO NOT take offense, because I had been an audiophile in the past -- but as a technically knowledgeable person, seldom (never) ventured into the insanely esoteric realm -- just the technically best that I could afford.

 

However, there is a big group (I don't know how large) of people who *love* audio, and want their experience to be as good as possible given their limitations.  It is sometimes best to have 'financial lmitations', common sense, and a bit of ACCURATE technical knowledge. There ARE profit mongers who are so much in love of taking advantage of the (affluent) audio lovers, that it is sickening. (This is similar to the MQA issue, and advocacy that is either misguided (term intended kindly by me) or misleading (intended unkindly by me.)

 

MQA seems to be a media/software variant on the general l$100K CD player theme:  How can we 'soak' people for their money?

 

These snake oil people are not stupid (usually), but seem to be willing to claim half-truths to vulnerable people.  I don't care if someone has lots of money to waste, but PLEASE I hope that those with the ability to waste spend their money in a way that it benefits more than their egos.  Get the reasonbly technical best equipment that you can, really DO THAT!!!  Get the best, not 'better' than the best!!!

 

If someone is planning to purchase something that is 'better than the best', or somehow 'elite' -- please tell them caveat emptor in the kindest way possible.  I truly feel bad for people who misspend their money, or the similar idea about schemes like MQA -- it is for the purpose of control and/or money -- it is not intended to benefit either the customer or the artist!!!

 

My two cents -- again...  And I did NOT mean to disrepect anyone, but rather to make a kind and supportive wakeup call.  I could make stronger emotional complaints about MQA, but I now suspect that the knowledgeable person, who doesn't have a specific financial/political interest has already been dissuaded (by others cogent comments and explanation.)  It (and other unnecessary complexities)  just aren't in the best interests of most people in the audio community.

 

John

 

None taken. I was just trying to point out  the similar style in thought process, not they are in the same vein of severity at all.  BUT, it is a common denominator to this type of thinking.