MQA is Vaporware

[blownsi]

PS Audio is just another dupe that is afraid that people happy streaming MQA at no additional cost won't need to buy all the expensive inventory sitting in their warehouse collecting dust. What a moronic attempt at self preservation from a sycophant that feeds off people easily swayed by technobabble double talk.

 

I get your point but I disagree. MQA is a good alternative to redbook from what I've heard on my own dac but it's not a replacement for high res or buying better components such as PS Audio.

[crenca]

He didn't say that. You have to read more carefully.

"It’s quite another thing to claim that MQA betters 24/192 or DSD – on the surface it explicitly doesn’t have the same S/N or bandwidth… And 24/192 and DSD don’t have the problems that Redbook does. IMO they solve Redbook’s problems much more elegantly than MQA and with less damage to the signal, tho not at the same bit rates.

 

This is an important point. It leads to the "why do I care about the MQA bandwidth/storage advantages - such things are plentiful now" consumer angle. Bob however claims further ADC correction that is the black box aspect of MQA and can never be known excepting to the few who sign a NDA, but then they can't talk about it - or reverse engineering and the shady legal area that leads to, so we (as usual) are back to square one.

[Samuel T Cogley]

PS Audio is just another dupe that is afraid that people happy streaming MQA at no additional cost won't need to buy all the expensive inventory sitting in their warehouse collecting dust. What a moronic attempt at self preservation from a sycophant that feeds off people easily swayed by technobabble double talk.

 

With due respect, you should try a dictionary. And Ted Smith is highly respected. I bet even by Bob Stuart.

[audiventory]

He didn't say that. You have to read more carefully.

"It’s quite another thing to claim that MQA betters 24/192 or DSD – on the surface it explicitly doesn’t have the same S/N or bandwidth… And 24/192 and DSD don’t have the problems that Redbook does. IMO they solve Redbook’s problems much more elegantly than MQA and with less damage to the signal, tho not at the same bit rates.

 

 

It’s easy for me to believe that MQA can help many DACs get better sound from a 16/44.1 or 16/48k bit stream than they do now.

 

I understand now: it is about of compression audio. Not about improving sound quality.

[crenca]

I understand now: it is about of compression audio. Not about improving sound quality.

 

Well, Bob would differ and say it is about both (and world peace, etc. etc.). Realistically, it is probably about getting the best SQ in a compressed and lossy situation with the added benefit of black box ADC "correction" which is allegedly "more" than what high sample rate PCM/DSD with good filtering can get you.

 

But yea, pulling back and looking at the big picture (market, industry desire for DRM/proprietary format, streaming, etc.) it is not really about SQ...

[mav52]

Really?! Ted Smith? One of the most knowledgeable and innovative DAC designers around? Who probably knew more about digital audio and its implementations 5 years ago than Bob Stuart ever knew?

 

Both of these guys are pretty educated.

 

Bob Stuart;

AES Los Angeles 2014 » Presenters: J. Robert Stuart

 

Ted Smith:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tedasmith

[Michael Lavorgna]

Oh you're right. Now I've changed my mind. I hate MQA.

 

"Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself."

 

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science

[jbwhite]

Well, Bob would differ and say it is about both (and world peace, etc. etc.). Realistically, it is probably about getting the best SQ in a compressed and lossy situation with the added benefit of black box ADC "correction" which is allegedly "more" than what high sample rate PCM/DSD with good filtering can get you.

 

But yea, pulling back and looking at the big picture (market, industry desire for DRM/proprietary format, streaming, etc.) it is not really about SQ...

 

Don't waste your time trying to figure out crenca's translation of what Ted Smith meant to say. It doesn't make any sense. Just reread Mr. Smith and think about it. He communicates beautifully and knows what he's talking about.

[The Computer Audiophile]

"Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself."

 

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science

 

Popular Science should have given its readers a bit more credit. It's a copout by Popular Science and ends up looking like an internet safe space.

 

P.S. It won't allow comments for fear peoples' opinions could be swayed, but it will instead place such things as this in place of comments. Strange. I believe those same people being swayed by comments will also be swayed by linked articles with titles such as "Shocking Mysterious Photos That Cannot Be Explained."

 

All in the name of science :~)

 

 

[crenca]

"Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself."

 

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science

 

VERY interesting decision. In the end I would have to disagree with the understanding of "science" that leads to statements such as:

 

"A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics"

 

They are right of course, our culture has shifted a bit away from the "cult of the expert" (at its height in the 50-60's) but on a whole (not without some negative consequences) that has been a good thing IMO as it was a kind of "politicization" of "Science" that led to a "political" reaction. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

In the end, they want to control the message. I don't blame them, but they are up against a culture that is "crowd sourcing" expertise to a very great extant and it really is just a sign of their diminishing influence...

[Michael Lavorgna]

Popular Science should have given its readers a bit more credit. It's a copout by Popular Science and ends up looking like an internet safe space.

Do you think you're in a better position to know the tone, tenor, content, and impact of the comments that led Popular Science to make this decision than...Popular Science?

 

Or are you addressing a more general belief/approach in terms of 'moderation'?

[crenca]

Popular Science should have given its readers a bit more credit. It's a copout by Popular Science and ends up looking like an internet safe space.

 

Yep - they get to define "ad hominem" and "civil/uncivil" to their advantage, then "solve" the problem with control of the messenger...

[Michael Lavorgna]

VERY interesting decision. In the end I would have to disagree with the understanding of "science" that leads to statements such as:

 

"A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics"

 

They are right of course, our culture has shifted a bit away from the "cult of the expert" (at its height in the 50-60's) but on a whole (not without some negative consequences) that has been a good thing IMO as was a kind of "politicization" of "Science" that led to a "political" reaction. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

In the end, they want to control the message. I don't blame them, but they are up against a culture that is "crowd sourcing" expertise to a very great extant and it really is just a sign of their diminishing influence...

 

I believe I could have typed *your* response ;-)

 

You are confusing the idea of "controlling the message" with a desire to have meaningful conversation. In my opinion, of course.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Do you think you're in a better position to know the tone, tenor, content, and impact of the comments that lead Popular Science to make this decision than...Popular Science?

 

Or are you addressing a more general belief/approach in terms of 'moderation'?

 

Of course I know much better than Popular Science :~)

 

Only kidding. I see it as a way for the site to make its job easier by not having to moderate comments. It's also looking at its readers as extremely easily influenced and not able to read opposing or uncivil comments for what they are - just another internet comment. It seems like big brother / popsci knows best, and its readers should not be exposed to anything that may change their minds, because a changed mind would mean PopSci was wrong.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Popular Science should have given its readers a bit more credit. It's a copout by Popular Science and ends up looking like an internet safe space.

 

P.S. It won't allow comments for fear peoples' opinions could be swayed, but it will instead place such things as this in place of comments. Strange. I believe those same people being swayed by comments will also be swayed by linked articles with titles such as "Shocking Mysterious Photos That Cannot Be Explained."

 

All in the name of science :~)

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32535[/ATTACH]

I think we're veering away from the point of my post. The Popular Science article contained references to studies which showed the impact of "uncivil" comments.

 

I thought this relevant here since I hope we can agree uncivil comments are some people's style.

[crenca]

I believe I could have typed *your* response ;-)

 

You are confusing the idea of "controlling the message" with a desire to have meaningful conversation. In my opinion, of course.

 

That is where the faultline is however, what is "meaningful". Civility is too often used as a crutch to control substantial differences of opinion or even facts. On the other hand, civility is real and needed to "have a meaningful conversation". I suspect based on Popular Sciences complaint of the "political" they really just don't like the message/philosophy they champion disagreed with...

[The Computer Audiophile]

I hope we can agree uncivil comments are some people's style.

 

Without a doubt, some people have an uncivil style / MO.

[Michael Lavorgna]

That is where the faultline is however, what is "meaningful". Civility is too often used as a crutch to control substantial differences of opinion or even facts. On the other hand, civility is real and needed to "have a meaningful conversation". I suspect based on Popular Sciences complaint of the "political" they really just don't like the message/philosophy they champion disagreed with...

You are projecting, crenca.

 

If you read *your* comments here and pick out all of the "uncivil" bits and add them to the flat out fabrications you continue to make, you'd recognize the kind of behavior they are talking about.

[crenca]

I think we're veering away from the point of my post. The Popular Science article contained references to studies which showed the impact of "uncivil" comments.

 

I thought this relevant here since I hope we can agree uncivil comments are some people's style.

 

What is "uncivil", exactly (so that you can test it with "science")? That's the thing, they are (probably) falling back on the cult of the expert to defend the cult of the expert...they are just confirming their bias.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Without a doubt, some people have an uncivil style / MO.

 

Yes. And this article, and more to the point the references therein, illustrate the potentially harmful impact this can have.

 

Of course, everything is up for debate ;-)

[crenca]

You are projecting, crenca.

 

If you read *your* comments here and pick out all of the "uncivil" bits and add them to the flat out fabrications you continue to make, you'd recognize the kind of behavior they are talking about.

 

Sure, go ahead and disagree - even calling it "uncivil". What you can't do however is "control" the messenger or message (by banning, etc.)

[Michael Lavorgna]

Sure, go ahead and disagree - even calling it "uncivil". What you can't do however is "control" the messenger or message (by banning, etc.)

 

And here I thought we were talking about the Popular Science article and being uncivil.

[crenca]

And here I thought we were talking about the Popular Science article and being uncivil.

 

WWWWHHHHHHAAATTTT? You say this immediately after saying:

 

"If you read *your* comments here and pick out all of the "uncivil" bits and add them to the flat out fabrications you continue to make, you'd recognize the kind of behavior they are talking about"

At least choose (for more than a post or two) what you want to talk about Michael - me or something else...

[mav52]

Of course I know much better than Popular Science :~)

 

Only kidding. I see it as a way for the site to make its job easier by not having to moderate comments. It's also looking at its readers as extremely easily influenced and not able to read opposing or uncivil comments for what they are - just another internet comment. It seems like big brother / popsci knows best, and its readers should not be exposed to anything that may change their minds, because a changed mind would mean PopSci was wrong.

 

You know popular Science is not the only one,

Recode, Mic, The Week, and Reuters all announced that they were closing down their comment sections and this was back in late 2015.

[Michael Lavorgna]

WWWWHHHHHHAAATTTT? You say this immediately after saying:

 

"If you read *your* comments here and pick out all of the "uncivil" bits and add them to the flat out fabrications you continue to make, you'd recognize the kind of behavior they are talking about"

At least choose (for more than a post or two) what you want to talk about Michael - me or something else...

You, crenca, are the poster child of uncivil. If you cannot recognize that, which appears to be the case, I admit that you and I have no basis for understanding one another.