MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

20 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

You are right if course, but it is gang think or mob think. People will voluntarily act crazy in concert to be one of the “in” crowd. 🦍

 

You mean by posting technical summaries of exactly what MQA does ?  😉 Rather an educated "mob."

 

I know you're referring to criticism of MQA proponents' responses, but I haven't seen a technically cogent reply from any proponent to the on-point technical critiques (one of which you made), have you?

 

The folks who've just said "Look, I listened and I liked the sound" haven't come in for much if any criticism.  Preferences are personal. It's the people who claim technical superiority or equivalence (sometimes both simultaneously!), then have no technical support for those claims, who have been criticized. I think the idea of criticizing baseless claims is entirely fair, though together with you I don't like the more personal criticisms.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I think Lee's replacement has arrived.

 

(Grin) Only If MQA planter sleeper agents back in 2012.  ✌️

[Samuel T Cogley]

To be fair, Scoggins is something like a hero to some.  Seriously.

[Tintinabulum]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

please provide pertinent technical arguments

Is that a requirement? Some things don't have numbers attached

[Jud]

16 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

It seems that MQA's latest play is mobile phones.  I'm struggling to understand how MQA thinks there is any appetite for lossless 44/16  in the mobile market let alone something MQA claims is "as good as" 96/24 content.

 

How many audiophiles do you know whose mobile phone is at the center of their home system?

 

Just this weekend my wife and I were remarking how great the quality of the NCAA basketball tournament video was that I was streaming from my phone to my Apple TV via Wi-Fi.  As storage capacity and wireless speeds continue to increase it's not at all difficult to imagine something similar happening with audio.

[Tintinabulum]

58 minutes ago, Jud said:

Feigning incomprehension when called on a false claim.  I am so very not surprised

I responded to Chris's comment about pro MQA being conspiratorial or organised with a comment said that I felt it was anti MQA that was "organised". 

 

You then explain what a conspiracy was.

 

I'm still non the wiser. Chris thinks MQA support organised, I think anti MQA organised. You mentioned bankrolled etc (where did that come from I asked) I said it could be like minded people. After that yu are going on about I'm not sure what.

 

So that's what I read, what did I miss?

 

[Paul R]

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You mean by posting technical summaries of exactly what MQA does ?  😉 Rather an educated "mob."

 

I know you're referring to criticism of MQA proponents' responses, but I haven't seen a technically cogent reply from any proponent to the on-point technical critiques (one of which you made), have you?

 

The folks who've just said "Look, I listened and I liked the sound" haven't come in for much if any criticism.  Preferences are personal. It's the people who claim technical superiority or equivalence (sometimes both simultaneously!), then have no technical support for those claims, who have been criticized. I think the idea of criticizing baseless claims is entirely fair, though together with you I don't like the more personal criticisms.

 

Nope, probably because none is actually possible. 

 

It’s the personal attacks and baiting that I see as gang think, and very very bad. They are not about tech criticisms, or arguing over ideas - they are straight up personal attacks with the intention of trapping the victim into doing something that gets the victim banned.

 

Little doubt that Lee blew his cool and was fairly banned. But to my mind, the ones who baited him, knowing very well he would blow his cool,  are every bit as much to blame. Fortunately people here are only banned on what they actually do, not on what they intend. 

 

Still - much as I disagreed with him about MQA, Lee was treated unfairly, accused of much wrongdoing, and baited unmercifully. Reminds me of a gang of middle schoolers, and I think, a good example of mob think.  

 

And the gang tactics worked. Lee did blow his cool, even if just for a moment and under provocation, I am sure the little monkeys gleefully reported his post ASAP. I see that as abusing the system myself.

 

I am am sure that the same gang tried that with me. Fortunately for me, I have concrete between my ears and that slows my reaction time down a bit. (Grin) 

 

 

[Paul R]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Just this weekend my wife and I were remarking how great the quality of the NCAA basketball tournament video was that I was streaming from my phone to my Apple TV via Wi-Fi.  As storage capacity and wireless speeds continue to increase it's not at all difficult to imagine something similar happening with audio.

 

Exactly so - and why MQA is not really a threat, IMNSHO. 

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

I responded to Chris's comment about pro MQA being conspiratorial or organised with a comment said that I felt it was anti MQA that was "organised". 

 

You then explain what a conspiracy was.

 

I'm still non the wiser. Chris thinks MQA support organised, I think anti MQA organised. You mentioned bankrolled etc (where did that come from I asked) I said it could be like minded people. After that yu are going on about I'm not sure what.

 

So that's what I read, what did I miss?

 

 

Eh, I think you might have missed that was a joke. I tend to agree with you by the way, about the anti-MQA mob being organized, and using dirty tactics. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Nope, probably because none is actually possible. 

 

It’s the personal attacks and baiting that I see as gang think, and very very bad. They are not about tech criticisms, or arguing over ideas - they are straight up personal attacks with the intention of trapping the victim into doing something that gets the victim banned.

 

Little doubt that Lee blew his cool and was fairly banned. But to my mind, the ones who baited him, knowing very well he would blow his cool,  are every bit as much to blame. Fortunately people here are only banned on what they actually do, not on what they intend. 

 

Still - much as I disagreed with him about MQA, Lee was treated unfairly, accused of much wrongdoing, and baited unmercifully. Reminds me of a gang of middle schoolers, and I think, a good example of mob think.  

 

And the gang tactics worked. Lee did blow his cool, even if just for a moment and under provocation, I am sure the little monkeys gleefully reported his post ASAP. I see that as abusing the system myself.

 

I am am sure that the same gang tried that with me. Fortunately for me, I have concrete between my ears and that slows my reaction time down a bit. (Grin) 

 

 

You keep floating this meshugah fake narrative that Mr Lee and others were "baited'. He is a middle aged grown man responsible for his own actions. You can keep the fantasy alive about "mob think", more power to you.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

7 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Nope, probably because none is actually possible. 

 

It’s the personal attacks and baiting that I see as gang think, and very very bad. They are not about tech criticisms, or arguing over ideas - they are straight up personal attacks with the intention of trapping the victim into doing something that gets the victim banned.

 

Little doubt that Lee blew his cool and was fairly banned. But to my mind, the ones who baited him, knowing very well he would blow his cool,  are every bit as much to blame. Fortunately people here are only banned on what they actually do, not on what they intend. 

 

Still - much as I disagreed with him about MQA, Lee was treated unfairly, accused of much wrongdoing, and baited unmercifully. Reminds me of a gang of middle schoolers, and I think, a good example of mob think.  

 

And the gang tactics worked. Lee did blow his cool, even if just for a moment and under provocation, I am sure the little monkeys gleefully reported his post ASAP. I see that as abusing the system myself.

 

I am am sure that the same gang tried that with me. Fortunately for me, I have concrete between my ears and that slows my reaction time down a bit. (Grin) 

 

 

Your sense of self importance is quite amusing. 😅

[realhifi]

46 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

It seems that MQA's latest play is mobile phones.  I'm struggling to understand how MQA thinks there is any appetite for lossless 44/16  in the mobile market let alone something MQA claims is "as good as" 96/24 content.

 

The mobile market IS the market. Think car stereos, portable boom box type devices, friends sharing with their phone, etc, etc. Who doesn’t want better sound in their car?  I sure notice the difference in sound quality between various streaming services 

[Paul R]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

You keep floating this meshugah fake narrative that Mr Lee and others were "baited'. He is a middle aged grown man responsible for his own actions. You can keep the fantasy alive about "mob think", more power to you.

 

There is absolutely no question that you, and others here baited him unmercifully - and that you and others were acting in concert to do so. Look at the post where the number of banned people was glorified, like a score card. Or comments about “keeping track” of his behavior. 

 

It is very foolish to deny that, and to continue to try to spin facts into some fantasy about being white knights against MQA or something. The behavior you and others exhibited was absolutely gang thinking, and reminiscent of nothing more than a gang of middle schoolers hazing the outsider. 

 

Paul

[rando]

I like this thread better when Christopher stepped in and banned the virulent and irrepressible MQA protester.  Nobody actually had a worthwhile complaint against the desirable effects of awaiting another clever reappearance.  There was wit and zeal to the affair otherwise lacking in the petty argumentative waves of replies that produced a higher amount of bans than any other thread in recent memory.

 

 

 

Now I'm left wondering if by some odd stroke of imaginative reconstruction someone is going to discover Lee was actually trying to explain a solution MQA offered before it was needed.  Mansr and others did a commendable job investigating the technical side of MQA.  I've yet to see much of the practical or insightful implications that weren't doom and gloom. 

 

It would certainly go against the back thumping self-congratulatory anti-tudes if that pokey little British manufacturer, despite struggling to stay afloat, was making a longsighted play worthy of their previously good name.  I'm at least willing to entertain entertaining ideas over defamatory antics.

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Your sense of self importance is quite amusing. 😅

 

And your attempts at baiting me are pathetic, being generous that is. 

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

Is that a requirement? Some things don't have numbers attached

 

Notably, those who say criticism of MQA is unfair never seem to have "numbers attached."

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, realhifi said:

 

The mobile market IS the market. Think car stereos, portable boom box type devices, friends sharing with their phone, etc, etc. Who doesn’t want better sound in their car?  I sure notice the difference in sound quality between various streaming services 

 

Sure, but how audible will the difference between 255 kbps lossy AAC compression and lossless 44/16 actually be?  I've taken those "tests", and I can do it with certain material, a very quiet environment and headphones.  Now MQA is saying, "bypass the lossless Redbook and go straight for MQA".  "Everyone wants better sound" but we're talking about a moving vehicle with a really high noise floor compared to home listening.

[John Dyson]

11 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

There is absolutely no question that you, and others here baited him unmercifully - and that you and others were acting in concert to do so. Look at the post where the number of banned people was glorified, like a score card. Or comments about “keeping track” of his behavior. 

 

It is very foolish to deny that, and to continue to try to spin facts into some fantasy about being white knights against MQA or something. The behavior you and others exhibited was absolutely gang thinking, and reminiscent of nothing more than a gang of middle schoolers hazing the outsider. 

 

Paul

Not criticizing anything as a response, but just carrying the discussion forward.

Whether or not groups of people agree or disagree -- it is the personal kind of attack (or even discussion) that doesn't carry the discussion forward.  Sometimes, when something is a matter of opinion (e.g. "sounds better"), then there is nowhere to go.   If something sounds better to person 'A', then who is to argue with it?  When someone claims "is better", then there is still room for discussion.

Emotions do come into play -- even though I do misspell and don't catch the errors (especially when right and left hand are out of sync by multiple characters)  I MAKE LOTS OF ERRORS --but,  I DO TRY to avoid personal invective.  (Don't always succeed, but it is so important for discussions to avoid personal characteristics and/or attributes.)

I believe (just IMO), technical is okay, audiophile-speak is okay, but arguing against a person goes a little too far.  I AM guilty of such undesirable behavior in the past -- but the key is to step back, and avoid taking even personal comments personally.  Sometimes good people DO become emotional!!!

 

John

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

11 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

And your attempts at baiting me are pathetic, being generous that is. 

You really enjoy flattering your self....😃

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

There is absolutely no question that you, and others here baited him unmercifully - and that you and others were acting in concert to do so. Look at the post where the number of banned people was glorified, like a score card. Or comments about “keeping track” of his behavior. 

 

It is very foolish to deny that, and to continue to try to spin facts into some fantasy about being white knights against MQA or something. The behavior you and others exhibited was absolutely gang thinking, and reminiscent of nothing more than a gang of middle schoolers hazing the outsider. 

 

Paul

You can continue to repeat your fakakta opinion over and over, it does not and will not make it true.

 

Glorifying the banning of trolls and liars is the sport of champions. 🤐

[realhifi]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Sure, but how audible will the difference between 255 kbps lossy AAC compression and lossless 44/16 actually be?  I've taken those "tests", and I can do it with certain material, a very quiet environment and headphones.  Now MQA is saying, "bypass the lossless Redbook and go straight for MQA".  "Everyone wants better sound" but we're talking about a moving vehicle with a really high noise floor compared to home listening.

 

Was just commenting on the traction in the mobile space. Not wanting to get into back and forth on MQA “debate”. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

It’s the personal attacks and baiting that I see as gang think, and very very bad. They are not about tech criticisms, or arguing over ideas - they are straight up personal attacks with the intention of trapping the victim into doing something that gets the victim banned.

 

Little doubt that Lee blew his cool and was fairly banned. But to my mind, the ones who baited him, knowing very well he would blow his cool,  are every bit as much to blame. Fortunately people here are only banned on what they actually do, not on what they intend. 

 

Still - much as I disagreed with him about MQA, Lee was treated unfairly, accused of much wrongdoing, and baited unmercifully. Reminds me of a gang of middle schoolers, and I think, a good example of mob think.  

 

And as soon as the gang tactics worked, Lee did blow his cool, even for a moment and under provocation, I am sure the little monkeys gleefully reported his post. I see that as abusing the system myself.

 

Hi Paul

 

I think you're leaving out the significant volume of disingenuous posts that Scoggins left here.  Most of Scoggins' MQA posts (and there's very little here outside of that) were disingenuous trolling with a wispy thin veneer of polite advocacy.  He was trolling.  Might not look that way to someone not familiar with his forum tactics, but it was straight up trolling.  When asked to back up claims he made that alleged to address some of the critical technical shortcomings of MQA, he would always eventually retreat to copied/pasted MQA marketing material.

 

A troll that's on a first name basis with Mike Jbara is still a troll.

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, Paul R said:

about the anti-MQA mob being organized

 

Organized, no way.

 

Folks gleefully "piling on," yep.

 

But it seems to me provocation works both ways.  I think most of us noted how Lee kept making the very same claims repeatedly, after he'd been provided understandable technical explanations as to why those claims couldn't be correct, and even where those claims obviously contradicted each other.  I don't wonder that many people felt called upon to make sure those repetitions didn't go uncorrected, and even to question the motivations behind such continual repetition of what was essentially MQA marketing material.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, realhifi said:

 

Was just commenting on the traction in the mobile space. Not wanting to get into back and forth on MQA “debate”. 

 

We really don't need to get into that.  I'm just pointing out that at some point, higher fidelity in the car is a waste of time and money.

[realhifi]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

We really don't need to get into that.  I'm just pointing out that at some point, higher fidelity in the car is a waste of time and money.

To each his own I guess.