MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

People on this forum are proposing that the future of high resolution audio is based on confirmed and valid engineering principles, with open standards.

Exactly. 

 

Yet people like @ARQuint think we are all a bunch crazies and he needs to come back here to do the heavy lifting of defending MQA. How do I know? He, on more than one occasion, has accidentally sent an email rather than responding to a PM from another member. These emails appear in my inbox with his unfiltered thoughts about us. 

 

The old guard never ceases to amaze me. 

 

 

[Paul R]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

for hundreds of people??

 

You clearly do not know what a lab notebook is, either

 

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

for hundreds of people??

 

You clearly do not know what a lab notebook is, either

Yawn - anything more original to share? 

 

I am not even going to ask what brings you to those stunning and utterly wrong conclusions. You may be one of those people too frentic to write down your thoughts. 

 

Spend time reading @Shadders latest post here. He is saying pretty much exactly the same thing as I, at least about the subject of MQA. Wow, on topic commentary! 

 

-Paul

 

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Exactly. 

 

Yet people like @ARQuint think we are all a bunch crazies and he needs to come back here to do the heavy lifting of defending MQA. How do I know? He, on more than one occasion, has accidentally sent an email rather than responding to a PM from another member. These emails appear in my inbox with his unfiltered thoughts about us. 

 

The old guard never ceases to amaze me.

Come on, show us a choice quote. Just one. Please?

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Exactly. 

 

Yet people like @ARQuint think we are all a bunch crazies and he needs to come back here to do the heavy lifting of defending MQA. How do I know? He, on more than one occasion, has accidentally sent an email rather than responding to a PM from another member. These emails appear in my inbox with his unfiltered thoughts about us. 

 

The old guard never ceases to amaze me. 

 

 

 

Is that what you really see in the comment @ARQuint left? I did not see any defense of MQA, just of Bob Stuart, the person. They are not the same thing. 

 

I admit, Stuart’s behavior towards MQA is - disturbing. But who here knows all the circumstances he is contending with? We can all speculate, but who actually knows? I doubt even one person here actually knows. 

 

Old guard, new guard, kind of less relevant to me than how we treat people. 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Exactly. 

 

Yet people like @ARQuint think we are all a bunch crazies and he needs to come back here to do the heavy lifting of defending MQA. How do I know? He, on more than one occasion, has accidentally sent an email rather than responding to a PM from another member. These emails appear in my inbox with his unfiltered thoughts about us. 

 

The old guard never ceases to amaze me. 

 

 

 

I haven't sent many PMs in the time I've participated in this forum and I don't think any of them reflect any attitudes different than the ones that I present publicly. Namely my wish for civility and concerns that a few corners of Audiophile Style have been commandeered by zealots who ultimately suppress meaningful dialogue about important topics.

[The Computer Audiophile]

30 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Is that what you really see in the comment @ARQuint left? I did not see any defense of MQA, just of Bob Stuart, the person. They are not the same thing. 

 

I admit, Stuart’s behavior towards MQA is - disturbing. But who here knows all the circumstances he is contending with? We can all speculate, but who actually knows? I doubt even one person here actually knows. 

 

Old guard, new guard, kind of less relevant to me than how we treat people. 

Given the totality of the circumstances and looking at the evidence as a whole, yes that's what I see. 

 

Personal attacks aren't allowed here, but I'm beginning to think some people like them because then they have an excuse to continue the bickering. I act on all reported posts and I haven't seen a post reported for being personal in a long time. 

 

Sure Bob's circumstances are unknown, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to rendering an opinion about MQA and his actions as a steward of the technology. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I haven't sent many PMs in the time I've participated in this forum and I don't think any of them reflect any attitudes different than the ones that I present publicly. Namely my wish for civility and concerns that a few corners of Audiophile Style have been commandeered by zealots who ultimately suppress meaningful dialogue about important topics.

Given your most recent accidental email, I'd say you really love to stoke the fire but are hiding behind your civility request. 

 

I'm all for being civil. Just not hypocrisy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

Come on, show us a choice quote. Just one. Please?

I'd probably receive a copyright takedown notice :~)

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Sure Bob's circumstances are unknown

One circumstance is known. He's been bleeding money for decades.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'd probably receive a copyright takedown notice :~)

Oh, don't hide behind that excuse.

[BrokeLinuxPhile]

To me, as a consumer, MQA removes choices from the buying decision.  If you are DAC shopping, there aren't near as many MQA capable DACS out there as other types.  If you have a price ceiling, and need MQA, there usually is 2 maybe 3 DACs to pick from at that price point.  Compared to literally hundreds if you don't need MQA.

 

As a linux guy, anything that doesn't play nice with GPL is a no-go for me.  We won't see unfolding because daemons like MPD refuse to handle anything that violates GPL.

 

I considered MQA briefly because I had a Tidal hifi acct and was DAC shopping.  Then Qobuz came along and there was no need for MQA at all.

 

Regardless of technical issues/problems.....Just from consumer choice standpoint MQA is a joke.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

45 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I haven't sent many PMs in the time I've participated in this forum and I don't think any of them reflect any attitudes different than the ones that I present publicly. Namely my wish for civility and concerns that a few corners of Audiophile Style have been commandeered by zealots who ultimately suppress meaningful dialogue about important topics.

Sorry, there is no reason to be civil to people who are trying to give me the shaft. Selling me a pile hot steaming horse shit and calling it chocolate mousse gets exactly what it deserves. My toe boot up their tuchus. You live in a different world, in. an ivory tower.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Given the totality of the circumstances and looking at the evidence as a whole, yes that's what I see. 

 

Personal attacks aren't allowed here, but I'm beginning to think some people like them because then they have an excuse to continue the bickering. I act on all reported posts and I haven't seen a post reported for being personal in a long time. 

 

Sure Bob's circumstances are unknown, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to rendering an opinion about MQA and his actions as a steward of the technology. 

 

I try hard to ignore them myself, but with limited success I suppose.  

 

On the other paw, somewhere I have a printout of a neat essay about the way journalists disguise personal attacks.  Yep - it is at  http://www.transparencynow.com/news/disguises.htm.

 

None of these techniques seem to be restricted to the "old guard" - the "new guard" is as adept in their application as the old. Nor are the techniques "new" in any sense. Been around since politics started, and they were polished to perfection in the Machiavellian ages in Europe.

 

Certainly, some of those techniques are employed here in this thread.  It appears online forums use the same techniques to discredit people as less than ethical journalists.  

 

These were examined in Civics and Humanities classes, back when we went to school. Probably not so common anymore, as they can be used to oppose liberalism as well as conservatism.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Sorry, there is no reason to be civil to people who are trying to give me the shaft. Selling me a pile hot steaming horse shit and calling it chocolate mousse gets exactly what it deserves. My toe boot up their tuchus. You live in a different world, in. an ivory tower.

Hello....

 

MQA is the veritable essence of USA consumerism. (I am not defending MQA,  - it is horrible). But MQA is very typical. As it goes also with this forum, - evidence is pushed back into the realm of cult-of-personality fascism. Hopefully,- you have just as much hostility towards Bank of America, General Dynamics, Goldman Sachs, etc. etc.

[Shadders]

45 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Certainly, some of those techniques are employed here in this thread.  It appears online forums use the same techniques to discredit people as less than ethical journalists.

Hi,

I had to use the wikie :

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Professional_and_ethical_standards

 

States :

"While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of – truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability – as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public."

 

Given that the advocates, supporters, proponents, of MQA from the Hifi press refuse to answer those questions, whose answers reveal MQA as a scam, in my opinion, means that those "journalists" do not meet the above criteria.

 

My interpretation, is that some of the "journalists" posting here are not true "journalists". They seem to be severely lacking in the above elements/principles.

 

What is your assessment ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Paul R]

14 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I had to use the wikie :

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Professional_and_ethical_standards

 

States :

"While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of – truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability – as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public."

 

Given that the advocates, supporters, proponents, of MQA from the Hifi press refuse to answer those questions, whose answers reveal MQA as a scam, in my opinion, means that those "journalists" do not meet the above criteria.

 

My interpretation, is that some of the "journalists" posting here are not true "journalists". They seem to be severely lacking in the above elements/principles.

 

What is your assessment ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Some of the posters here display the same lacks. Why should we judge them differently? After all, if this is a journalistic publication, everyone needs to be held to journalistic standards.

 

If on the other hand, it is more of a pub discussion, then why should a journalist, in his off hours, not be allowed to express his opinion, however unpopular it may be?

 

It can be very confusing.  And the definition of journalist has changed significantly over the past few decades. Many people today accounted as journalists would not have been recognized as such a couple decades ago. 

 

I think that discussions of audio journalism belong in their own topic, and that they are being used here as a sort of distraction.

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Some of the posters here display the same lacks. Why should we judge them differently? After all, if this is a journalistic publication, everyone needs to be held to journalistic standards.

 

If on the other hand, it is more of a pub discussion, then why should a journalist, in his off hours, not be allowed to express his opinion, however unpopular it may be?

Hi,

If those people who are "journalists" post here and their signature/sign off states that they are an Editor or other, then they MUST adhere to the "journalist" code.

 

This is a forum for the enthusiasts, and any "professional" must identify themselves as such. Maybe that is their penance, that they cannot truly state their opinion, since when would one know whether it is opinion or journalism ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

I haven't sent many PMs in the time I've participated in this forum and I don't think any of them reflect any attitudes different than the ones that I present publicly. Namely my wish for civility and concerns that a few corners of Audiophile Style have been commandeered by zealots who ultimately suppress meaningful dialogue about important topics.

 

do you think your previous post attempting to make fun of metalnuts expressed civility?

 

is calling someone who posts about looming DRM, or lossy compression, or market capture a "zealot" ?

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Come on, show us a choice quote. Just one. Please?

 

If Chris won't here is a personal favorite of mine.

 

“Is there ever an equipment review, interview, or technical article in Stereophile or TAS that you find informative or entertaining?” Andy Quint to me in a December 31, 2018 email.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I try hard to ignore them myself, but with limited success I suppose.  

 

On the other paw, somewhere I have a printout of a neat essay about the way journalists disguise personal attacks.  Yep - it is at  http://www.transparencynow.com/news/disguises.htm.

 

None of these techniques seem to be restricted to the "old guard" - the "new guard" is as adept in their application as the old. Nor are the techniques "new" in any sense. Been around since politics started, and they were polished to perfection in the Machiavellian ages in Europe.

 

Certainly, some of those techniques are employed here in this thread.  It appears online forums use the same techniques to discredit people as less than ethical journalists.  

 

These were examined in Civics and Humanities classes, back when we went to school. Probably not so common anymore, as they can be used to oppose liberalism as well as conservatism.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, interesting. But what you somehow didn’t point out was that the article also shows how techniques are used to credit people also. This is what we see in the audiophile press when writing about MQA: direct use of press relases, etc. - as described in the article.

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

If Chris won't here is a personal favorite of mine.

 

“Is there ever an equipment review, interview, or technical article in Stereophile or TAS that you find informative or entertaining?” Andy Quint to me in a December 31, 2018 email.

 

Seems like a reasonable question. Not quite sure what it is about it that amuses you. So, to repeat the question, is there?

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Hello....

 

MQA is the veritable essence of USA consumerism. (I am not defending MQA,  - it is horrible). But MQA is very typical. As it goes also with this forum, - evidence is pushed back into the realm of cult-of-personality fascism. Hopefully,- you have just as much hostility towards Bank of America, General Dynamics, Goldman Sachs, etc. etc.

Actually I do have just the same kind of hostility toward everyone you list.  Imagine that.  More than I do for MQA in fact.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Some of the posters here display the same lacks. Why should we judge them differently? After all, if this is a journalistic publication, everyone needs to be held to journalistic standards.

 

If on the other hand, it is more of a pub discussion, then why should a journalist, in his off hours, not be allowed to express his opinion, however unpopular it may be?

 

It can be very confusing.  And the definition of journalist has changed significantly over the past few decades. Many people today accounted as journalists would not have been recognized as such a couple decades ago. 

 

I think that discussions of audio journalism belong in their own topic, and that they are being used here as a sort of distraction.

Come on Paul, your post is an attempt to muddy the water, and the water is otherwise very clear. 

 

I'd be convinced if a journalist expressed an off hours opinion perhaps.  When he parrots what we already know to be disinformation his employer is known to be engaged in then it only convinces me the lack of credibility is deeper than I may have expected. 

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Some of the posters here display the same lacks. Why should we judge them differently? After all, if this is a journalistic publication, everyone needs to be held to journalistic standards.

 

If on the other hand, it is more of a pub discussion, then why should a journalist, in his off hours, not be allowed to express his opinion, however unpopular it may be?

 

It can be very confusing.  And the definition of journalist has changed significantly over the past few decades. Many people today accounted as journalists would not have been recognized as such a couple decades ago. 

 

I think that discussions of audio journalism belong in their own topic, and that they are being used here as a sort of distraction.

Hi,

This is in no way a journalist forum, or set of forums.

Also, - all audiophile websites and publications are not either.... (they are audio enthusiast publications).

 

""It can be very confusing.  And the definition of journalist has changed significantly over the past few decades. Many people today accounted as journalists would not have been recognized as such a couple decades ago. ""

 

That is very true, - but at least some magazines like Stereophile & (another example) Six Moons, outline EXACTLY who they are and WHAT they publish. In both cases, - not journalism.

 

The best thing to do is to actually define it: journalism. At least in many discussions here, - I don't see where people are claiming that audio publications are journalism. But, - I can say that there are some folks here who think that somehow high performance audio products should somehow be held to some (unreasonable and unclear) objective standards, and that the marketing of these products should be held to some (equally unreasonable and vague): so-called electrical engineering standards.

[Rt66indierock]

46 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Seems like a reasonable question. Not quite sure what it is about it that amuses you. So, to repeat the question, is there?

 

I have a question for you Rohde & Schwarz or Audio Precision? Here was my response to Andy January 2, 2019.

 

I find it endlessly amusing that people like more processing of their music at the magazines like DSD and MQA.