MQA is Vaporware

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

http://www.2l.no/hires/

 

2L-053 = bottom row

 

How does "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only).... ?

 

And even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) vs DXD?

[asdf1000]

On 5/13/2019 at 4:35 PM, Em2016 said:

 

How does "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only).... ?

 

And even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) vs DXD?

 

@FredericV - the reason I ask is because at my end, even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) versus DXD doesn't like great on my end... and there's no MQA even involved...

 

On the other hand, "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only) looks very similar...

 

Hoping you can check and confirm...

[Rt66indierock]

11 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I suspect that if Charlie were able to read your post, he would be appalled at this thread. He was a good man, and I doubt he would join your "war" in any way.  He would probably tell you that there *is* no battle and this is not a *war*.

 

In the long run, MQA will probably have no more effect than McDonalds changing up their dollar menu. Probably a lot less.

 

 

 

I was not a charter member of “The We Oppose MQA Fraternity” as John Atkinson calls us. My late friend Charles Hansen was. A lot of posts by Charles and me were deleted at Audio Asylum but a gem remains posted on Audio Asylum posted October 30, 2017.

 

> > If he wanted to attack him like he did, Mr Hanson should have done it privately, not here. < <

 

For nearly 2 full years I have been warning JA that MQA was a technical fraud - with zero effect. He would offer no substantive reply to any of my multiple critiques. I've begged him to speak with any of a half-dozen of the top digital designer and not promote this hoax, with no avail.

 

Then the more I studied it and the more I found out about it, the more blatant technical lies I found. Finally Linn and others wrote pieces about the negative political aspects of MQA. I began to find out more of the history of Meridian and Bob Stuart - and it is not pretty.

 

I made contacts in the record and streaming industries to find out the implications and ramifications of MQA and was extremely disturbed by the DRM and the potential for grievous misuse.

 

I contacted mastering engineers and recording studios and found near-unanimous resistance and outright hostility of MQA. No matter how much of this information I passed on the JA, Stereophile continued to act as if MQA was the greatest invention since the vacuum tube, with constant reporting and implications that it was "THE FUTURE" of audio and products that didn't offer it should be avoided.

 

Since I have brought this public, they have finally backed off. Look at their coverage of the RMAF. An internet search shows it mention 3 times. It appears that (much as I wish it didn't) a public expos

 

I love it when you get things completely wrong except for Charles Hansen being a good guy.

[The Computer Audiophile]

38 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I was not a charter member of “The We Oppose MQA Fraternity” as John Atkinson calls us. My late friend Charles Hansen was. A lot of posts by Charles and me were deleted at Audio Asylum but a gem remains posted on Audio Asylum posted October 30, 2017.

 

> > If he wanted to attack him like he did, Mr Hanson should have done it privately, not here. < <

 

For nearly 2 full years I have been warning JA that MQA was a technical fraud - with zero effect. He would offer no substantive reply to any of my multiple critiques. I've begged him to speak with any of a half-dozen of the top digital designer and not promote this hoax, with no avail.

 

Then the more I studied it and the more I found out about it, the more blatant technical lies I found. Finally Linn and others wrote pieces about the negative political aspects of MQA. I began to find out more of the history of Meridian and Bob Stuart - and it is not pretty.

 

I made contacts in the record and streaming industries to find out the implications and ramifications of MQA and was extremely disturbed by the DRM and the potential for grievous misuse.

 

I contacted mastering engineers and recording studios and found near-unanimous resistance and outright hostility of MQA. No matter how much of this information I passed on the JA, Stereophile continued to act as if MQA was the greatest invention since the vacuum tube, with constant reporting and implications that it was "THE FUTURE" of audio and products that didn't offer it should be avoided.

 

Since I have brought this public, they have finally backed off. Look at their coverage of the RMAF. An internet search shows it mention 3 times. It appears that (much as I wish it didn't) a public expos

 

I love it when you get things completely wrong except for Charles Hansen being a good guy.

It would be interesting to read @John_Atkinson's reasoning for disregarding the information Charley sent to him. Perhaps disregarding isn't the right word and I don't want to put words into JA's mouth. Either way, would be good to know JA's side of this one. Not seeking a headline, but rather just some info. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let's keep the conversation from being about @Paul R personally. About 0.00000000001% of readers are interested in that. 

[Rt66indierock]

36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It would be interesting to read @John_Atkinson's reasoning for disregarding the information Charley sent to him. Perhaps disregarding isn't the right word and I don't want to put words into JA's mouth. Either way, would be good to know JA's side of this one. Not seeking a headline, but rather just some info. 

 

Chris I've asked him personally and not gotten an answer. People have been wondering since May of 2016 (Audio Nirvana) "why the near hysteria by Stereophile reviewers/staff over critical commentary regarding MQA."

 

Maybe John Atkinson wasn't used to being criticized?  I certainly got a lot flack from the industry when I criticized a speaker review in Listening #166 but none from John when we met at RMAF 2016 and discussed it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This recreational outrage is getting old. Get back on topic folks. 

[Hugo9000]

I keep waiting for a certain someone* to chime in with the correction of "Charlie."  Anyone who knew Mr. Hansen at all should know it was Charley Hansen.  Certainly if one claims to know what he would or wouldn't have felt about civility in this thread, one should at least show him the courtesy of spelling his name correctly.

 

 

*Longtime readers of this thread may recall this coming up in the past, with a certain person addressing the spelling issue while ignoring the rest of the content of certain posts.

[Tintinabulum]

Indeed, bring back good old CA. Conversations about Hifi, not what has become a political campaign.

 

Sad days. I wonder what the sponsors think, the advertisers? Chris is facilitating this discussion and is anti-MQA. I wonder if there is an economic cost to this...

 

This really should be a private topic by now, hate is never pretty, especially in public.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Tintinabulum said:

Chris is facilitating this discussion and is anti-MQA

He wasn't in the beginning. Then he looked at the evidence and changed his mind. If only more people were willing to do the same.

[crenca]

53 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

I wonder what the sponsors think, the advertisers?

 

Um, your buddy Bob Stuart does not advertise here.  That and "the industry" thank Chris every chance they get for helping lift the lid on Bob Stuart's fraud.

 

[firedog]

52 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

Indeed, bring back good old CA. Conversations about Hifi, not what has become a political campaign.

 

Sad days. I wonder what the sponsors think, the advertisers? Chris is facilitating this discussion and is anti-MQA. I wonder if there is an economic cost to this...

 

This really should be a private topic by now, hate is never pretty, especially in public.

 

Your reaction to this topic is way over the top, too, so maybe you shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us. 

And why the comment "I wonder what the sponsors think, the advertisers"? 

In spite of what you apparently assume, did it ever occur to you that they don't care that the site has this so-called "anti-MQA" thread? Maybe your POV isn't as common as you think?

 

This is one thread in a very large site with lots of threads. Many visitors probably never look at this thread. I'm sure Chris could tell us (if he wants to) what percentage of visitors open this thread. Why should a "sponsor" care about this one thread? I don't think most high end audio companies see their role as censoring Chris' site for him.

In the end, unless the site becomes some sort of dark web hate site, advertisers are interested in a site that brings lots of audiophile eyeballs to their ads. I'm pretty sure this site does that, as it has more visitors than some of the "big" traditional audio sites. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK, I cleaned up this thread a bit. If you posts got removed, suck it up. Nothing personal.

 

Stop the recreational outrage. Get back to MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

 

Your reaction to this topic is way over the top, too, so maybe you shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us. 

And why the comment "I wonder what the sponsors think, the advertisers"? 

In spite of what you apparently assume, did it ever occur to you that they don't care that the site has this so-called "anti-MQA" thread.

 

This is one thread in a very large site with lots of threads. Many visitors probably never look at this thread. I'm sure Chris could tell us (if he wants to) what percentage of visitors open this thread. Why should a "sponsor" care about this one thread? I don't think most high end audio companies see their role as censoring Chris' site for him.

In the end, unless the site becomes some sort of dark web hate site, they are interested in a site that brings lots of audiophile eyeballs to their ads. I'm pretty sure this site does that, as it has more visitors than some of the "big" traditional audio sites. 

This is exactly how 99% of my industry contacts view it. 

 

Advertisers trust me to run the site how I choose. If any of them attempt to interfere with the content here, it's time to part ways with them. Fortunately over the last 11 years, this has never happened. 

 

Some people have expressed an interest in censoring content here and can you believe one's name is Bob Stuart?

[Ralf11]

Tintin - why not state your interest in MQA here.  What do you think it will do for you?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

OK, I cleaned up this thread a bit. If you posts got removed, suck it up. Nothing personal.

 

Stop the recreational outrage. Get back to MQA.

Seems to me It is unclear who you addressing as far as "recreational outrage".😎

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Seems to me It is unclear who you addressing as far as "recreational outrage".😎

All sides.

[Tintinabulum]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people have expressed an interest in censoring content

There's some utter rubbish written here, it demeans the site IMHO. I visit less because of this rubbish (pretty Neutral on MQA). I'm not typical but if it puts clickers off...

 

Of course you might get more clickers if you encourage a hate fest where certain types relish offensive banter, so maybe it actually pays?

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people have expressed an interest in censoring content here and can you believe one's name is Bob Stuart?

 

Shocking 😲

 

I do recall that the trade publication writers such as Andrew Quint and John Atkinson have directly expressed their desire to see you censure this thread and your readers.  Of course, they have egg on their face for going all in with the fraud of MQA in the first place.

[firedog]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Shocking 😲

 

I do recall that the trade publication writers such as Andrew Quint and John Atkinson have directly expressed their desire to see you censure this thread and your readers.  Of course, they have egg on their face for going all in with the fraud of MQA in the first place.

 

Andrew hasn't gone "all in" on MQA. Read what he's written, he's not a big fan or supporter of the format itself. His role here has been more of one defending his publication and it's sister publications from the derision we've thrown their way for their fanboy attitude to MQA.  And to appeal for "civility".

 

Also to be fair, JA has acknowledged that there are some non-SQ, market  and market control issues around MQA. Even if it doesn't seem to bother him too much. 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

 

Andrew hasn't gone "all in" on MQA. Read what he's written, he's not a big fan or supporter of the format itself. His role here has been more of one defending his publication and it's sister publications from the derision we've thrown their way for their fanboy attitude to MQA.  And to appeal for "civility".

 

Also to be fair, JA has acknowledged that there are some non-SQ, market  and market control issues around MQA. Even if it doesn't seem to bother him too much. 

 

I can't agree with you here.  The background is right, but Andrew's and John's qualifications seem odd in the face of the overall 'all-in' nature of their publications coverage of MQA.  It comes across as aloof and tone deaf.  Andrew in particular is clearly much more interested in defending his publication, industry insiders and reputation, and his narrow and elitist understanding of "audiophile community" than the truth of MQA.  These guys are first and foremost "Old Guard" country club members and defenders of the status quo, and so they are part of the overall phenomena of MQA.

[Tintinabulum]

17 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

why not state your interest in MQA here

It sounds good?

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

It sounds good?

No worries from anyone (I'm guessing) if you think it sounds good(?). 

 

People like what they like. Live and let listen. However, when it impedes on other's enjoyment of our wonderful hobby then there can be issues. MQA could be the trojan horse that many people spotted miles away. We just don't know.

[Tintinabulum]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA could be the trojan horse that many people spotted miles away

I get the mantra, really pretty unlikely IMHO, pretty fanciful. More a "hobby horse"...

Anyway on with the Crusade!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Tintinabulum said:

I get the mantra, really pretty unlikely IMHO, pretty fanciful. More a "hobby horse"...

Anyway on with the Crusade!

 

 

Wouldn't it be better to just say you disagree and that it's unlikely, rather than leave the parting crusade jab?

 

Makes me discount what you're saying.