MQA is Vaporware

[Paul R]

46 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So the principle that the one making the extraordinary claims has to prove these claims doesn't apply to MQA?

 

Nope. The extraordinary claim here is that MQA sounds better than say, FLAC.  It is sheer fantasy to think anyone can prove or disprove that to you. 

 

Either it sounds better to you, or it does not. There is no middle ground in that. And nobody, not one single person on the entire planet, can answer that question for you - only you can do it. 

 

Or you can just attack me, because I refuse to buy into the stupid group think and middle school taunting you and others wish to engage in. Middle school taunts did not bother me all that much in middle school, why would they now?  I encourage you to think, rather than emote. 

[rickca]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA may be buried alive on the mistaken but understandable assumption that it is dead.  😊

Zombies are very popular these days.  Maybe there's an opportunity for MQA as the walking dead.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

The question should be rhetorical.  With terminology such as 'articulation pole', 'poles of articulation' ('multipoles'), 'filterpoles'  and statements such as this:

 

"MIT Cables’ core audio cable technology is our exclusive Poles of Articulation (Multipole), named after the fact that every audio cable has a single point where it is most efficient at storing and transporting energy. At this point in the audio frequency spectrum, the cable will articulate best, and represents the cables’ particular Articulation Pole."

 

"The Oracle MA-X is the new industry standard, raising the bar to an unsurpassed 68 poles of articulation."

 

"F.A.T. technology gives the listener the ability to tune up (or down) the number of Poles."

 

Why would anyone have to or need to provide an answer to your question?

 

Because they bought the cables and proudly announce that in their signature? 

 

It is only reasonable respect to assume that a person did not buy into the pseudo-scientific hogwash, and actually listened to the cables and decided they liked them before buying them. 

 

Or even if they bought the hogwash, that their enjoyment and pleasure is real.

 

[rickca]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

One does not usually nail a coffin shut unless the deceased is already in it.

I get the feeling you would demand the body be exhumed.

[Paul R]

4 minutes ago, rickca said:

Zombies are very popular these days.  Maybe there's an opportunity for MQA as the walking dead.

 

That sir, is a truly horrible thought! You don’t write scary movies for a living or something do you? 😳

[firedog]

37 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Hashem, please, help us.

 

 

Interesting how much he likes to insult his audience.

 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, rickca said:

I get the feeling you would demand the body be exhumed.

 

Cremation is always a viable option... 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Lots: Shut up many critics.  And it would be a massive PR-marketing coup: "studies show MQA preferred to hi res...."

 

Unless of course, the research was honest and the evidence did not support their claim. Which is far more likely here, and why they never will. 

 

[mansr]

Just now, Paul R said:

Unless of course, the research was honest and the evidence did not support their claim. Which is far more likely here, and why they never will.

So why do you keep defending them?

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Unless of course, the research was honest and the evidence did not support their claim. Which is far more likely here, and why they never will. 

 

Well, then they just bury the research and one knows. But we also all know that "sponsered" research tends to show what the sponsor wants it to. 

Look at how much mileage  the Meyer/Moran study "proving" people can't hear the difference between CD and SACD is still quoted - years later- as proof. Even though it's been shown to be flawed and even though one of the authors has since said it wasn't great work. 
MQA could get the same kind of mileage out of a study. 

[Paul R]

Just now, mansr said:

So why do you keep defending them?

Why do you keep saying such nonsense when you already know it isn’t true? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

46 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Just now, from TAS:

 

"MQA encoding can be applied to CDs, and that format is taking off in Japan in a big way, where 80% of music sales are of physical media."

 

What a bizarre article. NO mention of streaming, at all, unless I missed it.

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-music-industry-responds/

 

You can’t make this stuff up. That article should’ve been published 10 years ago. 

 

The recorded music industry is doing just fine - https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-record-industry-expects-a-windfall-where-will-the-money-go/

[rickca]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Almost like  we’re back to the original post.  There is no master of “Riders on the Storm.” 

Jim Morrison signed off on the MQA version.

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Well, then they just bury the research and one knows. But we also all know that "sponsered" research tends to show what the sponsor wants it to. 

 

I think they already know what the evidence would support, so they won’t spend the time or money to pursue  it. 

 

Sponsored research always seems to backfire, because it is an easy target to dispute I guess. At least, it seems so from where I stand. Also, they just do not have the financial resources to take on a project like that for real, meaning any results would be even easier to dispute. 

 

Same isn’t true for audiophiles though. Individual testing is cheap and the results are near impossible to dispute. Of course, the results could turn out to be surprising and still be very difficult to dispute. 

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You can’t make this stuff up. That article should’ve been published 10 years ago. 

I especially loved the opening bemoaning the poor economic state of the industry and the minimal royalties paid to Peter Frampton. Just forgot to mention: So we are supposed to cry for an industry that 30 years ago enjoyed monopoly type "rents" on music recordings and brought in 4.5 billion, and today only brings in around 2 billion? They are still making lots of money, just not what they once could. 
And Frampton - funny how the article doesn't mention that Frampton isn't getting the royalties - because the record companies are getting what used to be his share. 
It's all from the Jim Austin school of what's good for "the industry" is what the consumer should accept as good for him/her.

[tmtomh]

12 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Check the McGill study. (If you don't have access to the paper, let me know.) 

 

It was well done, and varied only MQA. The result was the there was no significant difference. I expected people to have a preference for the PCM, but they didn't. Mansr thinks the test was flawed, I disagree, but the paper is available to read and everyone can form their own opinion. I you still think that MQA vs PCM comparisons are irrelevant, then I guess we would just have to agree to disagree. Which is really, no big thing to reasoning people.

 

Given that, I think it is probably just as valuable to identify instances where one to one comparisons are not possible, as the ones that are. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

Appreciate the reference to the McGill study. I believe I checked it out before but will take another look because if so, I certainly didn't look at it in depth. Thanks!

 

I need to clarify something, though: I have no idea where you're getting the "if you still think MQA vs PCM comparisons are irrelevant" comment. I never said or implied that. I must confess I find it quite frustrating: This is the fourth time now that I've had to clarify that I was not saying MQA vs PCM tests are irrelevant. Rather, I was saying the converse: An allegedly MQA vs PCM test that includes additional variables in the A/B text is irrelevant, not because the A/B testing enterprise itself is a bad idea, but rather because such a multi-variable test corrupts the purpose of the A/B test and makes any results irrelevant to the original question of whether or not MQA sounds better/worse/different than PCM.

 

I don't mean to be disagreeable to unpleasant, but I have to say, I'm kind of stunned that you're not understanding (or perhaps so totally unconcerned with acknowledging?) the point I've been trying to make.

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Why do you keep saying such nonsense when you already know it isn’t true? 

 

Have you considered that Mans came to that conclusion after reading your posts... similar to how you're asking us to judge the sound quality of MQA for ourselves rather than take the claims of the company at face value?

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Appreciate the reference to the McGill study. I believe I checked it out before but will take another look because if so, I certainly didn't look at it in depth. Thanks!

 

I need to clarify something, though: I have no idea where you're getting the "if you still think MQA vs PCM comparisons are irrelevant" comment. I never said or implied that. I must confess I find it quite frustrating: This is the fourth time now that I've had to clarify that I was not saying MQA vs PCM tests are irrelevant. Rather, I was saying the converse: An allegedly MQA vs PCM test that includes additional variables in the A/B text is irrelevant, not because the A/B testing enterprise itself is a bad idea, but rather because such a multi-variable test corrupts the purpose of the A/B test and makes any results irrelevant to the original question of whether or not MQA sounds better/worse/different than PCM.

 

I don't mean to be disagreeable to unpleasant, but I have to say, I'm kind of stunned that you're not understanding (or perhaps so totally unconcerned with acknowledging?) the point I've been trying to make.

 

Nope, I must have misunderstood or misread what you wrote.

 

That one cannot evil MQA in total isolation (at least without extreme measures) is so obvious that I guess I just did not really think to say out loud I agree. Apologies for that, was not trying to be rude. 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

That one cannot evil MQA in total isolation

 

You need a verb between "cannot" and "evil".

 

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Why do you keep saying such nonsense when you already know it isn’t true? 

Why else would you keep brushing aside all the solid evidence that MQA is nothing but a money-grabbing scam while banging on about how it sounds and that some people like that supposed sound. If MQA were good old snake oil medicine, you'd be asking us to look at the bottle and say if we find it pretty.

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Have you considered that Mans came to that conclusion after reading your posts... similar to how you're asking us to judge the sound quality of MQA for ourselves rather than take the claims of the company at face value?

 

I considered it, but tunnel blindness and a one-up-manship attitude are probably more likely. He does not appear to like being challenged at all. 

 

So, you would rather trust MQA to tell you MQA music sounds better, than listen with your own ears and be able to firmly say it was worse/better/the same as your favorite format? I doubt most seriously you would be helping any MQA cause by doing so. Much more likely to put yet another nail in the coffin.

[MikeyFresh]

40 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Or you can just attack me, because I refuse to buy into the stupid group think and middle school taunting you and others wish to engage in.

 

More fake news, you weren't attacked with any middle school taunts, not here anyway. Nice try.

[mansr]

BTW Paul, why have you stopped repeating your weird suggestion that there is in fact something real behind MQA, then running away when asked to substantiate what you suppose is there or how you came to hold that belief?

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I considered it, but tunnel blindness and a one-up-manship attitude are probably more likely. He does not appear to like being challenged at all.

What you are doing is not a challenge. It is an annoyance. Possibly a distraction. I do not like being either annoyed or distracted.

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I considered it, but tunnel blindness and a one-up-manship attitude are probably more likely. He does not appear to like being challenged at all. 

 

 

Putting aside with a great deal of difficulty the almost overwhelming temptation to bring out the old pot/kettle adage, please share with us where you have challenged any of his findings.