Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

If something is proven to be snake oil, why go further?

MQA as a package/concept does seem to be snake-oil...  There MIGHT be some tricky techniques in the games that they played in the DSP code.

I despise the likely application of MQA, and despise the attempt at monopolistic control.  MQA is a botch when it comes to the 'whole package', but there just might be some interesting math in there...  (That is why my mind is more open than just 'pitch it into the trashcan'.)  It should be pitched, but figure out what they did -- because it JUST MIGHT not be an obvious technique (things like what mp3 type things do.)

 

John

Link to comment
9 hours 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?

The thing I always thought a little weird about this approach PR wise is you are saying my cable works nicely at 68 points and less well elsewhere.  Plus with hires being all the rage, wouldn't you need either additional poles of articulation for ultrasonic energy? Or to design for different bandwidth?

 

Well the answer is all the needed adjustment is in the audiophile brain.  Once you have your hand on that it is all automatic. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Naw, nothing really lost. Believers will continue to believe no matter how strong the evidence against their positions.

Not really true. I encountered many in the hobby who just assumed Stuart was a luminary because he produced expensive products and seduced the mags. MQA made them look behind the curtain. I can't tell you how many people I have told that Meridian lost 35-40 million shekels and they were stunned. They assumed Meridian was "successful". 

 

The market rejected his products and they should have gone belly up like Halcro, and other companies that made over priced paperweights. 

Link to comment

Please check your facts with reputable sources.  Even the ones you believe were sidestepped in the above reply.  :)

 

:):) Your thoughts after being exposed to a non-punishing campaign mirroring that used against the media would be interesting.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

With all due respect...if "there might be some technical merit in some of the mathematical concepts used," then Stuart and Craven should have designed a new ADC. They did not, because clearly they don't have the chops. If they had, they might have survived with their reputations intact, and the same goes for Atkinson and Harley. 

My guess is that those who understand and developed the technique are trying to keep a trade secret instead of doing a patent that exposes the technique(s).   They JUST MIGHT be using obfuscation with some babble instead of exposing the technique.  Those who might actually understand & developed the techniques just MIGHT be totally inept in their obfuscation and underestimating the audio community.

 

The reason why I have that (possibly mistaken) insight is that my own project uses some non-commonly-known techniques, and the big difference between the two projects in that regard is that 1) I do not underestimate other people, and 2) not as many people are really interested in problems caused by my project (or even interested at all!!!) :-).

 

If there was some interest in the techniques enough to understand the extremes that my processing does -- then I might be more protective until I can do a proper paper...  The big difference for the DA decoder project -- since there isn't very much interest, and very little money to be made -- I can be freer and more open, feeling less paranoid about explaining about what is really going on.

 

I JUST MIGHT be projecting more than I should be -- but MQA is very likely doing something different than the traditional processing techniques -- or they would be less likely to obfuscate.

 

On the DA decoder project (part of the DHNRDS umbrella), at least there is less 'destruction' and less 'selfishness' involved.  I don't consider my project as a 'golden ticket', but simply something good to try to do.  Greed & and attempted profiteering are so destructive...  This isn't the same world that Edison lived in -- the games that used to be played just don't work anymore.  (There are some truths about Edison -- kind of embarassing and sad, esp given today's sensibilities.)

 

John

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Just trying to be a bridge to improve understanding someone who might have a more raw technical interest.  It just seems like people sometimes get into a mode where they want to disagree -- in this case, both sides of this argument (I am on neither of the current vehement disagreement) have dug in their heels.  I really despise the goals of the MQA advocacy, but there might be some technical merit in some of the mathematical concepts used.  Oddly, I'd suspect that both sides of this ongoing spat might actually dislike the goals of the MQA advocacy.

 

It 100% sucks to decrease quality (MQA definitely decreases quality), but some of the technical tricks that they played might be very interesting.  Some of the MQA destruction might actually be interesting to understand exactly what they did -- it is not likely a conventional compression scheme like mp3. 

  

To me, MQA is so much of an anathema, that if it would have taken hold 10yrs before my current effort, then my current project would have been infinitely more difficult.  The logical business application of MQA is against everything that the audiophile community really needs -- but some of the techniques might be verrrryyyy interesting. (Ignore the techno-babble marketing nonsense from the MQA advocacy -- there might be some real 'meat' in there.)

 

John

 

 

May be I am not a technical guide who sees any technique there in MQA about making the file smaller and claiming no compression.  What I see is that MQA is always playing with words like using folding instead of compressing.  Why folding the file will enable it to tackle the alleged problem of streaming.  Does folding a piece of paper make it smaller in volume?  If not, only compression or shrinking a file will make it smaller.  Whether the so called technique makes it sound better, I believe no one can provide a definite answer since it is a subjective feeling, better specs do not necessarily make a gear or music file sound better.

 

MetalNuts

Link to comment

I agree that MQA must die.  The music consumer should not have the threat of MQA hanging over their heads.

 

I am waiting to see the financial reports for MQA limited.  If the South African backers have dumped more money into the company it means that they are intent on foisting this on the music consumer.

Boycott Warner

Boycott Tidal

Boycott Roon

Boycott Lenbrook

Link to comment
1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

My guess is that those who understand and developed the technique are trying to keep a trade secret instead of doing a patent that exposes the technique(s).   They JUST MIGHT be using obfuscation with some babble instead of exposing the technique.  Those who might actually understand & developed the techniques just MIGHT be totally inept in their obfuscation and underestimating the audio community.

 

The reason why I have that (possibly mistaken) insight is that my own project uses some non-commonly-known techniques, and the big difference between the two projects in that regard is that 1) I do not underestimate other people, and 2) not as many people are really interested in problems caused by my project (or even interested at all!!!) :-).

 

If there was some interest in the techniques enough to understand the extremes that my processing does -- then I might be more protective until I can do a proper paper...  The big difference for the DA decoder project -- since there isn't very much interest, and very little money to be made -- I can be freer and more open, feeling less paranoid about explaining about what is really going on.

 

I JUST MIGHT be projecting more than I should be -- but MQA is very likely doing something different than the traditional processing techniques -- or they would be less likely to obfuscate.

 

On the DA decoder project (part of the DHNRDS umbrella), at least there is less 'destruction' and less 'selfishness' involved.  I don't consider my project as a 'golden ticket', but simply something good to try to do.  Greed & and attempted profiteering are so destructive...  This isn't the same world that Edison lived in -- the games that used to be played just don't work anymore.  (There are some truths about Edison -- kind of embarassing and sad, esp given today's sensibilities.)

 

John

 

 

John

Looking for a diamond amongst the effluvia of MQA is a fool's errand.  It is all smoke and mirrors.

 

A turd is, in the end, just a turd.  You can't polish it.

Boycott Warner

Boycott Tidal

Boycott Roon

Boycott Lenbrook

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...