Popular Post lucretius Posted July 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2019 If something is proven to be snake oil, why go further? KeenObserver, Hugo9000, MikeyFresh and 2 others 2 3 mQa is dead! Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted July 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2019 Paul Have you ever seen the Monty Python sketch where the guy goes in and pays to have an argument? kumakuma, Confused, crenca and 1 other 1 3 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted July 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said: Paul Have you ever seen the Monty Python sketch where the guy goes in and pays to have an argument? Perhaps MQA is just pining for the fjords? MikeyFresh, lucretius and crenca 3 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
lucretius Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said: Paul Have you ever seen the Monty Python sketch where the guy goes in and pays to have an argument? bambadoo 1 mQa is dead! Link to comment
Popular Post lucretius Posted July 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2019 21 minutes ago, kumakuma said: Perhaps MQA is just pining for the fjords? kumakuma, MikeyFresh and crenca 1 2 mQa is dead! Link to comment
mansr Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 46 minutes ago, KeenObserver said: Paul Have you ever seen the Monty Python sketch where the guy goes in and pays to have an argument? And all he gets is contradiction. Paul would be right at home behind that desk. Ishmael Slapowitz 1 Link to comment
Popular Post John Dyson Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 hour ago, KeenObserver said: Refuting the same fallacies on a never ending basis is tiresome. Refuting marketing lies that promoters put forth is not an intellectual exercise. 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 rando and daverich4 2 Link to comment
John Dyson Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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
Popular Post mansr Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, John Dyson said: might be some technical merit in some of the mathematical concepts used I have yet to see so much as a sliver of a hint in that direction. It's all lies and obfuscation. Ishmael Slapowitz and lucretius 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Ishmael Slapowitz Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 22 minutes 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 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. Ran, Ralf11 and lucretius 3 Link to comment
esldude Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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. lucretius 1 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
Popular Post Sal1950 Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: If they had, they might have survived with their reputations intact, and the same goes for Atkinson and Harley. Naw, nothing really lost. Believers will continue to believe no matter how strong the evidence against their positions. botrytis and crenca 1 1 "The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?" Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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. lucretius 1 Link to comment
Popular Post lucretius Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 hour ago, John Dyson said: 2 hours 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 I agree. But the context of my 'why go further' question relates to Paul suggesting that we/audiophiles need to prove that MQA doesn't sound better than plain PCM, etc. Ishmael Slapowitz and MikeyFresh 2 mQa is dead! Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, lucretius said: I agree. But the context of my 'why go further' question relates to Paul suggesting that we/audiophiles need to prove that MQA doesn't sound better than plain PCM, etc. We donna gotta prova a nuthin'....end of story. 😅 lucretius 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 MQA badges? We don't need no stinkin' MQA badges! lucretius 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Paul R Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 3 hours ago, lucretius said: I agree. But the context of my 'why go further' question relates to Paul suggesting that we/audiophiles need to prove that MQA doesn't sound better than plain PCM, etc. Let me rephrase - people are using this conversation to punish the media and build their reputations. It is not all that much about MQA anymore. I dislike the agenda, and suggest the furthering of that agenda is driving this community to accept and support jerks. So long as they hate MQA. Apparently, no other redeeming qualities are required. Keeping that in mind, I am advocating killing off MAQ quickly once and for all, so we can move on. Nothing will kill MQA off faster than audiophiles telling other audiophiles that they listened to it, and it did not sound any better than PCM. Assuming of course, that they are honest about what they hear, and are not lying. That is it in a nutshell. Nothing more, nothing less. And it will do the job honestly and with insignificant cost. Importantly, without some warped revenge on the press or the “old guard,” or any of the other rather non-sane agendas expressed. Of course, MQA will fail anyway, but speeding it up, with very little effort, cost, or risk - well that can not hurt the audiophile world. May put a puncture in some people’s egos, but they will survive that with no permanent damage. Please note, I suggested and defended that audiophiles are the only possible people that can do such testing where the results would be trusted and convincing, as well as the only group that can do it at a negligible cost. sandyk, lucretius, daverich4 and 1 other 3 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 59 minutes ago, Paul R said: people are using this conversation to punish the media and build their reputations No media is being "punished"; media is being criticized. No one here can punish media - except by cancelling a subscription, which I don't think most of us have. How are they punishing the media? "Build their reputations"? Really? By posting under a pseudonym at a forum read by a tiny niche population and inside that niche by another niche group? I think posters like mansr and Archimago have their careers quite in hand and need no reputation polishing here, even if it somehow was happening. The rest of us are just hobbyists having a good time. I understand you want to protect your position in the argument, but setting up straw man arguments so you can knock them down isn't a good way to do it. gcoupe, kumakuma, askat1988 and 6 others 5 1 2 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
rando Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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
John Dyson Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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 rando 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, John Dyson said: MQA is very likely doing something different than the traditional processing techniques -- or they would be less likely to obfuscate. On the contrary, the obfuscation is there to hide that they really have nothing of value. esldude, MikeyFresh and Ralf11 1 2 Link to comment
MetalNuts Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted July 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 24, 2019 4 hours ago, Paul R said: Let me rephrase - people are using this conversation to punish the media and build their reputations. It is not all that much about MQA anymore. I dislike the agenda, and suggest the furthering of that agenda is driving this community to accept and support jerks. So long as they hate MQA. Apparently, no other redeeming qualities are required. Keeping that in mind, I am advocating killing off MAQ quickly once and for all, so we can move on. Nothing will kill MQA off faster than audiophiles telling other audiophiles that they listened to it, and it did not sound any better than PCM. Assuming of course, that they are honest about what they hear, and are not lying. That is it in a nutshell. Nothing more, nothing less. And it will do the job honestly and with insignificant cost. Importantly, without some warped revenge on the press or the “old guard,” or any of the other rather non-sane agendas expressed. Of course, MQA will fail anyway, but speeding it up, with very little effort, cost, or risk - well that can not hurt the audiophile world. May put a puncture in some people’s egos, but they will survive that with no permanent damage. Please note, I suggested and defended that audiophiles are the only possible people that can do such testing where the results would be trusted and convincing, as well as the only group that can do it at a negligible cost. Your never ending backhanded excuses for MQA is what keeps this thread going. You constantly praise MQA with faint damnation. To say that MQA sounds no better than PCM implies that MQA sounds as good as PCM, which it does not. Hi res PCM sounds much better than MQA. MQA corrupts the original music. The proof of this is that no studio would archive their masters in MQA. I don't really know why you spend so much time and effort on this thread if you truly feel as you stated. askat1988, Hugo9000, MikeyFresh and 1 other 3 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
KeenObserver Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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
KeenObserver Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 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
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now