MQA is Vaporware

[kumakuma]

55 minutes ago, mansr said:

So why not publish a correction, amendment, explanatory note, or whatever you want to call it outlining the true workings of MQA?

 

Did the JAys respond to this?

 

@John_Atkinson

@Jim Austin

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

And speaking of manipulation what if posting something about companies paying the press is just a trick to show a few of our critics that Stereophile does pay attention to this thread?

 

Shhhh.  🤫

[Allan F]

38 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

Paid for by a competitor?

 

 

Based on reading the reason(s) for the low ratings, that would rarely be the case.

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

A manufacturer of D/A processors whose sales are suffering due to the lack of MQA decoding ability?

 

To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. 

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Hard to believe the relatively small number of Tidal Hifi tier (which includes MQA) subscribers is driving the market, especially as it is clear that at least a significant number of them don’t really have any special interest in MQA. 

[stuck limo]

On 8/20/2019 at 11:34 AM, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

And when did John Dark get a middle initial?

 

https://darko.audio/2019/08/meridian-announces-210-network-streamer/

 

 

Unsure if joking or not, but John's been using his middle initial for years.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

 

Sometimes I think you're smart, and then you write unaccountably really dumb things, like this. Makes me think you really haven't thought through this anonymity thing. And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway?

 

Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions.

 

Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

Hi Jim - With respect to MQA and all other objective matters, pseudonyms don't matter. 2+2=4 no matter what your name is and no matter if you're paid by the Pure PCM corporation. @Archimago is saying 2+2=4. 

 

 

[Thuaveta]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

Hard to believe the relatively small number of Tidal Hifi tier (which includes MQA) subscribers is driving the market, especially as it is clear that at least a significant number of them don’t really have any special interest in MQA. 

 

Well, rationally, yes. But what if they wanted to "future-proof" their "investment" and had been properly fud-ed up by misleading copy from unethical individuals writing for trusted, yet profoundly disreputable publications...

[Thuaveta]

13 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Did the JAys respond to this?

 

@John_Atkinson

@Jim Austin

 

Why would they stake their reputations and relationships ?

[james45974]

I believe that what we are seeing regarding MQA from John A, Jim A, and evidently from Robert H are the last sounds from old guard dinosaurs on the inevitable march to extinction.  They want to go out with a scream rather than a whimper.

 

Back when print was all we had you controlled the narrative.  These days once you publish an article it is open season for critics all over the internet, and you don't like it, you've lost control.

 

To echo a few posters, you don't like the MQA analysis by certain people so you go after them, not their analysis.  Shows real integrity on your part!

[WAM]

13 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA.

 

Correct 😎. I want to know if a dac ' does' MQA when I am the market for (again)  another toy. MQA-dac's are a no-go. I do not even want to take the risk a dac ruins my flac's (I am a technical noob, better safe than sorry). And I do not use Tidal. Why should I pay for something hardly no one uses? There's hardly content, there is only smoke.

 

What I do not understand, that a reviewer I respect, and whose review were/are certainly valuable for me, does not reject MQA. I am not talking about sq...

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

20 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

A manufacturer of D/A processors whose sales are suffering due to the lack of MQA decoding ability?

 

To be serious, I was recently told by a retailer that he is seeing MQA evolve from push marketing to pull marketing, ie, he now has would-be customers who ask if a DAC they are thinking of buying decodes MQA. In that environment, not having MQA puts a manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the codec. 

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

I've recently visited high end audio stores in four western states. Didn't hear MQA mentioned once. 

 

When you go to your niece's wedding please get a good picture of yourself and send it to me. I will use it to put the brakes on this pull marketing you mentioned.

[WAM]

Yup, that's what dealers are telling me. Only people looking for high end mention it (fomo, I think. Perhaps that's the reason manufacturers are doing/offering MQA).

 

What I hear, is that people are moving away from Tidal and opting for Qobuz. Goodby to the " what the artist.... blabla...".

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Why would they stake their reputations and relationships ?

 

In regards to the former, I believe that ship has already sailed.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

In regards to the former, I believe that ship has already sailed.

The relation ship?

[mansr]

47 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

1 hour ago, mansr said:

So why not publish a correction, amendment, explanatory note, or whatever you want to call it outlining the true workings of MQA?

Did the JAys respond to this?

Of course not. Their NDA prohibits it.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

 

Sometimes I think you're smart, and then you write unaccountably really dumb things, like this. Makes me think you really haven't thought through this anonymity thing. And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway?

 

Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions.

 

Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Throwing rocks at a pack of dogs is a metaphor. I do this with comments like “wireless may be the way to go for high performance audio systems.”  There were some interesting responses at t.h.e. Show this year in response.

 

Now let’s talk about your motivations. You are on what your third username at Audio Asylum? And to refresh your memory a bit.

 

"Dear Jim Austin,

On October 21, 2017 you said you don’t understand the technology behind MQA and yet now you are suddenly going to write a series about it?    

Your series should make interesting reading because in that same October 27, 2017 response to stehno you called him an idiot “for not at least considering that they (Peter Craven and Bob Stuart) might understand things better than you do.”  For you to be intellectually consistent you now have to consider others may understand things better than Peter Craven and Bob Stuart do."

 

I questioned your motivations then and question them now about MQA.

[Sal1950]

53 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Why would they stake their reputations and relationships ?

Exactly what "reputation" are you referring to?

Much of what I'm aware of are not very complimentary.

 

[jma2]

I am just curious: If somebody using his real name would write an article titled "Some objective insights in the folding/unfolding audio treatement by MQA-processing", which would explain objectively and factual what we all have learned from Archimago and could verify, in the most neutral manner possible, and offer this article to JA for publication in Stereophile, knowing that JA and/or his colleague JA are perfectly capable of verifying these facts;

would such an article get accepted and published?

 

Jan

[esldude]

6 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

You seem like a smart guy. So you can understand that this "saying" you've carted out, which I've never heard before, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, you will hit random dogs, and the ones you hit are likely to yelp. It's a little different with people, some of whom care about their reputations. That's why you shouldn't toss stones without cause, at dogs or at people. 

 

It's also worth considering that by posting scurrilous accusations on the Internet, you're effectively tossing stones from behind a tall fence--an act of cowardice. (I'll say it again though: To your credit, it least you don't cower behind a pseudonym.)

 

Without evidence, you cannot know whether the rumor you reported is true. If you don't know if its' true, you shouldn't repeat it--your mother taught you that much at least, right?

 

Provide evidence or delete your post. To do otherwise would be to further expose a serious lack of character. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

I've got a question for you.  Are you under any NDA in regards to MQA? 

@Jim Austin

[esldude]

5 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Neither Jim nor I did any of that. What I did do was object to Archimago's need for anonymity. While I understand Archimago's reasons, I disagree with them.

 

But I do agree with Jim's point. If any of you have evidence that any writer for Stereophile is taking kickbacks, not just from MQA but from any manufacturer, please come forward with it. If you don't have evidence, then you should not make such unfounded accusations.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Same question for the other JA.  Are you under any NDA in regards to MQA?

@John_Atkinson

[John_Atkinson]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Are you under any NDA in regards to MQA?

 

No.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

Same question for the other JA.  Are you under any NDA in regards to MQA?

@John_Atkinson

 

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

No.

 

Then what's the harm in releasing the source and MQA encoded files that are purportedly in your possession? Many would like to analyze those as they might give a better picture of what MQA is really doing.  Is it your personal relationship with Bob Stuart that's preventing you from releasing them?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I've got a question for you.  Are you under any NDA in regards to MQA? 

@Jim Austin

The NDA might prohibit disclosure of its existence. That's all too common.

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Academics, supposedly at least one. Knowledgeable, no evidence of any.

 

you forgot Kal - tho I don't know if he has an appt. up near Harlem but AFAIK his forte is not in electronics (not that all of SQ resides in electronics)

 

JA2 has a PhD in physics but no academic appt. - why he isn't knowledgeable in this area is up to the reader to guess

 

JA1 used to teach high school and has a MS or MA in something, maybe physics

[John_Atkinson]

25 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

JA1 used to teach high school and has a MS or MA in something, maybe physics

 

B.Sc Honors in Physics & Chemistry, Post-graduate Certificate in Education; Member AES; Associate Member IEEE; Distinguished Richard C. Heyser Memorial Lecturer, 131st AES Convention*; and as icing on the qualifications cake, have played instruments on, engineered, produced, or mastered more than 40 commercially released recordings, as well as being one of the most successful English-language audio magazine editors ever.

 

* See https://www.stereophile.com/content/2011-richard-c-heyser-memorial-lecture-where-did-negative-frequencies-go

 

Yes, Kal Rubinson is both a PhD and an MD and Jim Austin a PhD. And there are two other PhDs in Stereophile's team of reviewers.

 

Not that any of this matters: before you all get your knickers in a twist, I have never believed in arguing by credential. You raised the subject, not me 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile