MQA is Vaporware

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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.

 

 

Now I'm really depressed.

 

If MQA was able to scam someone with your background, there is truly no hope for the rest of us.

[John Dyson]

17 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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

I actually don't believe that personal accusations should be made at all.  However, there is some real confusion when someone who is obviously so intelligent, but can be so taken in by the proverbial 'snake oil.'  It can be tricky to negotiate a sense of astonishment while also trying to show respect.

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

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.

I was not aware Kal had these qualifications. That raises the knowledgeable academic count to one.

[Ralf11]

contra Chris's 2+2 post above, I do think that credentials - i.e. expertise - is of some value.

 

The ultimate is a series of valid experiments (esp. if epidemiological data are confirmed by mechanistic models - as in the London cholera example, I've posted a couple of times).

 

Below that is the testimony of qualified experts - the US Court system recognizes this hierarchy for evidentiary matters.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I was not aware Kal had these qualifications. That raises the knowledgeable academic count to one.

 

And of course saw right through MQA. A different sort of different. Priceless

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

contra Chris's 2+2 post above, I do think that credentials - i.e. expertise - is of some value.

 

The ultimate is a series of valid experiments (esp. if epidemiological data are confirmed by mechanistic models - as in the London cholera example, I've posted a couple of times).

 

Below that is the testimony of qualified experts - the US Court system recognizes this hierarchy for evidentiary matters.

Find an expert on anything for a trial and I’ll find one who will say the opposite. Court system is a joke with respect to this. i.e. O.J. Simpson. 

 

Nobody supporting MQA will address any of Archimago’s facts because it wouldn’t support their narrative. Instead they go after the person. That’s quite Presidential. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Isn't PhD synonymous with Unemployed? 😎

[The Computer Audiophile]

by the way, even if @Archimago released his name, do people actually think the conversation would change? Heck no. Let’s practice, how about the old guard addresses the issues as if his name is Roy Smith and he lives here on Earth. Will never happen. Those are the hard questions. Questioning his pseudonym is the easy route. 

 

Whatever happened to doing things not because they are easy but because they are hard? 

[esldude]

@John_Atkinson

So what is your opinion about MQA CD's having less than 16 bits in MQA form?  Or in showing 192/24 and everything above 96 khz is just upsampling?  Or about the fact MQA is lossy above 20 khz?  

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

@John_Atkinson

So what is your opinion about MQA CD's having less than 16 bits in MQA form?  Or in showing 192/24 and everything above 96 khz is just upsampling?  Or about the fact MQA is lossy above 20 khz?  

oh, maybe we can add the debunked nonsense about "authentication"? And how a file can be manipulated and still have their beloved blue light go on? And the fact that Mr. Atkinson first claimed MQA lossy encoding must be applied at the "mastering stage"?

 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

oh, maybe we can add the debunked nonsense about "authentication"? And how a file can be manipulated and still have their beloved blue light go on? And the fact that Mr. Atkinson first claimed MQA lossy encoding must be applied at the "mastering stage"?

 

Well I wanted to keep the questions simple, and easy. 

 

The very first time I read about MQA it was obvious the Authentication was total BS.  It is simply unworkable.  But sure, be nice if JA wishes to address that too.  Another one of those loopholes in regard to authentication is what if an artist heard the result and said, "I don't like what MQA does, no approval from me".  

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, esldude said:

Well I wanted to keep the questions simple, and easy. 

 

The very first time I read about MQA it was obvious the Authentication was total BS.  It is simply unworkable.  But sure, be nice if JA wishes to address that too.  Another one of those loopholes in regard to authentication is what if an artist heard the result and said, "I don't like what MQA does, no approval from me".  

Understood. But note that Stereophile, and after, webzines, pushed the "authentication" angle as a "benefit" for consumers. 

[esldude]

37 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Understood. But note that Stereophile, and after, webzines, pushed the "authentication" angle as a "benefit" for consumers. 

Yes, no disagreement from me.  The initial claims were so good as to be suspicious.  Another red flag was the time blurring spiel.  My second step was to find and read the patents related to MQA.  That clued me into some aspects of MQA not being better or even good.  Mansr and others in time determined exactly what it does and what is going on.  There are zero benefits for fidelity, there are zero benefits to consumers, and authentication is a farce.  So I'd like to know do the JA's admit/agree to the fidelity limitations imposed by MQA, and if so why are they still speaking well of it or for that matter why would anyone with that knowledge even have a neutral opinion?  

[crenca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

by the way, even if @Archimago released his name, do people actually think the conversation would change? Heck no. Let’s practice, how about the old guard addresses the issues as if his name is Roy Smith and he lives here on Earth. Will never happen. Those are the hard questions. Questioning his pseudonym is the easy route. 

 

Whatever happened to doing things not because they are easy but because they are hard? 

 

 

What we know of the Old Guard and the careers of the JA's tells us that they will never be interested MQA from a factual or consumer point of view, as consumers are not their customers - they are trade publication promoters, not "journalists".

 

However, what strikes me from the last few pages is not these well understood circumstances, but the importance the JA's attach to getting the word out that neither they nor their writers are directly compensated by either MQA or any of the other producers of the products they promote.  Why?

 

They don't deny, and to do so would be a silly as denying the facts of MQA or 1+1=2, that they are indirectly compensated, in that their job is the promotion of the trade (which consists of these products), and that the real compensation they receive is a paycheck, something to write about and work at, industry access, samples discounted and personally purchased, and the like.  Indeed these things are far more valuable through time than any relatively short term and direct compensation would be.

 

So why this vehement denial?  Why is it important for them?  They certainly are not denying it for our benefit (the readers of this forum), as they have already said many times over what they think of us as consumers, audio critics, fact and high fidelity seekers, etc. etc.  We are just the ill-willed herd all caught up in what we call "objective truth" and the like.

 

So just who are these vehement denials for?  Are they for their customers, all of whom want "equal access" or something similar and don't want (another) cost/compensation layer to deal with?  Is there tax law (or other legal) implications, so that any idea of direct compensation has to be vigorously denied or buried (whereas the much more important and routine indirect compensation has no (bad) legal consequences)?  

 

Honest questions here - anyone got any idea?

[MikeyFresh]

7 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

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

 

Not too terribly surprising given the heavy promotion of MQA in the trade press, I can see some Stereophile or TAS readers having that conversation with a retailer based on that.

 

That's called FOMO, driven my proclamations of paradigm shifts and new digital eras having been entered... a whole new world being birthed.

[KeenObserver]

Anyone have a Doctorate in Ethics?

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

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.

 

So, please tell us why Mark Twain used a pseudonym. I always wanted to know ...

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

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

 

How many of you have equipment on loan?  What's the longest period of one of these loans?

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

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.

 

Such is offered as an explanation for support for MQA.  If there is a better explanation, please let us know.

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

There you go--doubling down on spreading rumors. 

 

Here's a great explanation of why so many posters wish to remain anonymous. I say this quite realizing that many here will jump to your defense, simply because they agree with you. If you had posted anonymously, the taint on your character from engaging in such unprincipled behavior would be only online. No one would be able to link the online taint to the real you. But your identity is known, I believe. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

LOL, a little backhander in there.

[MikeyFresh]

10 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

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.

 

Yet another false narrative/deflection. There are neither any rabid online personas causing concern, nor any other more broad connection to such among anonymous posters as you've claimed. Fake news.

 

People have various good reasons for wishing to maintain anonymity, and they need not provide them for your review/approval, however being meek and cowardly is not one of them.

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

This was examined on this forum/ I don't see why I need to repeat it all when you are as capable of using a search engine as I am. My point was that neither Jim nor I have defamed Archimago, as was stated as fact by another poster.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Then why do you and the other JA point out that poster's (and other posters) "anonymity", if not to defame that poster?

 

 

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

There is no way any of us could possibly know if you, or Archimago or anyone posting here are receiving payment for attacking MQA. 

 

Archimago's and Mansr's position agrees with the facts; Stereophile's position does not.  This makes the theory that Stereophile writers are receiving payment for attacking MQA much more likely than Archoimago or Mansr (or other posters) receiving such payments. Further, it's quite plausible that Bob Stuart would fund a Stereophile project or that some equipment manufacturer would make payments to writers or otherwise would be particularly generous in purchasing ad space from Stereophile.  OTH, it's not plausible that there is anyone making payments to Archimago and/or Mansr or other posters -- who would they be?  

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Isn't PhD synonymous with Unemployed? 😎

 

Not since the emergence of Uber and Lyft. ☺️

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

Anyone have a Doctorate in Ethics?

 

What saint had a doctorate in Ethics?  ☺️