MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

The jury actually did an excellent job evaluating all the testimony in that trial. I had the strong opinion he would be acquitted after the first 4 prosecution witnesses.

 

But that's a topic for another day...

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

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". 

 

When artists signed away ownership of their masters to the label, or otherwise licensed the masters to the label, the artist's "approval" of a release is implicit.

[esldude]

18 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

When artists signed away ownership of their masters to the label, or otherwise licensed the masters to the label, the artist's "approval" of a release is implicit.

While true, that is nowhere what is implied by MQA's idea of end to end authentication by the artist.  In other words, a truthful deception.  One of the few truthful deceptions by MQA mixed in with some simple deceptions without truth.  

[firedog]

6 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

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.

If you want to be fooled, you will be fooled. Education doesn't help you there.

 

And if you dig yourself a big intellectual hole in public, it is apparently very difficult to admit to yourself you were wrong.

Preconceived notions, belonging to a certain social/professional group, economic interests, and cognitive dissonance are very powerful factors even if you admit they exist.

If you don't, they are even more powerful. 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

Not that any of this matters: before you all get your knickers in a twist, I have never believed in arguing by credential

But refusing to engage the substance of Archimago's writing based on "anonymity" is a proper way to argue an issue?

[firedog]

4 hours 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? 

It's pretty clear that if Archi submitted his stuff to Stereophile under his real name they wouldn't have published it.  Look what happened to you when you appeared in public and simply tried to present the ideas for discussion.

 

Therefore the "anonymous" claims are all a smokescreen. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

I don't like what MQA does, no approval from me

Not to mention the 50-70 year old albums being MQA'd - all the principals are often dead. Who's "authenticating" them?....Wait, we know the answer - someone working at a record label who probably wasn't born when the master tapes were made, and is probably working in a tape vault for a conglomerate at least two corporate takeovers removed from the original label. 

And since we know how careful record companies generally are storing master tapes (😣) we can be certain we are getting something "authenticated" by the artist to sound "just like" the original. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

Honest questions here - anyone got any idea?

Everyone, even if not being directly compensated, has economic, social, and professional interests that can cloud judgement. It's unavoidable. But it's also clear that direct economic benefit is a much more powerful force: look at all the junk "science" produced by otherwise respected researchers when they are employed by someone with a financial interest in the outcome of the research. 

That is not to say that no one can come to a fairly objective conclusion. They can. Everyone, even audio writers, should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are attempting to be honest.
 

The problem in the instance of MQA is that there is prima facie evidence of the most compelling type that some of the actors aren't being objective and honest. 
I'm not going to accuse anyone of being essentially  bribed - unless I have evidence, and I don't. I also don't think making that accusation without evidence helps the argument.

But the  evidence brings us to the conclusion that all sorts of powerful interests that aren't directly a "payoff" have  twisted the judgement of many in the audio press. 

[FredericV]

42 minutes ago, firedog said:

It's pretty clear that if Archi submitted his stuff to Stereophile under his real name they wouldn't have published it.  Look what happened to you when you appeared in public and simply tried to present the ideas for discussion.

 

Therefore the "anonymous" claims are all a smokescreen. 

They only take one sided advice from MQA, under the umbrella that more research is needed (a delay tactic) and they would ignore the findings by the independent researchers.

No hifi press news outlet republished my findings, and I did write under my own name:
 

They are not interested in the truth. All they want is something new to write about, and MQA which they can't fully understand as the code is proprietary, is something to write about. Furthermore all their knowledge of MQA comes from Bob & MQA, which was given to them in small chunks. Once they got hooked to the idea, Bob kept feeding them more chunks.

But they can't even encode test tones so there is no way to peer review the end to end claims of MQA. So they are 100% dependent of the canned stuff MQA is feeding them.

One example is Mr Beekhuyzen who wrote about a third unfold:

 

He believes analog content above 48 Khz is stored as a third fold - but he fails to understand that a 24 bit file stops at around -145 dB, so the buried content between -145 and -168 is just impossible. There is no coding space available for a third unfold.

That could change if you use a 32 bit distribution file, but MQA uses 24 bit distribution files.

http://thehbproject.com/nl/artikelen/38/6/MQA---Kwaliteitsgarantie

Hans never corrected his article, and keeps spreading this BS about a third level of encoding. He also writes about quality guarantee (by means of authentication), while the authentication was already fully debunked, both technically and by mastering engineers seeing their work MQA encoded without their approval:



 

[mansr]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Find an expert on anything for a trial and I’ll find one who will say the opposite.

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." — Arthur C. Clarke

[mansr]

9 hours 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.

Or just pretend it has my name on it. After all, I did much of the underlying work.

[Kal Rubinson]

13 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Yes, Kal Rubinson is both a PhD and an MD

Correction:  I have a Ph.D. (but I taught MDs for many years).   Now, Emeritus.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Correction:  I have a Ph.D. (but I taught MDs for many years).   Currently, Emeritus.

What is your PhD in? Just curious.

[Kal Rubinson]

Just now, mansr said:

What is your PhD in? Just curious.

In Anatomy but my research and teaching evolved into Neuroscience.  Current title is Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience and Physiology.   Only tangential relevance to audio/electronics.

[Arken]

I couldn't take it any longer i had to see what all the fuss is about. So i went out and got myself a cheap Mqa dac capable of unfolding Mqa files. More specifically a Pioject S2. So i get it all hooked up last night . Not knowing what to expect  i turn on Tidal, get all the settings right and turn it on to find out that it sounds really good. Dammit, i mean really good. I'm feeling guilty. Ive been told by people a a lot smarter than me that it's all bullshit. I am going to do some more listening this weekend. I have it hooked in a way where i can go back and forth between my Lks 004 and the Project S2. I am going to hate this thing if it kills me lol  

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

14 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Yes, Kal Rubinson is both a PhD and an MD

Correction:  I have a Ph.D. (but I taught MDs for many years).   Now, Emeritus.

 

Apologies for the error, Kal.

 

John Atkinson (also not an MD)

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Arken said:

I couldn't take it any longer i had to see what all the fuss is about. So i went out and got myself a cheap Mqa dac capable of unfolding Mqa files. More specifically a Pioject S2. So i get it all hooked up last night . Not knowing what to expect  i turn on Tidal, get all the settings right and turn it on to find out that it sounds really good. Dammit, i mean really good. I'm feeling guilty. Ive been told by people a a lot smarter than me that it's all bullshit. I am going to do some more listening this weekend. I have it hooked in a way where i can go back and forth between my Lks 004 and the Project S2. I am going to hate this thing if it kills me lol  

 

This discussion has never been about how MQA files sound... except when MQA proponents use this to deflect from the real issues.

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Or just pretend it has my name on it. After all, I did much of the underlying work.

 

Hey Mans,

You should submit an article to Stereophile with some more insights and details on the file format and rendering process. Now that would truly be a test of how open-minded and independent the press is about disseminating truth...

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This discussion has never been about how MQA files sound... except when MQA proponents use this to deflect from the real issues.

 

Yes, but MQA marketing in general and Audiophildom marketing (and even further, culture) is dependant upon a radical subjectivism that holds up to anything, even the objective truth that something like MQA that produces a lossy and distorted waveform compared to the source file "sounds" better...

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Arken said:

I couldn't take it any longer i had to see what all the fuss is about. So i went out and got myself a cheap Mqa dac capable of unfolding Mqa files. More specifically a Pioject S2. So i get it all hooked up last night . Not knowing what to expect  i turn on Tidal, get all the settings right and turn it on to find out that it sounds really good. Dammit, i mean really good. I'm feeling guilty. Ive been told by people a a lot smarter than me that it's all bullshit. I am going to do some more listening this weekend. I have it hooked in a way where i can go back and forth between my Lks 004 and the Project S2. I am going to hate this thing if it kills me lol  

 

With or without MQA the S2 measures vey well. And don’t forget to take into account MQA tracks are louder generally.

[botrytis]

11 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Anyone have a Doctorate in Ethics?

 

In Biochemistry - Ethics is one topic that is covered. I do have a PhD in Fungal Biochemistry.

[crenca]

16 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Hey Mans,

You should submit an article to Stereophile with some more insights and details on the file format and rendering process. Now that would truly be a test of how open-minded and independent the press is about disseminating truth...

 

I gave you a laughing thumbs up because we don't have a "press" in audiophiledom and the JA's are not "journalists", they are trade promoters.  

 

This is why your article/summary as a challenge to them is a non-starter, at least in how you meant it.  It is a challenge of course, but only as an obstacle in their jobs/careers as promoters of MQA and any and all other industry/trade concerns.

 

Their vehement denials of direct compensation and affirmations of "professionalism" have to be understood in the correct context - what the JA's really do.  Page after page of scolding them for not admitting the truth of MQA really is so much tilting at windmills because it assumes that they are "journalists" or "press" and thus are committed to the truth.

 

They are professionals.  Professional salesmen.

 

edit:  when they do leave their wheelhouse of sales and get into the truth of MQA, their limitations are laid bare.  When it comes to digital/software/IP and the like, they are technically incompetent.

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I gave you a laughing thumbs up because we don't have a "press" in audiophiledom and the JA's are not "journalists", they are trade promoters.  

 

This is why your article/summary as a challenge to them is a non-starter, at least in how you meant it.  It is a challenge of course, but only as an obstacle in their jobs/careers as promoters of MQA and any and all other industry/trade concerns.

 

Their vehement denials of direct compensation and affirmations of "professionalism" have to be understood in the correct context - what the JA's really do.  Page after page of scolding them for not admitting the truth of MQA really is so much tilting at windmills because it assumes that they are "journalists" or "press" and thus are committed to the truth.

 

They are professionals.  Professional salesmen.

 

I think they shill it all. Cables, amps, MQA, etc. It is just part and parcel of the full assault on the audio buying public.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Arken said:

I couldn't take it any longer i had to see what all the fuss is about. So i went out and got myself a cheap Mqa dac capable of unfolding Mqa files. More specifically a Pioject S2. So i get it all hooked up last night . Not knowing what to expect  i turn on Tidal, get all the settings right and turn it on to find out that it sounds really good. Dammit, i mean really good. I'm feeling guilty. Ive been told by people a a lot smarter than me that it's all bullshit. I am going to do some more listening this weekend. I have it hooked in a way where i can go back and forth between my Lks 004 and the Project S2. I am going to hate this thing if it kills me lol  

Few of us have claimed that MQA files sound "bad" (may a few exceptions); the claim is that they don't sound consistently better than hires flac, and certainly don't sound like some revolutionary-revelatory upgrade in SQ. IMO, they often sound like a different mastering - for better or for worse. Somewhat different, but no amazingly better. 

The problem is that they are a closed proprietary system with inherent downsides for consumers, and don't really add anything of value to consumers. Therefore we don't want it. 

If you think they sound good, that's all fine. It means you like prefer the filtering applied to them. Some people do. As far as listening comparisons, maybe fine some way to compare them to non MQA over your S2, with proper filters applied in each instance. That would seem to be a more useful comparison. 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

 

I think they shill it all. Cables, amps, MQA, etc. It is just part and parcel of the full assault on the audio buying public.

 

Bingo!  That's what they do and why the exist - to sell you things, not "inform" you, or discover the truth about this or that.

 

This recent ranting on their part about integrity, professionalism, and the like has to be understood in this light.  They are pissed off at their readers and consumers here because we are not buying what they are selling.