MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

There is a saying that rape is not about sex or love.  It is about power.

 

MQA is not about the love of music.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

C’mon guys (Botrysis, kumakuma, Thuaveta.). Chris C reviewed a dCS DAC, Constellation amplifiers, and Wilson loudspeakers - all very expensive components - that are now part of his reference system. You don’t consider that a “quid pro quo” arrangement, I hope! He bought them - at an accommodation price -  because he liked it so much, he bought it for himself.

 

As I said a bit upthread, I don't know and don't care about motives, and don't think any speculation on that score is necessary, because of this: (1) There is very solid technical work showing MQA does not perform as advertised in a number of respects, and that it is in fact inferior to the non-proprietary Redbook and hi res material already available. (2) Real journalists would be all over this story. (3) Neither Stereophile nor Absolute Sound has been all over this aspect of the MQA story. Quite the opposite.

 

I think this is quite sufficient in itself to show these magazines haven't been doing anything that could be called serious journalism with regard to MQA, regardless of the presence or absence of any specific motive.

 

Would you disagree, and if so could you point to the articles that show my impression is incorrect?

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

As I said a bit upthread, I don't know and don't care about motives, and don't think any speculation on that score is necessary, because of this: (1) There is very solid technical work showing MQA does not perform as advertised in a number of respects, and that it is in fact inferior to the non-proprietary Redbook and hi res material already available. (2) Real journalists would be all over this story. (3) Neither Stereophile nor Absolute Sound has been all over this aspect of the MQA story. Quite the opposite.

 

I think this is quite sufficient in itself to show these magazines haven't been doing anything that could be called serious journalism with regard to MQA, regardless of the presence or absence of any specific motive.

 

Would you disagree, and if so could you point to the articles that show my impression is incorrect?

Well said. 

[wdw]

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Well said. 

 

Judy, always....the cogent argument!  

[wdw]

5 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

C’mon guys (Botrysis, kumakuma, Thuaveta.). Chris C reviewed a dCS DAC, Constellation amplifiers, and Wilson loudspeakers - all very expensive components - that are now part of his reference system. You don’t consider that a “quid pro quo” arrangement, I hope! He bought them - at an accommodation price -  because he liked it so much, he bought it for himself.

 

We have been betrayed by your press.  I think we have spent far more time getting to the bottom of this bottom feeding audio codec than anyone from Stereophile or Absolute Sound.  If Chris has enjoyed "accommodation" pricing, good for him, his motives, as far as I can see, are pure.  This site has given far more to my musical adventure than the later "crop" of Stereophile sites...Audiostream was never truly a "computer" based review site...

[The Computer Audiophile]

With respect to accommodation pricing etc... I wrote a damn big check and one of the reasons I did it was to improve what I report to this community. The better my system, the better information I can provide. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an audiophile who has always wanted such a system for my own enjoyment as well, but some people would be surprised at how many hours I spent talking to people about which products are best for me to purchase to improve what I can provide this community. 

 

I think this community can easily see I have a track record here for all to read, am very transparent, and put them before anyone/anything else. Without the members of this community, there would be no advertisers and no site. This community is incredibly smart. If I tried to pull the stuff the old guard pulls, they’d call me out immediately. Plus, pulling that crap can’t make one feel personally satisfied inside. 

 

Enough about me. This community isn’t about me. I don’t want or need to be the center of attention. 

[KeenObserver]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With respect to accommodation pricing etc... I wrote a damn big check and one of the reasons I did it was to improve what I report to this community. The better my system, the better information I can provide. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an audiophile who has always wanted such a system for my own enjoyment as well, but some people would be surprised at how many hours I spent talking to people about which products are best for me to purchase to improve what I can provide this community. 

 

I think this community can easily see I have a track record here for all to read, am very transparent, and put them before anyone/anything else. Without the members of this community, there would be no advertisers and no site. This community is incredibly smart. If I tried to pull the stuff the old guard pulls, they’d call me out immediately. Plus, pulling that crap can’t make one feel personally satisfied inside. 

 

Enough about me. This community isn’t about me. I don’t want or need to be the center of attention. 

 

I would not be concerned with ARQuints attempts to manipulate you.  You are thumbs up with everyone here.  ( Except perhaps some "Old Guard".)

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With respect to accommodation pricing etc... I wrote a damn big check and one of the reasons I did it was to improve what I report to this community. The better my system, the better information I can provide. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an audiophile who has always wanted such a system for my own enjoyment as well, but some people would be surprised at how many hours I spent talking to people about which products are best for me to purchase to improve what I can provide this community. 

 

I think this community can easily see I have a track record here for all to read, am very transparent, and put them before anyone/anything else. Without the members of this community, there would be no advertisers and no site. This community is incredibly smart. If I tried to pull the stuff the old guard pulls, they’d call me out immediately. Plus, pulling that crap can’t make one feel personally satisfied inside. 

 

Enough about me. This community isn’t about me. I don’t want or need to be the center of attention. 

 

No need to apologize. 

 

The old guard do it because they feel entitled to do so.

[KeenObserver]

The recent postings by JA1, JA2, and ARQ  have shown that they are suffering.  They were once important influencers of the audiophile business.  That influence is waning.  I genuinely feel sorry for them.  So went the buggy whip.

[Currawong]

 

On 8/23/2019 at 9:09 PM, FredericV said:

If they have the budget for this, then hiring key opinion makers (influencers / shills) is also plausible:



Remember he also started the secret MQA group, and he also used fake accounts here and at Archimago's blog, and there was a time when reacted to every FB post, every blog, every post, every article about MQA.

Remember MQA talks about key opinion makers in their year reports.

It's all wide open, nothing to hide ....

 

It is my understanding that Astroturfing is illegal in both the US and UK. If it were found that MQA were doing this, it would be a possibly quite serious legal issue.

 

On 8/23/2019 at 11:11 PM, Jim Austin said:

(by implication)

 

On 8/24/2019 at 1:43 AM, John_Atkinson said:

Neither Jim nor I did any of that. What I did do was object to Archimago's need for anonymity.

 

I'll just leave these post fragments here. Yes, taken out of context, but illustrates the point.

 

On 8/24/2019 at 3:49 AM, mansr said:

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

 

I wanted to ask @John_Atkinson: Why no corrections or updates to articles about MQA? You've published plenty of updates, such as when a manufacturer fixed an issue, or another reviewer tested the same product, or something else came up worthy of an update. 

 

Now here's the thing:

 

On 8/24/2019 at 4:12 AM, 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. 

 

@John_Atkinson YOU YOURSELF have confirmed at least one MQA issue with your own testing, which you published here. @Jim Austin Everything posted here about the technical issues with MQA you and John can verify yourselves!

 

If you can verify it all, and the results show that parts of your reviews and articles are wrong, why not publish updates and corrections? Like John did recently with one of mansr's tests, why not test everything yourself, post it here, whether it agrees or disagrees, and the truth can be sorted out. Then you can assemble and publish a detailed MQA technical analysis on Stereophile.

 

On 8/24/2019 at 4:38 AM, 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. 

 

The actual reality shows otherwise. I've seen a few manufacturers include features or make changes to products because a handful of noisy customers requested it, to the detriment of the product. They didn't realise that most of their customers didn't know or care.

 

Look at Schiit Audio, whose Yggdrasil you very publicly described as "obsolete" (prompting Jason Stoddard to use that in his marketing). They have had to move and expand about half a dozen times now due to demand. None of their digital products do DSD or beyond 192k.

 

Even better, look at Apple, who are very famous for saying "no" to product ideas, and who even went against popular trends repeatedly, and are now one of the largest companies in the world.

 

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

As I said a bit upthread, I don't know and don't care about motives, and don't think any speculation on that score is necessary, because of this: (1) There is very solid technical work showing MQA does not perform as advertised in a number of respects, and that it is in fact inferior to the non-proprietary Redbook and hi res material already available. (2) Real journalists would be all over this story. (3) Neither Stereophile nor Absolute Sound has been all over this aspect of the MQA story. Quite the opposite.

 

I think this is quite sufficient in itself to show these magazines haven't been doing anything that could be called serious journalism with regard to MQA, regardless of the presence or absence of any specific motive.

 

Would you disagree, and if so could you point to the articles that show my impression is incorrect?

 

I think that my call to Jim and John to test and write an article will end up being pointless. The reason I believe is, that they are afraid that too much of a deep technical analysis, especially if it proves what we already know about MQA, will scare their industry friends too much. Even despite the fact that manufacturers happily send, and Stereophile happily reviews such products as NOS DACs (and John describes them as "broken" when reviewing the measurements), and nobody gets upset (unless behind the scenes).

 

I don't think that there is so much of a financial conspiracy, but going by my own experiences, and having talked to people in the industry, that it is more about friendship.  One very famous designer I talked to, filled me in about much of the history of Stereophile and the 2-channel press, and how after an incident, Stereophile will not review his products any more. This mirrors many of my own experiences, where manufacturers are careful not to piss off reviewers, and reviewers are careful to be tactful.  Suddenly 💩ing on a brand risks being shunned not just by the brand, but by any of their friends in the industry.  

 

The thing is, MQA is bad not just for the audiophile industry, but especially for magazines such as Stereophile. Their integrity is on the line, and with the internet as it is, there is nowhere to hide if you're caught being less than totally honest.

[ARQuint]

7 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

No need to apologize. 

 

The old guard do it because they feel entitled to do so.

 

 

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

As I said a bit upthread, I don't know and don't care about motives, and don't think any speculation on that score is necessary, because of this: (1) There is very solid technical work showing MQA does not perform as advertised in a number of respects, and that it is in fact inferior to the non-proprietary Redbook and hi res material already available. (2) Real journalists would be all over this story. (3) Neither Stereophile nor Absolute Sound has been all over this aspect of the MQA story. Quite the opposite.

 

I think this is quite sufficient in itself to show these magazines haven't been doing anything that could be called serious journalism with regard to MQA, regardless of the presence or absence of any specific motive.

 

Would you disagree, and if so could you point to the articles that show my impression is incorrect?

 

Understanding that I'm speaking for myself and not as a representative of my magazine, this is a good opportunity to disentangle two issues - MQA and the role / value / integrity of the long-established publications.

 

There's a range of opinions regarding MQA at Stereophile and TAS. Most equipment writers have had nothing to say about it because they've had no interest or experience with it; a few (such as myself) have commented moderately in a positive direction on SQ. It's the guys at the top of the masthead whose advocacy has induced the hostility on this thread. By virtue of their editorial positions and technical fluency, they had early experience with the technology and have had longer  experience with it than anyone outside the company. John Atkinson, Jim Austin, and Robert Harley have a different assessment than do mansr and Archimago and, as was the case with tubes vs transistors and analog vs. digital, we ought to be able to agree to disagree. MQA is not the existential threat to high quality audio that its detractors make it out to be.

 

Because one can make the arguments regarding lossy / lossless and DRM only so many times, the focus of the Vaporware thread has slowly morphed into a continuing dismissal of the longer-established magazines as corrupt and out-of-touch: "Old Guard" is the echo-chamber talking point term. In recent days, the criticism has included as evidence the fact that writers of these publications get to purchase gear at a reduced cost.

 

I chose to ring in because this is an odd point to make as CC and others at AS - as I'm sure most forum members assumed - have taken advantage of accommodation pricing and for the same reason I did - I have a much better audio system than I'd otherwise have to evaluate equipment and recordings and, as a result, can produce more useful reviews. Of course, Chris doesn't have to apologize. But this serves to underscore points I've made before in this forum. First, that TAS (and Stereophile) is about much more than MQA - equipment and music reviews, interviews, etc. Second, Audiophile Style has an awful lot in common with the supposedly godless "Old Guard" publications in the way it obtains and evaluates equipment, as well as the content and style of the reviews themselves.  If you feel that TAS and Stereophile are "wrong" about MQA, fine. But recognize that AS isn't some completely new animal, a novel species that will transform the audiophile world. AS joins an ecosystem that's evolved continuously over half a century, to the benefit of sound-conscious music-lovers far and wide.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[Tintinabulum]

On 8/24/2019 at 5:13 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Remember, there’s no way judge complete formats. What tracks did you listen to?

 

also, remember that some MQA sounds far different from those who worked on the album say it should sound. If you like a flavor other than what the artist intended that’s totally OK. But, we shouldn’t mandate a flavor for everyone and that’s what MQA does.

Here we go, a guy likes the sounds and we have you lot pointing out why he shouldn't. Thought police.

 

There's only one way to listen to music, and it's guess what...MQA shouldn't instruct, we should.

 

Artist intended? Really?

 

I guess this makes me a "shill" rather than someone with a difference of opinion. 

 

I have a lifetimes worth of non MQA files, artists will release non MQA files, my DAC will see me out. Sorry I don't share your paranoia, get out more.

[firedog]

34 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

 

Understanding that I'm speaking for myself and not as a representative of my magazine, this is a good opportunity to disentangle two issues - MQA and the role / value / integrity of the long-established publications.

 

There's a range of opinions regarding MQA at Stereophile and TAS. Most equipment writers have had nothing to say about it because they've had no interest or experience with it; a few (such as myself) have commented moderately in a positive direction on SQ. It's the guys at the top of the masthead whose advocacy has induced the hostility on this thread. By virtue of their editorial positions and technical fluency, they had early experience with the technology and have had longer  experience with it than anyone outside the company. John Atkinson, Jim Austin, and Robert Harley have a different assessment than do mansr and Archimago and, as was the case with tubes vs transistors and analog vs. digital, we ought to be able to agree to disagree. MQA is not the existential threat to high quality audio that its detractors make it out to be.

 

Because one can make the arguments regarding lossy / lossless and DRM only so many times, the focus of the Vaporware thread has slowly morphed into a continuing dismissal of the longer-established magazines as corrupt and out-of-touch: "Old Guard" is the echo-chamber talking point term. In recent days, the criticism has included as evidence the fact that writers of these publications get to purchase gear at a reduced cost.

 

I chose to ring in because this is an odd point to make as CC and others at AS - as I'm sure most forum members assumed - have taken advantage of accommodation pricing and for the same reason I did - I have a much better audio system than I'd otherwise have to evaluate equipment and recordings and, as a result, can produce more useful reviews. Of course, Chris doesn't have to apologize. But this serves to underscore points I've made before in this forum. First, that TAS (and Stereophile) is about much more than MQA - equipment and music reviews, interviews, etc. Second, Audiophile Style has an awful lot in common with the supposedly godless "Old Guard" publications in the way it obtains and evaluates equipment, as well as the content and style of the reviews themselves.  If you feel that TAS and Stereophile are "wrong" about MQA, fine. But recognize that AS isn't some completely new animal, a novel species that will transform the audiophile world. AS joins an ecosystem that's evolved continuously over half a century, to the benefit of sound-conscious music-lovers far and wide.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

Andrew-

All fine and good. But you and others at the magazines seem to continually try to make this discussion not about the facts of MQA, but about peripheral issues having to do with personalities.

 

So much so that you actually seemed to have missed the point of most of this thread: The refusal of the "old guard" to engage any of the factual/technical /market/economic  criticism of MQA talked about here. One small example is the repeated (and recently in this thread) and often written claim in Stereophile mentioning 4X or 8X MQA files being played back - when there is actually no such thing as a 4X or 8X MQA file.

Anyone who understands the basics of how MQA works understands that any MQA 4x or 8X rate upon playback is ONLY due to upsampling from the actual 2X rate of the MQA file. Both JA's, JVS, and others have had this pointed out to them numerous times, but insist on referring to these as 4X or 8X files in the magazine, with no qualifying remarks.

Not even something as simple as writing "listening to MQA file "ZZZZZ" upsampled by MQA at playback to 192" - or whatever formulation you decide at Stereophile most neatly and succinctly describes the truth.

 

John Atkinson even claimed here it is too "unwieldy" to say such a thing to readers. Really? Too unwieldy to say "upsampled"? 

 

I think before MQA your magazine would have been very careful to make sure readers were told an upsampled file is being referred to. Somehow for MQA the rules change. And  that change is DECEPTIVE to readers who don't understand the technical aspect and are thus lead to falsely believe that MQA files are actually 4X or 8X. Yet JA and others INSIST on describing MQA files in this deceptive way.

 

That's one small example of many. And it is nothing like arguments about "tubes vs transistors and analog vs. digital" because the discussion here is almost all about technical factors and economic/market factors, and not a discussion about whether someone likes the sound of MQA or not.  Your magazine and the others have (apparently purposely) refused to engage any of these issues. They continually repeat MQA marketing speak as if it is factual and technically accurate (it's not). 
 

And as far as MQA being a "threat" to audio: RH specifically stated that the goal of MQA and the record labels is to make sure that consumers only have access to MQA versions of files and not  to the "crown jewels" - aka actual hi-res masters. You can see that as benign - most of us don't. And Jim Austin has acknowledged various MQA  "threats" but disregards it b/c he thinks we should just accept what's "good for the industry" - in other words, what's good for corporations. 

 

In short here's what this thread is really about: How the established audio press has abandoned accuracy (I'll be nice and not say "truth") and thus abandoned high end audio consumers to the corporate interests of MQA and the record conglomerates. Like your colleagues, you seem blind to the real point. 

Chris and AS couldn't have LESS in common with the established audio magazines as far as I'm concerned. 

 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

 

Understanding that I'm speaking for myself and not as a representative of my magazine, this is a good opportunity to disentangle two issues - MQA and the role / value / integrity of the long-established publications.

 

There's a range of opinions regarding MQA at Stereophile and TAS. Most equipment writers have had nothing to say about it because they've had no interest or experience with it; a few (such as myself) have commented moderately in a positive direction on SQ. It's the guys at the top of the masthead whose advocacy has induced the hostility on this thread. By virtue of their editorial positions and technical fluency, they had early experience with the technology and have had longer  experience with it than anyone outside the company. John Atkinson, Jim Austin, and Robert Harley have a different assessment than do mansr and Archimago and, as was the case with tubes vs transistors and analog vs. digital, we ought to be able to agree to disagree. MQA is not the existential threat to high quality audio that its detractors make it out to be.

 

Because one can make the arguments regarding lossy / lossless and DRM only so many times, the focus of the Vaporware thread has slowly morphed into a continuing dismissal of the longer-established magazines as corrupt and out-of-touch: "Old Guard" is the echo-chamber talking point term. In recent days, the criticism has included as evidence the fact that writers of these publications get to purchase gear at a reduced cost.

 

I chose to ring in because this is an odd point to make as CC and others at AS - as I'm sure most forum members assumed - have taken advantage of accommodation pricing and for the same reason I did - I have a much better audio system than I'd otherwise have to evaluate equipment and recordings and, as a result, can produce more useful reviews. Of course, Chris doesn't have to apologize. But this serves to underscore points I've made before in this forum. First, that TAS (and Stereophile) is about much more than MQA - equipment and music reviews, interviews, etc. Second, Audiophile Style has an awful lot in common with the supposedly godless "Old Guard" publications in the way it obtains and evaluates equipment, as well as the content and style of the reviews themselves.  If you feel that TAS and Stereophile are "wrong" about MQA, fine. But recognize that AS isn't some completely new animal, a novel species that will transform the audiophile world. AS joins an ecosystem that's evolved continuously over half a century, to the benefit of sound-conscious music-lovers far and wide.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

But how can someone who has soo much 'technical fluency' advocate something so corrupt and corrupting as MQA (from the consumers standpoint?)  I am an EE with an agonstic viewpoint and no real interest in the industry (45yrs experience at places like Bell Labs -- working mostly as software/OS/real-time developer who often helped analog EEs solve tricky problems because my background is 'pretty good' in that area also).   As a hybrid Analog EE/DSP/real-time with a dash of RF experience, I meld these technologies together and see through a lot of nonsense (stuff like specious forms of 'digital' noise from rotating platters) -- also, 13bits of precision with 'hinting bits' using various kinds of 'unfolding' that approach 16-24bits of quality.  (Why not just give the 24bits of quality, unimpeded, right?)  Why play with the sample rate of the signal -- doing an imprecise interpolation scheme to almost restoring the sample rate?  We have PLENTY of bandwidth nowadays to fully represent the signal.  Maybe some people are still living in the times when we only had Kb/sec bandwidth available instead of Mb/sec nowadays?    Maybe still living in the times when we had Gbyte HDD instead of Tbyte?

 

When you want space compression, then use opus/aac/mp3 at the highest quality levels -- sure, there is some temporal loss, but those would only be used in the most space/bw sensitive situations.

 

MQA is wrong for the consumer as the wrong answer for the wrong problems at the wrong time -- simple as that. 

 

How can so-called 'competent' engineering capable people advocate for MQA other than influence from industry that benefits from it?  MQA sure doesn't benefit the consumer.

Answer:  those MQA advocates have some kind of synergistic relationship with the industry that they obviously represent.  This all reminds me of the more pernicious problems with mixing editorial and news content on the cable mass media nowadays.  Pretty obvious that journalism 'ethics' are pretty weak nowadays.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

And as far as MQA being a "threat" to audio: RH specifically stated that the goal of MQA and the record labels is to make sure that consumers only have access to MQA versions of files and not  to the "crown jewels" - aka actual hi-res masters.
 

It is pretty obvious that the 'industry' doesn't even realize that they are often distributing the 'Hi Res' masters already.  Refer to (for example), the Carpenters Singles album from HDtracks (just a source -- not their fault.)  Put back some of the EQ used for decoding on the cheap, and voila -- you have DolbyA source material that is VERY CLOSE to master tape (minus the tones.)

 

The industry *seems* so incompetent that they don't even know or care about what they are doing.

 

The actual problem is the MQA snake-oil and the snake-oil hucksters themselves.

 

John

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

 

Understanding that I'm speaking for myself and not as a representative of my magazine, this is a good opportunity to disentangle two issues - MQA and the role / value / integrity of the long-established publications.

 

There's a range of opinions regarding MQA at Stereophile and TAS. Most equipment writers have had nothing to say about it because they've had no interest or experience with it; a few (such as myself) have commented moderately in a positive direction on SQ. It's the guys at the top of the masthead whose advocacy has induced the hostility on this thread. By virtue of their editorial positions and technical fluency, they had early experience with the technology and have had longer  experience with it than anyone outside the company. John Atkinson, Jim Austin, and Robert Harley have a different assessment than do mansr and Archimago and, as was the case with tubes vs transistors and analog vs. digital, we ought to be able to agree to disagree. MQA is not the existential threat to high quality audio that its detractors make it out to be.

 

Because one can make the arguments regarding lossy / lossless and DRM only so many times, the focus of the Vaporware thread has slowly morphed into a continuing dismissal of the longer-established magazines as corrupt and out-of-touch: "Old Guard" is the echo-chamber talking point term. In recent days, the criticism has included as evidence the fact that writers of these publications get to purchase gear at a reduced cost.

 

I chose to ring in because this is an odd point to make as CC and others at AS - as I'm sure most forum members assumed - have taken advantage of accommodation pricing and for the same reason I did - I have a much better audio system than I'd otherwise have to evaluate equipment and recordings and, as a result, can produce more useful reviews. Of course, Chris doesn't have to apologize. But this serves to underscore points I've made before in this forum. First, that TAS (and Stereophile) is about much more than MQA - equipment and music reviews, interviews, etc. Second, Audiophile Style has an awful lot in common with the supposedly godless "Old Guard" publications in the way it obtains and evaluates equipment, as well as the content and style of the reviews themselves.  If you feel that TAS and Stereophile are "wrong" about MQA, fine. But recognize that AS isn't some completely new animal, a novel species that will transform the audiophile world. AS joins an ecosystem that's evolved continuously over half a century, to the benefit of sound-conscious music-lovers far and wide.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

 

I join @Jud in being unconcerned with the "influence peddling"/motivation allegations, and I've said many times that the obsessive focus on that is unproductive and harmful IMHO.

 

What I would very much like to push back on, however - and what I would love if you would respond to specifically - is your "agree to disagree" claim about the merits and demerits of MQA. You say that @John_Atkinson, @Jim Austin and Robert Harley have a "different assessment" of MQA than @mansr and @Archimago do.

 

If one uses "assessment" as a synonym for "opinion," I suppose that's true. But what bothers me is that mansr and arch's "assessment" is a technical one, backed up with clear quantitative data and repeatable results. The one time I am aware of that mansr and John Atkinson have discussed specific technical data about MQA, they've actually agreed on it.

 

So what I would love for you to explain is on what basis (or more simply, why) you are "moderately positive" about MQA. Do you feel there  is some demonstrated technical benefit to it? Do you disagree with mansr and arch about the evidence that MQA does not do what is claimed for it? Or are you moderately positive about it because you feel it sounds moderately better than unprocessed high-res PCM?

 

Just as it is harmful to proper discussion for folks to obsess over motives and alleged corruption, I think it is harmful to proper discussion to side-step the clear technical questions about MQA. If you want the specific line of criticism of the "old guard"/establishment audiophile press to stop, you're going to have to stop that side-stepping.

[james45974]

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Just as it is harmful to proper discussion for folks to obsess over motives and alleged corruption, I think it is harmful to proper discussion to side-step the clear technical questions about MQA. If you want the specific line of criticism of the "old guard"/establishment audiophile press to stop, you're going to have to stop that side-stepping.

The more this drags on I wonder if the side-stepping is unconscious, they may be incapable of interacting on a technical level.  The saying "book smart, common sense dumb" comes to mind.

[rickca]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

MQA is not the existential threat to high quality audio that its detractors make it out to be.

How do you know that the labels won't make MQA the sole authorized distribution format?

[crenca]

You boys aren't still responding to Old Guard self-belief and $sales narrative$ are you? 😋

 

The difference between Chris and the Old Guard is the difference between the accountable and the unaccountable, the proprietor and the confidence man, the competent at the incompetent....the true and the untrue.

[botrytis]

It is obvious as the nose on your face that the audiophile press will not bring up ANY of the issues that have been discovered about MQA. I don't know why other than the idea of killing the goose that laid the golden egg (in this case a golden pile of shite).

 

It is the subjectivist listening tests, in which we know nothing about what music, was there comparison or did were they just given the spiel and allowed to listen afterwards. This means the tests mean absolutely nothing since the influence of the press was told influences what they heard.

[kumakuma]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Second, Audiophile Style has an awful lot in common with the supposedly godless "Old Guard" publications in the way it obtains and evaluates equipment, as well as the content and style of the reviews themselves.  If you feel that TAS and Stereophile are "wrong" about MQA, fine. But recognize that AS isn't some completely new animal, a novel species that will transform the audiophile world. AS joins an ecosystem that's evolved continuously over half a century, to the benefit of sound-conscious music-lovers far and wide.

 

AS is quite different from TAS and Stereophile in that almost all the content is user generated, including all of the technical analysis done here into MQA.

 

In fact, not to denigrate Chris's fine work, this place would do fine without any reviews or editorial content at all.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

I think the JA's and AQ, et al, are just trolling the forum.  How many questions about MQA have they answered without any deflection or disingenuousness? My count is zero.

[KeenObserver]

5 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

 

Understanding that I'm speaking for myself and not as a representative of my magazine, this is a good opportunity to disentangle two issues - MQA and the role / value / integrity of the long-established publications.

 

There's a range of opinions regarding MQA at Stereophile and TAS. Most equipment writers have had nothing to say about it because they've had no interest or experience with it; a few (such as myself) have commented moderately in a positive direction on SQ. It's the guys at the top of the masthead whose advocacy has induced the hostility on this thread. By virtue of their editorial positions and technical fluency, they had early experience with the technology and have had longer  experience with it than anyone outside the company. John Atkinson, Jim Austin, and Robert Harley have a different assessment than do mansr and Archimago and, as was the case with tubes vs transistors and analog vs. digital, we ought to be able to agree to disagree. MQA is not the existential threat to high quality audio that its detractors make it out to be.

 

Because one can make the arguments regarding lossy / lossless and DRM only so many times, the focus of the Vaporware thread has slowly morphed into a continuing dismissal of the longer-established magazines as corrupt and out-of-touch: "Old Guard" is the echo-chamber talking point term. In recent days, the criticism has included as evidence the fact that writers of these publications get to purchase gear at a reduced cost.

 

I chose to ring in because this is an odd point to make as CC and others at AS - as I'm sure most forum members assumed - have taken advantage of accommodation pricing and for the same reason I did - I have a much better audio system than I'd otherwise have to evaluate equipment and recordings and, as a result, can produce more useful reviews. Of course, Chris doesn't have to apologize. But this serves to underscore points I've made before in this forum. First, that TAS (and Stereophile) is about much more than MQA - equipment and music reviews, interviews, etc. Second, Audiophile Style has an awful lot in common with the supposedly godless "Old Guard" publications in the way it obtains and evaluates equipment, as well as the content and style of the reviews themselves.  If you feel that TAS and Stereophile are "wrong" about MQA, fine. But recognize that AS isn't some completely new animal, a novel species that will transform the audiophile world. AS joins an ecosystem that's evolved continuously over half a century, to the benefit of sound-conscious music-lovers far and wide.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

"LOOK! THERE"S BIGFOOT!"

[KeenObserver]

Misdirection.

 

The bottom line is that the business model of MQA is to be the controlling body for music distribution.

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Misdirection.

 

The bottom line is that the business model of MQA is to be the company controlling music distribution.

 

Fixed it for you. There is no 'body', like the USB consortium. There is only MQA.