MQA is Vaporware

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Many of those don't bother me. Writers have creative license to describe these things how they wish. Number 5 could be innocent ignorance of what's going on and number 4 could use an explanation that all of this sonic change could be done without MQA.

 

 

The problem for me -- I normally try to avoid 'audiophile-jargon'. (not because of arrogance -- simply because don't seem to understand the language.)    When I have a friend write that language, it usually takes me a few iterations to figure out what technically is really happening.  There might have been some concrete and well defined language in the referred-to list of items by 'lucretius', but the dialect was so obscure to me that it was entertaining.

 

My language skills REALLY suck, and I struggle so hard to TRY desperately to write/speak in concrete & standard terms.  It is often significantly more difficult to write in concrete terms -- not always succeeding -- but I am trying to be technically as accurate as I can be.  (I admit to long, rambling messages that could probably be cut by 1/2 -- and I do try to economize.)

 

However -- 'feeling/mood' language adds a layer of complexity on the goal to actually communicate.  When someone might claim that a piece of software produces  'excessive sibilance' (which is a good description) -- that gives me a hint as to what is going on, and then I can refer to the frequency response curves of U47/SM57 and other oft-used vocal mics, research if there might be other problems also -- interpreting the language into an actual cause.   On the other hand, when something is written like 'makes me cringe' -- it adds a layer of search and translation to figure out what the complaint really means.  If I didn't REALLY REALLY care to communicate, I'd blow off the matter, but I really do care.  I really want to communicate.

 

Maybe I am biased because emotional/feeling language has frustrated me so often that I am emotionally tied up about it -- but a lot of times, there can be technically more accurate language.  The  language used in the audiophile community is similar in complexity to the actual techno-speak, so why not morph to a more technically clear language.  Sometimes I am even confused as to what I am trying to explain -- but I try to explain with caveats -- not create a new term or choose imprecise jargon.

 

I do REALLY admit that I have probably become a little biased because it is a recurring frustration, and is mostly not total incompetence on the part of those writing the jargon.  It would just be nice if the language would be 'regular' (in a language-technical sense) and easier to interpret.  (I had a heck of a time trying to translate the improved/more structrually continuous front-back stereo image when using my software, how does one communicate that fact in 'jargon''?)  I subsequently read someone using the term 'height', but still don't really know what that means -- but I have a FEELING about it :-).

 

John

 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

Were all these made by JVS when comparing an MQA track to the equivalent PCM?

 

If so, then they all rest on the technical assertions (all false) of MQA.

 

All the quotes come from here:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqas-sound-convinces-hardened-showgoers

 

Quotes belong to Peter McGrath, Jason Victor Serinus, and John Atkinson. I don't remember if any of the quotes came from Michael Fremer, who was also at the same event.

 

 

 

Try to convince me that Bob Stuart never raised the question:

“Is there anything we can do for you?”

 

Also, 4 writers/editors at the same show. Didn't strike me that Stereophile had that much money to burn. All expenses paid?

 

[Jud]

31 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I do REALLY admit that I have probably become a little biased because it is a recurring frustration, and is mostly not total incompetence on the part of those writing the jargon.  It would just be nice if the language would be 'regular' (in a language-technical sense) and easier to interpret.

 

This is a problem specifically with regard to MQA and the journalism around it.  MQA deliberately uses non-standard language like "deblurring" and "unfolding."  If they then produced white papers describing what these meant in standard terms - filters that aren't as subject to the Gibbs effect for "deblurring," upsampling or still better interpolation/sample rate conversion for "unfolding" - I'd give them a pass for using marketing-speak with laypeople and clearing it up for the technically savvy.  But they haven't done so.  This task then falls naturally to audio journalists.  But I've seen nothing of the kind from the larger audio magazines (as always, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).  It just seems so fundamental to me that audio journalists ought to be clearly explaining to audiophiles what is actually happening with the equipment and software being marketed to them.  Science journalists (good ones) do this about science, economics journalists do this about economics....  I think it's absolutely part of the job description, or should be.

 

@ARQuint - Andrew, I certainly don't have an axe to grind with regard to the magazines.  I haven't indulged in speculation about motives, or made personal or angry comments.  It's simply frustrating to me that the magazines haven't taken up more discussion of what I see as clearly put technical criticisms of MQA made here by quite reasonably competent people like mansr and Miska, aside from anything said by the pseudonymous Archimago.  As an audiophile, I want to know what's going on.  I'm not getting that.  I can't see a good reason why I shouldn't, since I do get it with journalism on other subjects, many quite a bit more complex than anything to do with audio.  So I hope you can understand my frustration as someone who would like to learn more from people who say they have another side to the story, but won't provide that story to me in clear and understandable terms.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

This is a problem specifically with regard to MQA and the journalism around it.  MQA deliberately uses non-standard language like "deblurring" and "unfolding."  If they then produced white papers describing what these meant in standard terms - filters that aren't as subject to the Gibbs effect for "deblurring," upsampling or still better interpolation/sample rate conversion for "unfolding" - I'd give them a pass for using marketing-speak with laypeople and clearing it up for the technically savvy.  But they haven't done so.  This task then falls naturally to audio journalists.  But I've seen nothing of the kind from the larger audio magazines (as always, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).  It just seems so fundamental to me that audio journalists ought to be clearly explaining to audiophiles what is actually happening with the equipment and software being marketed to them.  Science journalists (good ones) do this about science, economics journalists do this about economics....  I think it's absolutely part of the job description, or should be.

 

@ARQuint - Andrew, I certainly don't have an axe to grind with regard to the magazines.  I haven't indulged in speculation about motives, or made personal or angry comments.  It's simply frustrating to me that the magazines haven't taken up more discussion of what I see as clearly put technical criticisms of MQA made here by quite reasonably competent people like mansr and Miska, aside from anything said by the pseudonymous Archimago.  As an audiophile, I want to know what's going on.  I'm not getting that.  I can't see a good reason why I shouldn't, since I do get it with journalism on other subjects, many quite a bit more complex than anything to do with audio.  So I hope you can understand my frustration as someone who would like to learn more from people who say they have another side to the story, but won't provide that story to me in clear and understandable terms.

 

I know, I know, but just to state the obvious:

 

1)  You keep saying "journalists" as if ARQuint, the JA's, Harley, JVS, etc. are "journalists".  They are no such thing, they are trade promoters and trade publication "writers".  Harley actually comes the closest to doing an imitation of a "journalist" when it comes to MQA because near the beginning he spoke about the DRM, "crown jewels", and the implications of "listening to the 'master' without actually having it" (i.e. MQA as a lossy proprietary black box DRM container).

 

2)  Trade writers do not possess technical competence, and do not have the motivation/methodology for outsourcing it like a journalist would, so they are never going to address this aspect of MQA excepting in situations where they can appear to address it (like one of the usual 'reviews') without actually having to understand it, ask competent questions, etc.  Technical truth is not what trade writers do.

 

3)  Trade writers don't have technical or investigative skills.  They have "relationship" skills.  @Currawongspoke to this last page - these publications are about relationships and trade promotion.  It's not what you know (the truth of digital fill_in_the_blank), it's who you know.  ARQuint had no other basis to make an informed judgement, so he listens to the audio savants such as Bob Stuart and all the marketing speak and just assumes its true.  He then comes here to reinforce the relationships that are important to him and his customers who are neither the readers of his publication (and obviously not this forum) nor any other consumer.  The truth is only useful to the end goal of the relationships, and when it is not then falsehood works just as well...

[esldude]

50 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

This is a problem specifically with regard to MQA and the journalism around it.  MQA deliberately uses non-standard language like "deblurring" and "unfolding."  If they then produced white papers describing what these meant in standard terms - filters that aren't as subject to the Gibbs effect for "deblurring," upsampling or still better interpolation/sample rate conversion for "unfolding" - I'd give them a pass for using marketing-speak with laypeople and clearing it up for the technically savvy.  But they haven't done so.  This task then falls naturally to audio journalists.  But I've seen nothing of the kind from the larger audio magazines (as always, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).  It just seems so fundamental to me that audio journalists ought to be clearly explaining to audiophiles what is actually happening with the equipment and software being marketed to them.  Science journalists (good ones) do this about science, economics journalists do this about economics....  I think it's absolutely part of the job description, or should be.

 

@ARQuint - Andrew, I certainly don't have an axe to grind with regard to the magazines.  I haven't indulged in speculation about motives, or made personal or angry comments.  It's simply frustrating to me that the magazines haven't taken up more discussion of what I see as clearly put technical criticisms of MQA made here by quite reasonably competent people like mansr and Miska, aside from anything said by the pseudonymous Archimago.  As an audiophile, I want to know what's going on.  I'm not getting that.  I can't see a good reason why I shouldn't, since I do get it with journalism on other subjects, many quite a bit more complex than anything to do with audio.  So I hope you can understand my frustration as someone who would like to learn more from people who say they have another side to the story, but won't provide that story to me in clear and understandable terms.

We do have articles by the newer JA which appears to mimic or add support to the blurry definitions of standard terms MQA uses.  Reads almost like a shill version which MQA approved of prior to publication.  I like some others would like for Stereophile to print an article from Mansr and those mansr wished to have work on it with him. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

All the quotes come from here:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqas-sound-convinces-hardened-showgoers

 

Quotes belong to Peter McGrath, Jason Victor Serinus, and John Atkinson. I don't remember if any of the quotes came from Michael Fremer, who was also at the same event.

 

 

 

Try to convince me that Bob Stuart never raised the question:

“Is there anything we can do for you?”

 

Also, 4 writers/editors at the same show. Didn't strike me that Stereophile had that much money to burn. All expenses paid?

 

Not one under 70. And yet they heard the angels sing and tears were cried because the sound was truer than the truest truth.....better than the microphone feed... 🤠

[mansr]

33 minutes ago, esldude said:

We do have articles by the newer JA which appears to mimic or add support to the blurry definitions of standard terms MQA uses.  Reads almost like a shill version which MQA approved of prior to publication.  I like some others would like for Stereophile to print an article from Mansr and those mansr wished to have work on it with him. 

For the record, that's a farce I will not subject myself to.

[Ralf11]

hardened showgoers

 

 

hahahahahaha

[Ralf11]

Trade writers = PR shills for magazines' advertisers

[Currawong]

15 hours ago, ARQuint said:

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, I don't blame people for taking this tone. As what might be considered a "new guard" reviewer, I have some insight into your world.  I don't disagree with what you say, but my perspective of what has happened, as I explained in my previous posts, is more I believe the result of members of the audio press being taken by surprise, discovering from technical analysis, that MQA was, and is, based on a number of blatant lies, and even after the "lossless" term was removed, continued deception as to how it works, and whether it can do what it says it does. They have been caught in a very uncomfortable position.

 

I came to CA/AS to learn more about MQA as people were asking me about it, because my aim, as a reviewer, is to give the best, succinct understanding of the technical issues, and my experiences with products, so that a person can judge whether it would be suitable for them or not to buy. If I find I've made a mistake in a review, I correct it, which is the right thing to do.

 

However, itt has been pointed out to many members of the audiophile press that MQA does not have an "original resolution" beyond 96 kHz, and that writing that MQA was "unfolded to 192 kHz" or similar in their publications is false. When some other publications were contacted years ago and were informed that MQA was not lossless, they corrected their reviews. So far, we've seen zero corrections or updates on Stereophile, going all the way back to the original article about it. Can you really blame people for being highly suspicious when they refuse to correct factual errors in their publications?

 

9 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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.

 

That's somewhat unfair. John Atkinson did actually go out of his way to reproduce one of mansr's tests. Though they have been dancing around the elephant in the room more recently. I find it interesting that they have been silent about the issue of corrections, and how to present MQA unfolding and up-sampling in articles.  Maybe we'll see a change, maybe not.  What they choose to do now will decide their future. There are many companies out there no longer with us because they tried to rely on their status alone to deal with factual realities.

 

The present situation reminds me too much of John 15:22 (and I'm not religious):

 

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin"

[esldude]

30 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

hardened showgoers

 

 

hahahahahaha

Must be referring to their arteries.

[botrytis]

I was in a room with one of those writers, at last years AXPONA and he was pulling out some awful recordings, like Peter, Paul and Mary on 45's. They sound like ass. These are the golden ears writing reviews?

 

You would think they would pull out the best recordings. The gent in the room was almost kneeling like he was before a god, just was kind of weird.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

Trade writers...have "relationship" skills.  @Currawongspoke to this last page - these publications are about relationships and trade promotion.

 

I'm old enough to remember an acid-penned HP writing for an Absolute Sound that didn't take advertising. I really enjoyed the magazine then.  (Not that this was a sustainable business model, or that HP's reviews were without their own faults.)

 

Maybe it's my presbyopia that made me so very tired of trying to read between the lines of the next laudatory review, and the next and the next, to try to figure out even on a subjective level how various products might compare, until I finally gave up.  So it isn't even on my own behalf, but for audiophiles who deserve to be informed, that I'm frustrated.

[botrytis]

23 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm old enough to remember an acid-penned HP writing for an Absolute Sound that didn't take advertising. I really enjoyed the magazine then.  (Not that this was a sustainable business model, or that HP's reviews were without their own faults.)

 

Maybe it's my presbyopia that made me so very tired of trying to read between the lines of the next laudatory review, and the next and the next, to try to figure out even on a subjective level how various products might compare, until I finally gave up.  So it isn't even on my own behalf, but for audiophiles who deserve to be informed, that I'm frustrated.

 

Cooks Illustrated is a magazine that does not take advertisements. It is possible but one has to really plan what one reviews, etc. I mean I do not think Cook's Illustrated would review a 450K food processor. It wouldn't make no sense. They cater to their audience. 

[rwdvis]

2 hours ago, Currawong said:

That's somewhat unfair. John Atkinson did actually go out of his way to reproduce one of mansr's tests.

 

From what I recall, the only reason he did this was because he thought he had found an error in Mans testing and was looking for a “gotcha” moment.  There was no real interest in any testing or analysis of MQA.

 

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

I get an order form. Maybe Stereophile is banned by your ISP. To protect the children, of course.

 

After sever hours, finally the link is working for me. Very strange.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Also, 4 writers/editors at the same show. Didn't strike me that Stereophile had that much money to burn. All expenses paid?

 

Getting a little picky here, I think. That's what audio maganzines do, and it takes more than one person to cover a good size show. 

[mansr]

6 hours ago, rwdvis said:

From what I recall, the only reason he did this was because he thought he had found an error in Mans testing and was looking for a “gotcha” moment.  There was no real interest in any testing or analysis of MQA.

And then he proceeded to not know how to read a scope display, not understand resampling, and misconfigure his own measurement gear.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Cooks Illustrated is a magazine that does not take advertisements. It is possible but one has to really plan what one reviews, etc. I mean I do not think Cook's Illustrated would review a 450K food processor. It wouldn't make no sense. They cater to their audience. 

 

What you've pointed out is that (1) In cooking it's not as much about the equipment as in audio; (2) Much of the equipment is not of the same order of expense.

 

These factors make sustaining a no-advertising model more likely.

 

Consumer Reports takes no advertising, but it's much more of a general interest publication that has a subscription and donor base an audio magazine couldn't hope to duplicate.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

What you've pointed out is that (1) In cooking it's not as much about the equipment as in audio; (2) Much of the equipment is not of the same order of expense.

 

These factors make sustaining a no-advertising model more likely.

 

Consumer Reports takes no advertising, but it's much more of a general interest publication that has a subscription and donor base an audio magazine couldn't hope to duplicate.

 

People like to think that audio is 'special'. I try not to think of it that way as then one starts down the slippery slope that audio files are special and they don't follow the laws of science, etc. 

 

I would prefer magazines to be more detached so the reviews are more objective rather flouncy and flowery. But then, the writers wouldn't have so much to write about.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

People like to think that audio is 'special'. I try not to think of it that way as then one starts down the slippery slope that audio files are special and they don't follow the laws of science, etc. 

 

I would prefer magazines to be more detached so the reviews are more objective rather flouncy and flowery. But then, the writers wouldn't have so much to write about.

Real life and your preference are at odds here. There’s nothing special about audio, but it’s a tiny niche that doesn’t attract a broad audience that could fund a reader supported model. I’m sure the same can be said for luxury watches and many other non-special categories. 

 

I’d love to get rid of advertisements but that model only works for Consumer Reports and publications with large pockets / trust funds. 

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Real life and your preference are at odds here. There’s nothing special about audio, but it’s a tiny niche that doesn’t attract a broad audience that could fund a reader supported model. I’m sure the same can be said for luxury watches and many other non-special categories. 

 

I’d love to get rid of advertisements but that model only works for Consumer Reports and publications with large pockets / trust funds. 

 

I was talking about the writing style of the reviewers is all.

 

It isn't a preference really, just thinking out loud, it is morning after all and I don't have much in the way of science to deal with this morning, for a change.

[mansr]

This article on Audioholics about some Dolby shenanigans has relevance for any closed format, including MQA:

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-widthdraws-from-restricting-non-native-upmixing-a-win-for-consumers

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Consumer Reports takes no advertising, but it's much more of a general interest publication that has a subscription and donor base an audio magazine couldn't hope to duplicate.

That's true.  But Stereophile might greatly increase their subscription base, if they stopped targeting the 1%.

[lucretius]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

This article on Audioholics about some Dolby shenanigans has relevance for any closed format, including MQA:

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-widthdraws-from-restricting-non-native-upmixing-a-win-for-consumers

 

So whose going to bring MQA to the attention of the European Commission?