MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

MQA is a 30 million Euro rat hole of Reinet Investments.

 

If an investment group has invested that much, how much do they expect to recoup out of the pockets of the music consumer?

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

 

If an investment group has invested that much, how much do they expect to recoup out of the pockets of the music consumer?

 

Half a billion dollars

[Teresa]

 

On 9/20/2019 at 11:25 AM, crenca said:

...What, exactly is an "analogue waveform" and how is it materially different from an "digital waveform"?  We know that factually they are the same...

 

I never knew there was such a thing as a digital waveform. My DAC (digital to analog converter) converts binary digital to an analog waveform my speakers can reproduce. I thought binary digital has just two states and that digital has to be converted to analog before it can be heard as sound.

[crenca]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

 

I never knew there was such a thing as a digital waveform. My DAC (digital to analog converter) converts binary digital to an analog waveform my speakers can reproduce. I thought binary digital has just two states and that digital has to be converted to analog before it can be heard as sound.

 

Exactly, there is but one waveform to rule them all 😉

 

Yet in "High End" and Audiophiledom there is an attempt by the confidence men marketing men to explain (if your being generous) and/or obfuscate this to various ends...

 

edit:  this is a good primer:

 

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/08/musings-demo-why-bits-are-bits-lets-not.html

[FredericV]

Damn this is so misleading. They claim Marijn Nederlof (Meridian distributor) and Hans Beekhuyzen (the guy who does NOT understand MQA) are the authorities on MQA.

Hans still believes there is a third unfold. Hans is wrong. Hans does not correct his mistakes on his website.

Thanks for spreading these lies in the official X-FI magazine. They sure must have deluded the audience with MQA evangelist marketing BS - which was fully debunked here on CA.

 

Those who have really looked under the hood, like @Archimago @mansr probably have a better understanding of MQA than those two Dutch guys combined. I'm pretty sure the fake authentication, and upsampling in the renderer, and pseudo 17/96 hi-res with crypto DRM, will not be discussed in the evangelists talk.

I also did take a look, but our research is ignored by these false bringers of the fake light:
 

 

[Archimago]

16 hours ago, FredericV said:

Damn this is so misleading. They claim Marijn Nederlof (Meridian distributor) and Hans Beekhuyzen (the guy who does NOT understand MQA) are the authorities on MQA.

Hans still believes there is a third unfold. Hans is wrong. Hans does not correct his mistakes on his website.

Thanks for spreading these lies in the official X-FI magazine. They sure must have deluded the audience with MQA evangelist marketing BS - which was fully debunked here on CA.

 

Those who have really looked under the hood, like @Archimago @mansr probably have a better understanding of MQA than those two Dutch guys combined. I'm pretty sure the fake authentication, and upsampling in the renderer, and pseudo 17/96 hi-res with crypto DRM, will not be discussed in the evangelists talk.

I also did take a look, but our research is ignored by these false bringers of the fake light:
 

 

 

Interesting update @FredericV. Curious how large the conference/show is? 

 

So is Hans Beekhuyzen a well-known figure among the Dutch audiophiles over the years and before his YouTube videos? He seems to be one of these guys who have lots of words and his main job is to spread uncertainty by generalizing about "cheap" vs. expensive parts, push certain products, and scare people about "jitter" and such. Funny how he's starting to equivocate about the generalization he has tended to hold about switching vs. linear power supplies in recent video on "What makes a good DAC?". I cringe every time I hear him say at the end of his videos that supporting him financially keeps him "independent and therefore trustworthy". I think those are very different things.

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, Archimago said:

I cringe every time I hear him say at the end of his videos that supporting him financially keeps him "independent and therefore trustworthy". I think those are very different things.

+100, no matter who the person is. 
 

Independent = Independent 

Trustworthy = Trustworthy 

 

There’s no other equation or logic to use that involves both of those and includes a causal relationship or correlation. 
 

 

[Madra]

There is actually one:

Not Independent= Not Trustworthy

[Josh Mound]

After the MQA thread over at ASR had to be locked months ago because Amir was getting pilloried by his own followers for his blind appeals to authority on behalf of Bob Stuart, Amir has unlocked the thread in order to post more blind appeals to authority and specious arguments on behalf of Rob Harley (and against Archimago).

 

Got to love a proprietor of an audio “science” forum who defends MQA!

 

Thankfully, @mitchco called Amir on it over at ASR. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Madra said:

There is actually one:

Not Independent= Not Trustworthy

No.  

[mansr]

1 hour ago, JoshM said:

After the MQA thread over at ASR had to locked months ago because Amir was getting pilloried by his own followers for his blind appeals to authority on behalf of Bob Stuart, Amir has unlocked the thread in order to post more blind appeals to authority and specious arguments on behalf of Rob Harley (and against Archimago).

 

Got to love a proprietor of an audio “science” forum who defends MQA!

 

Thankfully, @mitchco called Amir on it over at ASR. 

I suspect Amir's bizarre stance on MQA is due to some kind of misplaced sympathy rooted in his own failure to gain traction for WMA combined with an absurd notion that every venture somehow deserves to succeed, no matter how insane. Like Lee Scoggins, he keeps talking about "business" while completely ignoring the technical realities he (unlike Scoggins) otherwise purports to espouse. As jarring as the dissonance is, perhaps his system is not sufficiently resolving for him to perceive it.

[Josh Mound]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Interesting update @FredericV. Curious how large the conference/show is? 

 

So is Hans Beekhuyzen a well-known figure among the Dutch audiophiles over the years and before his YouTube videos? He seems to be one of these guys who have lots of words and his main job is to spread uncertainty by generalizing about "cheap" vs. expensive parts, push certain products, and scare people about "jitter" and such. Funny how he's starting to equivocate about the generalization he has tended to hold about switching vs. linear power supplies in recent video on "What makes a good DAC?". I cringe every time I hear him say at the end of his videos that supporting him financially keeps him "independent and therefore trustworthy". I think those are very different things.

 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

+100, no matter who the person is. 
 

Independent = Independent 

Trustworthy = Trustworthy 

 

There’s no other equation or logic to use that involves both of those and includes a causal relationship or correlation. 
 

 

 

Exactly. We can debate whether advertising or donations is more likely to facilitate independence, but there's nothing inherent in donations that creates independence. If that were so, all politicians' views would be completely independent! In the case of donor-supported internet publications, donations can potentially incentivize playing to the prejudices of donors, just as advertising might potentially lead to favoring the products of advertisers. (IMHO, the former is the case with ASR's Schiit-bashing and general disdain for anything perceived as popular among "audiophiles.")

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

...Like Lee Scoggins, he keeps talking about "business" while completely ignoring the technical realities he (unlike Scoggins) otherwise purports to espouse. As jarring as the dissonance is, perhaps his system is not sufficiently resolving for him to perceive it.

 

Amir's background is big IT no?  Perhaps his loyalty/class consciousness is getting the best of him...

[Josh Mound]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

I suspect Amir's bizarre stance on MQA is due to some kind of misplaced sympathy rooted in his own failure to gain traction for WMA combined with an absurd notion that every venture somehow deserves to succeed, no matter how insane. Like Lee Scoggins, he keeps talking about "business" while completely ignoring the technical realities he (unlike Scoggins) otherwise purports to espouse. As jarring as the dissonance is, perhaps his system is not sufficiently resolving for him to perceive it.

 

[crenca]

"rooted in his own failure to gain traction for WMA"

 

So Amir is another Copernicus want-a-be...

[mansr]

42 minutes ago, crenca said:

Amir's background is big IT no?  Perhaps his loyalty/class consciousness is getting the best of him...

He was some sort of manager in the Microsoft audio group around the time WMA failed rather miserably in the marketplace.

[Dr Tone]

If he had a following, he's slowly losing it.

 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

If he had a following, he's slowly losing it.

 

 

Unfortunately it appears Amir has gotten a bit lost in Audiophiledom, which is fist and foremost a confidence game of authority.  

[Josh Mound]

1 hour ago, Dr Tone said:

 

 

I may or may not have had something to do with that post. 😉

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

He was some sort of manager in the Microsoft audio group around the time WMA failed rather miserably in the marketplace.

 

He was an executive involved with WMA, DVD-HD, and Zune. If you Google his name with each of those keywords, you’ll find some interesting stuff. Same with searching for his name in the emails made public during the MS DOJ antitrust suit. 

 

A quick summary of ASR is: The guy who oversaw MS Zune and WMA retired rich and is now asking people with less money than him to send him money to run a site where he calls other people bad engineers. 

 

Had he stayed out of the MQA debate, or come out against it, he could have the veneer of consistency, at least according to his own quixotic definition of “audio science.” But his tedious MQA defenses demolish even that. 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, Dr Tone said:

If he had a following, he's slowly losing it.

 

 

Interesting!

 

Seems like Amir (Chief "Fun" Officer indeed) is getting a little too engrossed in the concept of "authority" and what that means for hobbyists.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning Bob Stuart and his academic CV (okay, maybe a few of you have some concerns with his recent work 😉). Nor has anyone questioned the fact that Harley has been around for awhile and has been involved in many audiophile magazines. However, neither of these things - "academic authority" nor magazine editor experience/"authority" - need be that important when determining if 2+2=4 or MQA is any good as judged by some facts we can all have access to and verify for ourselves if we look around (especially thanks to the work of others like @mansr). Can't we not have "faith" in these "authorities" when evidence shows otherwise?

 

In my world, those who are truly respectable are usually too humble to accept that the word "authority" needs apply to themselves. They speak up for themselves and bring facts along for the discussion. Able to accept, learn, and change when they're wrong.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, Archimago said:

In my world, those who are truly respectable are usually too humble to accept that the word "authority" needs apply to themselves. They speak up for themselves and bring facts along for the discussion. Able to accept, learn, and change when they're wrong.

I’ve found this in many “worlds” as well. 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

As jarring as the dissonance is, perhaps his system is not sufficiently resolving for him to perceive it.

 

That probably also accounts for a large % of the potential customers of MQA encoded material, that are likely to take the heavily promoted BS as factual, because the manufacturer of the equipment that they are looking at to play it with, has this decoding facility incorporated. Their  logic being, why would it be there unless it was worthwhile ?

[crenca]

19 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

I don't think anyone is questioning Bob Stuart and his academic CV...

 

AES is not an "academic" organization is it?  I thought it was an industry group created by and for the industry and its authoritative insiders.  Is Bob Stuart an actual academic?

 

22 minutes ago, Archimago said:

In my world, those who are truly respectable are usually too humble to accept that the word "authority" needs apply to themselves. They speak up for themselves and bring facts along for the discussion. Able to accept, learn, and change when they're wrong.

 

Is there a significant authority in Audiophiledom who has "accepted, learned, changed" and thus walked back his initial support of MQA?  Amir it seems is just another Audiophile insider with a crisis of authority around MQA.  

 

It also appears you have gotten under his skin a bit @Archimago, in that your the real "objectivist" in the room.

 

MQA is wonderful in its ability to burn down and reveal the naked belly of these alleged authorities...

[Ralf11]

Harley lacks even the most basic understanding of audio - see the thread on his book for just a few examples, and not just digital audio either.

[Josh Mound]

28 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Interesting!

 

Seems like Amir (Chief "Fun" Officer indeed) is getting a little too engrossed in the concept of "authority" and what that means for hobbyists.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning Bob Stuart and his academic CV (okay, maybe a few of you have some concerns with his recent work 😉). Nor has anyone questioned the fact that Harley has been around for awhile and has been involved in many audiophile magazines. However, neither of these things - "academic authority" nor magazine editor experience/"authority" - need be that important when determining if 2+2=4 or MQA is any good as judged by some facts we can all have access to and verify for ourselves if we look around (especially thanks to the work of others like @mansr). Can't we not have "faith" in these "authorities" when evidence shows otherwise?

 

In my world, those who are truly respectable are usually too humble to accept that the word "authority" needs apply to themselves. They speak up for themselves and bring facts along for the discussion. Able to accept, learn, and change when they're wrong.

 

 

Yes. If you’re out at a bar with a science teacher and a lawyer, and they’re debating what’s in the periodic table, you should listen to the science teacher. But the science teacher should be more than happy for you to Google it when you get home. Expertise is an indicator of knowledge, not a substitute for knowledge. It’s a problem if an expert wants you to trust them blindly.