MQA is Vaporware

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, Currawong said:

 While Bob's words that I posted above are more reserved than they were, he has instead resorted to suitably undefined terms such as the "the definitive sound", and this after trying to re-define "lossless" as something that isn't lossless.

 

 I have major problems with his claims too, and with a sample of MQA vs. High Res file some time back I markedly preferred the original.

[Rt66indierock]

On 1/2/2020 at 11:48 AM, KeenObserver said:

There seems to be a recent resurgence of people that want to point out that MQA critics are an unwashed bunch of uncivil heathens.  These people are anointed from on high and know better than us.  We should just accept their pronouncements. 

 

By attacking us they are hoping folks won’t notice the authority figures in high end audio are an unwashed bunch of heathens whose expertise should be questioned 24/7. Consider.

As several Stereophile readers have wryly noted John Atkinson looks pretty scruffy at times.

Nobody can tell me where Robert Harley got his degree.

Steven Stone’s background in photography and his admitted hearing loss don’t inspire confidence.

John Darko was a DJ.

Jim Austin’s meltdowns here, Audio Asylum and on pro audio sites are legendary.

Herb Reichert’s parroting of MQA talking points to me cemented his status as a sheep.

And what are my friend Andy Quint’s audio qualifications?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

By attacking us they are hoping folks won’t notice the authority figures in high end audio are an unwashed bunch of heathens whose expertise should be questioned 24/7. Consider.

As several Stereophile readers have wryly noted John Atkinson looks pretty scruffy at times.

Nobody can tell me where Robert Harley got his degree.

Steven Stone’s background in photography and his admitted hearing loss don’t inspire confidence.

John Darko was a DJ.

Jim Austin’s meltdowns here, Audio Asylum and on pro audio sites are legendary.

Herb Reichert’s parroting of MQA talking points to me cemented his status as a sheep.

And what are my friend Andy Quint’s audio qualifications?

You are spot on. But you have just scraped the surface. 🤪

[christopher3393]

8 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

You are spot on. But you have just scraped the surface. 🤪

 

Please do go on! What about...Steve Hoffman, for example?   🐷

[The Computer Audiophile]

Please note that I have zero audio qualifications, often look scruffy, and was a DJ for my friend’s parent’s 40th wedding anniversary party (because I knew how the equipment worked). 

[KeenObserver]

LOL!

 

How's the vacation going?

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

LOL!

 

How's the vacation going?

Back home to snow and cold 😢

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Back home to snow and cold 😢

 

 

but think of the lutefisk availability - hard to find in the tropics!

[charlesphoto]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Back home to snow and cold 😢

 

We're needing some of that here in the PNW. Our skiing is being severely compromised (not to mention snow pack for more important reasons).

 

We go to Kauai in mid February. Go every year - first the Big Island, then our friends moved to Kauai three years ago. We don't stay with them, just visit.  Kauai is lovely, but can be a bit rainy. Big Island has lots of variation, and things to do, so maybe try that next. More driving though.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Please note that I have zero audio qualifications, often look scruffy, and was a DJ for my friend’s parent’s 40th wedding anniversary party (because I knew how the equipment worked). 

 

Sure, but the difference is that you would not then take your "qualifications" and pronounce something like:

 

"By all appearances, the MQA revolution is poised to do for the music industry what the latest Star Wars blockbuster is doing for movies. MQA may not be the final frontier, but it is scrubbing clean decades worth of digital files beset with temporal blur (timing errors) and quantization distortion and computational-induced noise." 

[Sonicularity]

The empirical evidence provided in these forums and at @Archimago's site from the work of @mansr left no room for any logical counter.  I'm embarrassed for those that tried to blindly support MQA before, and disgusted by those that still try and support it now.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

You are spot on. But you have just scraped the surface. 🤪

I would like others to contribute. Everyone  should do a little research and chip in.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Please do go on! What about...Steve Hoffman, for example?   🐷

Another shining example of your incivility here. Or do you think Steve Hoffman just runs a web site?

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Please note that I have zero audio qualifications

 
That has defined our interactions in a lot of ways.

 

PS if you haven’t scratched records are you a real DJ?

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Sure, but the difference is that you would not then take your "qualifications" and pronounce something like:

 

"By all appearances, the MQA revolution is poised to do for the music industry what the latest Star Wars blockbuster is doing for movies. MQA may not be the final frontier, but it is scrubbing clean decades worth of digital files beset with temporal blur (timing errors) and quantization distortion and computational-induced noise." 

 

I can fix that Quote:

 

"By all appearances, the MQA revolution is poised to ruin the music industry just as the latest Star Wars blockbuster is ruining movies. MQA may not be the final frontier in consumer control, but it is scrubbing clean decades worth of attempted mind-control by Sony and other video formats, by misleading people about digital files beset with temporal blur (timing errors) and quantization distortion and computational-induced noise." 

 

 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

by misleading people about digital files beset with temporal blur (timing errors) and quantization distortion and computational-induced noise." 

 The misleading bit here is from you.

John Dyson is already correcting the above (and more !) with many famous recordings from yesteryear, without the need to create a new  standard , or new hardware requirements designed to fill the coffers of the MQA brigade, the record companies and some Hardware manufacturers.

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Another shining example of your incivility here. Or do you think Steve Hoffman just runs a web site?

 

Apologies, Domine! Perhaps you don't recall in the moment that Steve Hoffman was, shall we say, maligned by one of your greatest supporters? Or, at least that's how it appeared. Crazy social media, eh? Some people have very short memories here about their own faux pas, but an infinite memory for those of their opponent. If we could move past the campaign posturings of  "Our side's" unblemished history, we might have something here.

 

Those of you that have been strongly anti-MQA ( which ,depending on what form, makes good sense!), do you have any regrets regarding any posts you made, some of which, while literally may have been "on topic" may have derailed more genuine conversation? I'll readily say that, imo, Lee Scoggins acquitted himself very poorly here and elsewhere for reasons that were laid out best by firedog and tmtomh among others. And there were at least a couple of others that struck me as zealots of a hobby fanatic or die-hard advert type.

And I welcomed the helpful summaries of Archimago, Chris Connaker  and Jud. As well as Mansr's crucial efforts.  In fact after this thread was going for a month or two, I tested Tidal MQA for myself for a few hours. My results were inconclusive at the time, but that was enough for me to drop Tidal. I had committed a lot of time to organizing Tidal so it was loss in some ways to give up. And I'm an avid listener with somewhat unusual taste.

 

But no, not an industry dupe or a naive civility freak. So I don't fit your stereotype that some of you keep insisting upon, at your own convenience. I happen to think that this forum would be better served by a generally higher ethical standard. Look mat the 3 best examples of MQA critique from this forum! They maintain. Why don't more of you believe that these examples are the best way to go on this and some other issues?

 

...And now this will be called derailing and other specious things. So it goes.

 

Manage the damage.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Apologies, Domine! Perhaps you don't recall in the moment that Steve Hoffman was, shall we say, maligned by one of your greatest supporters? Or, at least that's how it appeared. Crazy social media, eh? Some people have very short memories here about their own faux pas, but an infinite memory for those of their opponent. If we could move past the campaign posturings of  "Our side's" unblemished history, we might have something here.

 

Those of you that have been strongly anti-MQA ( which ,depending on what form, makes good sense!), do you have any regrets regarding any posts you made, some of which, while literally may have been "on topic" may have derailed more genuine conversation? I'll readily say that, imo, Lee Scoggins acquitted himself very poorly here and elsewhere for reasons that were laid out best by firedog and tmtomh among others. And there were at least a couple of others that struck me as zealots of a hobby fanatic or die-hard advert type.

And I welcomed the helpful summaries of Archimago, Chris Connaker  and Jud. As well as Mansr's crucial efforts.  In fact after this thread was going for a month or two, I tested Tidal MQA for myself for a few hours. My results were inconclusive at the time, but that was enough for me to drop Tidal. I had committed a lot of time to organizing Tidal so it was loss in some ways to give up. And I'm an avid listener with somewhat unusual taste.

 

But no, not an industry dupe or a naive civility freak. So I don't fit your stereotype that some of you keep insisting upon, at your own convenience. I happen to think that this forum would be better served by a generally higher ethical standard. Look mat the 3 best examples of MQA critique from this forum! They maintain. Why don't more of you believe that these examples are the best way to go on this and some other issues?

 

...And now this will be called derailing and other specious things. So it goes.

 

Manage the damage.

 

 

I know Steve Hoffman and he has been anti MQA since I started keeping score in 2016. 
 

He has been criticized here for how he managed topics. He didn’t want conversations about MQA on his site and deleted a lot of stuff.

 

I've told you privately I disagree with you about ethics on this thread. And why I think I have pretty good grasp of ethics. Continuing to bring it up is an attempt to derail the thread.

 

Finally Christopher what I’ve done stop MQA didn’t just happen here. In fact I viewed high end audio as a very minor part my activities. It’s why many “luminaries” in high end audio are upset with me. 
 

I will be judged by the artists, recording and mastering engineers I spared the unnecessary expense of MQA. I’m fine with that and don’t regret anything I’ve said to fight MQA.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Finally Christopher what I’ve done stop MQA didn’t just happen here. In fact I viewed high end audio as a very minor part my activities. It’s why many “luminaries” in high end audio are upset with me. 
 

As they say, pics or it didn't happen. 

 

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

I will be judged by the artists, recording and mastering engineers I spared the unnecessary expense of MQA. I’m fine with that and don’t regret anything I’ve said to fight MQA.

 

With all due respect Stephen, your sense of self importance with respect to MQA knows no bounds. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

"By all appearances, the MQA revolution is poised to ruin the music industry just as the latest Star Wars blockbuster is ruining movies"

 

The "starwarsification" of Hollywood is an actual thing.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Those of you that have been strongly anti-MQA ( which ,depending on what form, makes good sense!), do you have any regrets regarding any posts you made, some of which, while literally may have been "on topic" may have derailed more genuine conversation? I'll readily say that, imo, Lee Scoggins acquitted himself very poorly here and elsewhere for reasons that were laid out best by firedog and tmtomh among others. And there were at least a couple of others that struck me as zealots of a hobby fanatic or die-hard advert type.

 

Regarding Scoggins, I believe that disingenuousness is just as rude as "go f your mother".  So regrets?  No.  I appreciate that some might think that disingenuousness is more intellectually refined than "go f your mother" and somehow deserves more respect.  So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

[crenca]

20 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I believe that disingenuousness is just as rude as "go f your mother"

 

Disingenuousness, often (but not always) combined with simple technical ignorance, is at the heart of audio confidence game.  This sustained "civility" critique is part of that, even if everyone involved does not understand this.  Beyond it just being "rude" it is first and foremost a defense of the status quo.

 

What's up with the silent deleting of posts @The Computer Audiophile?  Or should we be asking @austinpop?

[Currawong]

11 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

By attacking us they are hoping folks won’t notice the authority figures in high end audio are an unwashed bunch of heathens whose expertise should be questioned 24/7. Consider.

 

This reminds me a bit of the story told by a mechanic to which a car was towed. The owner stated "It's not the battery, I'm an engineer." or words to that effect. So the mechanic tested everything else under the hood, eventually coming to the conclusion, verified by testing, that it was indeed that the battery was dead.

 

My point is, attacking members of the audiophile press because they may not have some kind of engineering credentials has little merit, as I don't believe that qualifications alone, but approach to learning and understanding the technology behind a product is more important. By the same logic, being a well-known musician would surely be qualified to talk about musical playback, but if you've had any experience with musicians, they tend to know the least about the gear they use or anything technical involving sound. Regardless, just about anyone with any serious audio engineering knowhow is, or works for a manufacturer of audio gear.

 

I think that, more usefully, a better approach to reviewing or discussing audio technology would involve a more critical eye towards any technology or the claims within, or, like Stereophile does much of the time, a balance between subjective impressions and technical analysis. Some more caution and reservation when declaring supposed fact would be in order too.

 

Again though, I think the issue with MQA and the audiophile press is that a well-known friend of theirs suddenly came out and said that he was going to revolutionise music mastering and delivery and they believed everything he said without critically examining it. All the analysis from this forum was so full of noise, especially the abusive critique of the audiophile press, that for a long while it gave them an excuse to ignore everything as just noise from people with nothing better to do than make noise on forums.

 

 

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, Currawong said:

Again though, I think the issue with MQA and the audiophile press is that a well-known friend of theirs suddenly came out and said that he was going to revolutionise music mastering and delivery and they believed everything he said without critically examining it. All the analysis from this forum was so full of noise, especially the abusive critique of the audiophile press, that for a long while it gave them an excuse to ignore everything as just noise from people with nothing better to do than make noise on forums.

 

OR, it goes something like this (and speaking to your "approach to learning and understanding the technology behind a product is more important"):

 

Stereophile and most all of the trade publications (aka "audiophile press") are not normally balanced and critical - instead, they are trade publications and thus there to support and promote the trade.  This is one of the reasons that reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and no real comparisons are ever done.  They relentless promote the "subjective" side because it is open ended, and allows the status quo method of subjective promotion, and a sort of cuckold objectivism when the appearance of it are necessary/helpful.  Yes, MQA/Bob S is a "well-known friend" but then so is everybody else in a small niche industry.  The subjective "friendly" promotion of MQA was just a bridge too far, but is in fact the normal way of things.  They "ignore" the pulling of the curtain because it often (most of the time really) works and their place in the industry remains the same.  Complaints of civility are in the main a tactic to FUD the consumer.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

What's up with the silent deleting of posts

Because nobody has time to go back and forth with you vis PM every time you take a thread off topic with your confidence game crusade. 

 

It's getting very old. AS isn't the front line in your war on HiFi and neither is this thread.