Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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. 🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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." 


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 26-12-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...