MQA is Vaporware

[Norton]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

perfectly sincere MQA lovers just can't get past the MQA marketing speak

The thing is, enjoying MQA isn’t just about swallowing the marketing speak, many MQA-labelled releases sound good and when coupled with the initial novelty of on-demand streaming, it’s quite a compelling proposition - you suddenly have lots of new and great sounding music at your fingertips.  Even some of MQA’s harshest critics (including CC) have admitted from time to time that it can sound good.

 

However, true hires streaming services like Qobuz have made MQA redundant, so choosing a DAC because of MQA compatability seems a pointless cul de sac now.  I was certainly disappointed with the “full MQA” experience via my Oppo205, compared to letting Roon do the initial decode, while the (ostensible) same releases in 24/96 or 192 FLAC via Qobuz sound better still.

[Rt66indierock]

On 1/5/2020 at 6:50 PM, Currawong said:

 

Given your experience, you're the kind of person I'd be interested in seeing equipment reviews from.

 

 

Be careful what you wish for. 

[Rt66indierock]

On 1/7/2020 at 6:00 AM, daverich4 said:

I’m not sure what’s uncivil about, after you said you weren’t aware of Mr. Quints background/qualifications, suggesting you ask him directly. I have no idea why you’re friends or even if you are. 

 

Daverich4, your comment was uncivil because Andy Quint’s lack of qualifications have been discussed enough that suggesting I ask him and I’m unaware of them is an unethical debate technique, repetition. I didn’t used to care about this too much until I started teaching continuing legal education (tax) In addition to continuing professional education (CPA’s). Teaching lawyers requires knowledge of debate tactics.

 

Andy is a friend because he is the only member of the audio press with the courage to meet me and face to face say I disagree with you. We disagree with a lot of things in high end audio. And I’m fine with that.

 

I took your comment as not realizing my list went from humorous (John Atkinson) to in Andy’s case rhetorical. I know the qualifications of the people on my list except for Robert Harley’s degree. As I’ve said many times consider my posts to be tests unless you are sure they are not. 

 

So, let’s look at the bio of David A. Rich PhD (even if you aren’t him) and ask a few questions I don’t know the answer to.  The bio says he is a member of AES High-Resolution Technical Committee. So, it is fair to ask:

Does he know the circumstances necessary in a listening room to even have the possibility to detect the difference between a high-resolution record and a CD quality recording?

Does he know the amount of ultrasonic musical energy present at a typical listening position?

Does know whether ultrasonic energy at the listening position is a good thing or a bad thing?

Finally, on January 7, 2020 HiFi+ posted “The Truth About High-Resolution Audio.” The author concluded “slightly increased smoothness of a 24 bit 96kHz recording in the middle ranges is worth having.” I disagree and cite the research behind MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing). I wonder if David understands why.

[ARQuint]

13 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Daverich4, your comment was uncivil because Andy Quint’s lack of qualifications have been discussed enough that suggesting I ask him and I’m unaware of them is an unethical debate technique, repetition. I didn’t used to care about this too much until I started teaching continuing legal education (tax) In addition to continuing professional education (CPA’s). Teaching lawyers requires knowledge of debate tactics.

 

Andy is a friend because he is the only member of the audio press with the courage to meet me and face to face say I disagree with you. We disagree with a lot of things in high end audio. And I’m fine with that.

 

I took your comment as not realizing my list went from humorous (John Atkinson) to in Andy’s case rhetorical. I know the qualifications of the people on my list except for Robert Harley’s degree. As I’ve said many times consider my posts to be tests unless you are sure they are not. 

 

 

Even at this late date, I'm not certain what to make of Rt66indierock—he is such a puzzling mash-up of contradictory impulses. His style of expressing himself is elliptical and sometimes demonstrates less than a complete mastery of the English language. As Chris has pointed out, he can be awfully grandiose and, even though he's hanging with a crowd that angrily calls for deep-sixing the Old Guard, he never misses a chance to name an "industry insider" he's chatted up for ten minutes at an audio show.

 

I was this close to posting an earnest defense of my qualifications as an audio writer—or defending others he named a couple of days ago—before reflecting on how ridiculous this would have looked. At least as ridiculous as implying that John Atkinson's credentials are suspect because he doesn't get his hair cut often enough (very few of us in this line of work are what you'd call fashion forward) or that Robert Harley's status is diminished because Rt66indierock can't identify his undergraduate alma mater (shades of birtherism) or that Steven Stone can't possibly be a serious audio writer because he's also a professional photographer (Archimago is certainly held in high regard here, even if it's not exactly clear what he does for a living.)

 

Slyly, Rt66ndierock tells us that his comment about JA was "humorous" and his calling my own abilities into question was "rhetorical." I've concluded that RT66indierock says some of the things he says to fulfill his intended role as a "disruptor." He actually reads my reviews and raises valid points about them and I never feel disrespected, even by the bovine references. We may or may not be "friends" but I've interacted enough with Rt66indierock in person and by private electronic means to know that he doesn't take a reductionist view as to who I am as an audiophile, that there's plenty more in audio than just MQA that we see differently and yet we're still on the same team—a characterization that a few other posters on this thread would hostilely dismiss.

 

I view this sort of connection with someone I don't really know that well, yet shares a passion for something that's so important to me, as the most meaningful sort of civility. I'll gladly buy Stephen a beer—I don't actually call him "Rt66indierock" when we're in the same room—the next time we cross paths. Some of you other guys….I'll just wait for the next elevator to come.

 

 

[daverich4]

17 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Daverich4, your comment was uncivil because Andy Quint’s lack of qualifications have been discussed enough that suggesting I ask him and I’m unaware of them is an unethical debate technique, repetition.

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

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Even at this late date, I'm not certain what to make of Rt66indierock—he is such a puzzling mash-up of contradictory impulses. His style of expressing himself is elliptical and sometimes demonstrates less than a complete mastery of the English language. As Chris has pointed out, he can be awfully grandiose and, even though he's hanging with a crowd that angrily calls for deep-sixing the Old Guard, he never misses a chance to name an "industry insider" he's chatted up for ten minutes at an audio show.

 

If only you could have devoted this much time and effort to actually join in the discussion about MQA.  Your talent for ad hominem is impressive.  Your subtle suggestion that English may not be @Rt66indierock 's first language is particularly skillful.

 

But please let's keep focus on MQA and not let the content of this thread be dictated by the Old Guard.

[Ralf11]

Robert Harley's status is diminished because of the book he wrote.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Robert Harley's status is diminished because of the book he wrote.

While I was in college I read his book and learned quite a bit. Sure there is some questionable stuff in there, but I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

 

Later I also read Ken Pohlmann's Principles of Digital Audio, which had more and I believe better information with respect to its subject matter. 

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

While I was in college I read his book and learned quite a bit. Sure there is some questionable stuff in there, but I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

How do you separate the two without a reference baby to compare with? In other words, such a book is useless unless you already know the truthful parts.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

How do you separate the two without a reference baby to compare with? In other words, such a book is useless unless you already know the truthful parts.

I think most of us have good BS detectors and have done more research than just a single source. 

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think most of us have good BS detectors and have done more research than just a single source. 

Then how do you explain people buying things we both agree are snake oil?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Then how do you explain people buying things we both agree are snake oil?

They are on a journey that's enjoyable to them and the products aren't cost prohibitive for them.

[Ralf11]

There is a thread on here that debunks about a dozen of the claims in Harley's book - there are numerous other mistaken claims.

 

I saw Gwenyth Paltrow on a late night talk show yesterday.  She is on a journey that's enjoyable to her and likewise wastes people's money.

 

MQA is putting people on a journey that's enjoyable to them and the costs will be paid in the future.

 

- not a good std. for audio or other things IMO; honesty would be a better std., not to menton better SQ, or same SQ and nice ergonomics, convenience, esthetics

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

There is a thread on here that debunks about a dozen of the claims in Harley's book - there are numerous other mistaken claims.

 

I saw Gwenyth Paltrow on a late night talk show yesterday.  She is on a journey that's enjoyable to her and likewise wastes people's money.

 

MQA is putting people on a journey that's enjoyable to them and the costs will be paid in the future.

 

- not a good std. for audio or other things IMO; honesty would be a better std., not to menton better SQ, or same SQ and nice ergonomics, convenience, esthetics

Fortunately in the US nobody gets to decide how other people spend money and what they enjoy. 

[Ralf11]

well, that isn't true

 

besides prohibited items, there is the FDA

 

for electronics you have the Consumer Product Safety Comm'n, UL, and etc.

 

but you can certainly restrict that assertion some and it will be correct

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

well, that isn't true

 

besides prohibited items, there is the FDA

 

for electronics you have the Consumer Product Safety Comm'n, UL, and etc.

 

but you can certainly restrict that assertion some and it will be correct

Depends on what the meaning of is is 😁

[JoeWhip]

Gee, let’s not derail this thread with Gwenyth Paltrow.

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

- not a good std. for audio or other things IMO; honesty would be a better std., not to menton better SQ, or same SQ and nice ergonomics, convenience, esthetics

 

...is that the abbreviation you want? 🥴

[Archimago]

12 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

... even though he's hanging with a crowd that angrily calls for deep-sixing the Old Guard, he never misses a chance to name an "industry insider" he's chatted up for ten minutes at an audio show.

...

 

deep-six

/ˈdēp ˈˌsiks/

verb

INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN

1. destroy or dispose of (something) irretrievably.

   "someone had deliberately deep-sixed evidence"

 

@ARQuint,

Just to be clear... My position is not that the "Old Guard" needs to be "deep-sixed". Rather, it does need to be transformed to something more honest and capable of serving the consumer.

 

Personally, it's not so much about what degrees one holds, which institution one graduated from, or what the day job is. Rather, does the writer (be it professional or hobbyist) have an adequate level of awareness of what is being addressed (ie. in our domain the science of audio, electronics, difference between digital and analogue, etc...) and have the abilities to critically evaluate the equipment / format / idea. Being critical also implies a level of freedom to speak one's mind even if it is against some form of "authority" or relationship we and/or our company may have with the commercial entity.

 

I believe even in the early days of MQA that many advanced audiophiles in tune with how audio "works" probably were scratching their heads with Bob Stuart's presentations, the graphs he was publishing, and maybe even a little perplexed with the AES paper if they took the time to read it. One did not have to be a member of the AES, work as an audio engineer, or be a PhD physicist to appreciate that something just didn't "smell right". Especially true when MQA claimed "neuroscience" helped with their research which I think raised a few more eyebrows as well for those who looked into this...

 

The fact that most of the mainstream press simply went with the agenda, did not ask deeper questions, did not even have the courtesy to look into the claims and ideas of those who doubted from the beginning but yet presented evidence tells us something about the nature of magazines like TAS. Rather, you publish crazy stuff about "paradigm shifts" despite the dissent. This creates enmity does it not?

 

So now what? It's more than 5 years since MQA was introduced. It ain't growing in market share as far as I can tell. Bob Stuart is barely around to promote it. Honest requests for A-B samples have been denied (eg. Mark Waldrep). Are you going to stick with the idea that the press was right all along and that this does represent a "new paradigm" of audio quality? Or are we going to bury the hatchet and move on that at best this was an unnecessary attempt at simply making money with doubtful value to consumers... Recognizing that the press should really be a bit more discerning and make sure this kind of nonsense doesn't happen again?

[rickca]

56 minutes ago, Archimago said:

most of the mainstream press simply went with the agenda

And they were impeached.  So they demanded to know the identity of the whistleblower in order to investigate his motives.  Sound familiar?

[Racerxnet]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Depends on what the meaning of is is 😁

Ok Bill.. (Clinton)

[The Computer Audiophile]

48 minutes ago, rickca said:

And they were impeached.  So they demanded to know the identity of the whistleblower in order to investigate his motives.  Sound familiar?

Quote of the decade so far 😁

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I saw Gwenyth Paltrow on a late night talk show yesterday.  She is on a journey that's enjoyable to her and likewise wastes people's money.

 

I'd like to know who's buying her "This Smells Like My Vagina" candle that retails for $75.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I'd like to know who's buying her "This Smells Like My Vagina" candle that retails for $75.

 

 The last that I heard, they were sold out ,according to a report in Yahoo News.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

9 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

If only you could have devoted this much time and effort to actually join in the discussion about MQA.  Your talent for ad hominem is impressive.  Your subtle suggestion that English may not be @Rt66indierock 's first language is particularly skillful.

 

But please let's keep focus on MQA and not let the content of this thread be dictated by the Old Guard.

Thank you Professor Cogley. On the money.

 

This is a poster like several others where the lengths of their posts are proportionally inverse to the substance.🤠