Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Extremely interesting post, filled with very questionable information, but worth a read-

 

By David Elias-

 

"This post excerpt comes in part from an email response to my friend Harold in the Netherlands. He was curious about our discussion related to my early MP3 work as an online musician through the 90's into 2000's and how and why my MP3s could have sounded so good back then to literally everyone who heard them. At the same time in another email to audiophile Dez in LA how the audio gear available today has removed 'computer' from the delivery of 'computer audio'. Of course smartphones are all computers too but what we usually mean by computer is a desktop, laptop, or even tablet. The network is becoming transparent. Music libraries can exist in many places and a single playlist can reference any or all of them at will. The quality of the audio delivered to headphones and speakers can be streamed at studio master DXD quality using little more than 1mbps (1024kbps) which even my iffy satellite connection in Hawaii can support. This unfolds to 24/352.8k on my MQA Masters via TIDAL also on 7Digital, Deezer, Qobuz and other streaming lossless services.

If you can listen to studio masters from anywhere at anytime there's no need for a sweet spot in a single room to go to when you want to hear your good sounding music. You don't have to lug it around on computers with you either. It is a new audiophile armchair-less world in these ways these days."


Full post-


https://art-of-listening.com/2020/01/11/the-fading-audiophile-armchair/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Extremely interesting post, filled with very questionable information, but worth a read-

 

By David Elias-

 

"This post excerpt comes in part from an email response to my friend Harold in the Netherlands. He was curious about our discussion related to my early MP3 work as an online musician through the 90's into 2000's and how and why my MP3s could have sounded so good back then to literally everyone who heard them. At the same time in another email to audiophile Dez in LA how the audio gear available today has removed 'computer' from the delivery of 'computer audio'. Of course smartphones are all computers too but what we usually mean by computer is a desktop, laptop, or even tablet. The network is becoming transparent. Music libraries can exist in many places and a single playlist can reference any or all of them at will. The quality of the audio delivered to headphones and speakers can be streamed at studio master DXD quality using little more than 1mbps (1024kbps) which even my iffy satellite connection in Hawaii can support. This unfolds to 24/352.8k on my MQA Masters via TIDAL also on 7Digital, Deezer, Qobuz and other streaming lossless services.

If you can listen to studio masters from anywhere at anytime there's no need for a sweet spot in a single room to go to when you want to hear your good sounding music. You don't have to lug it around on computers with you either. It is a new audiophile armchair-less world in these ways these days."


Full post-


https://art-of-listening.com/2020/01/11/the-fading-audiophile-armchair/

 

Why is it interesting?  Nearly all of it is wrong information.  Or unintentional disinformation. 


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, esldude said:

Why is it interesting?  Nearly all of it is wrong information.  Or unintentional disinformation. 

I think you are too kind not to say misrepresentation.🤣


MetalNuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

I think you are too kind not to say misrepresentation.🤣

Well I could have kindly said, if your premises are all wrong then your argument is wrong. 

 

And that would put us right on topic with MQA. :)


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is this your roundabout way of admitting that MQA is no better than stuff Ted Denney sells?

 

No better, no worse. Personally, SR products don't do anything for me, but I have three good audiophile friends—a reviewer, a manufacturer, and a musician who works for a major American orchestra—who feel otherwise. I don't maintain that their opinions about more traditional classes of audio gear can't be trusted because of their enthusiasm for what plenty of people characterize as "snake oil." Do you disagree with that stance?

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

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

So, not sure about this, when you light it, does it smell like a clown hole, or smell like a burning clown hole ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Archimago, I feel that your representation of TAS would be unrecognizable to most of our subscribers. We go months at a time without mentioning MQA and, while we cover the occasional tweakier accessory, at least 90% of our reviews concern bread-and-butter audio components—loudspeakers, amplifiers and other electronics, turntables, DACs, headphones, etc. We write those reviews with the complementary goals of laying out for the reader the basics of a product's design and the experience of living with it. Complemented by a substantial music section, interviews, show reports, and other long-form articles, TAS tries to entertain, inform, and provide both subjective and objective information to assist in making purchasing decisions. Audiophile Style, which has provided you with a significant platform to expound at length on your signature issue, produces the same kind of content, albeit on a smaller scale. The readers of TAS and that of AS own the same brands of audio gear and listen to the same range of music.The two publications get advertising dollars from many of the same manufacturers. It seems senseless to perpetuate conflict when we share so many of the same kind of peak experiences that make this a great hobby.

 

All publications—all intellectual enterprises—can improve and evolve, and I've been around TAS long enough to know that's our culture at the most basic level. Likewise, AS seems to be moving towards a more civil and inclusive sort of virtual community. We can bury the hatchet.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

 

....The subscribers which you refuse to audit? The subscriber base that has steadily shrinking like George Costanza fresh out of the pool;?

 

I would not be surprised if you have as many comps as paid subs. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ARQuint said:

When it comes to MQA, the marketplace will settle the issue, one way or another.

 

Since when is the truth determined in the marketplace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Archimago, I feel that your representation of TAS would be unrecognizable to most of our subscribers. We go months at a time without mentioning MQA and, while we cover the occasional tweakier accessory, at least 90% of our reviews concern bread-and-butter audio components—loudspeakers, amplifiers and other electronics, turntables, DACs, headphones, etc. We write those reviews with the complementary goals of laying out for the reader the basics of a product's design and the experience of living with it. Complemented by a substantial music section, interviews, show reports, and other long-form articles, TAS tries to entertain, inform, and provide both subjective and objective information to assist in making purchasing decisions. Audiophile Style, which has provided you with a significant platform to expound at length on your signature issue, produces the same kind of content, albeit on a smaller scale. The readers of TAS and that of AS own the same brands of audio gear and listen to the same range of music.The two publications get advertising dollars from many of the same manufacturers. It seems senseless to perpetuate conflict when we share so many of the same kind of peak experiences that make this a great hobby.

 

All publications—all intellectual enterprises—can improve and evolve, and I've been around TAS long enough to know that's our culture at the most basic level. Likewise, AS seems to be moving towards a more civil and inclusive sort of virtual community. We can bury the hatchet.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

 

 

Andy the only way the hatchet will be buried is if subjective audio journals bury it. Then take audio equivalent of the "Trail of Tears" to the Black Kettle National Grassland and learn how to measure audio equipment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Andy the only way the hatchet will be buried is if subjective audio journals bury it. Then take audio equivalent of the "Trail of Tears" to the Black Kettle National Grassland and learn how to measure audio equipment.  

 

Well, that's a grossly insensitive tasteless comment. But all in a day's campaigning I guess. Carry on. 

 

65796445_719863755134562_8961846225704846568_n.thumb.jpg.83038ca7e6f4d4c0682a6399c439ce33.jpg

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...