MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

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/

 

[esldude]

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. 

[MetalNuts]

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.🤣

[esldude]

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.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

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

Interesting precisely because it is mis/dis-information.

 

We are now used to hearing distortions of the truth from manufacturers, the press, and dealers with regards to MQA, 

 

But to hear it from a recording artist is surprising.

 

I also find it disturbing he seems to think his "MQA Masters" are available on 7digital, Deezer, and Qobuz. 

[FredericV]

7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

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.

Full post-

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

 

It's not DXD .... it's 17/88.2 which is the max internal resolution which an MQA file can provide for multiples of the 44.1 samplerate such as 352.8K (=DXD), upsampled back to DXD. Unfolding is not the same as fully recovering the original resolution. MQA can partially do that trick for the first octave above redbook, for anything else it fails.

For those who understand compression, isn't it weird no matter which input resolution was used for the encode (88.2, 176.4, 352.8, ....) those MQA files will always have about the same size. That should ring a bell....

While the master was DXD, the MQA decoder never will have the same available entropy as the original DXD. It's lossy. Not the master, not the quality. Furthermore our research has shown we can strip 1/3 of the MQA file, and the DAC will still tell you it decodes to 352.8K, so authentication is also questionable.

This plot made some of the MQA influencers really mad, but there it is, and it's still here. In 2020 MQA is still lossy, not the same quality as the master, therefore not the master. And probably not authentic too:


 

[ARQuint]

13 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

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?

 

Can we bury the hatchet and move on? I'd like nothing better, and I'm certain there are many AS participants who feel the same.

 

Can it happen? Or is MQA just the big, fat target of the moment? If its relevance fades, will it be replaced as an object of derision by expensive USB switches, bricks & discs, or pretty much everything that Ted Denney sells? Will the same sort of contempt emerge every time TAS or some other publication (or individual) has something positive to say about a product that doesn't pass the "smell test" for a certain kind of audiophile, the sort that views himself as a final arbiter of that product's validity because of an engineering background?

 

Chris has recommended for some time that people should enjoy whatever floats their boat, even if the purported theoretical basis doesn't satisfy the strictest objectivists. Even if you believe that MQA is a sham from a scientific standpoint and/or a cynical moneymaking ploy, I really think that the claims that it will ruin the consumer experience for the foreseeable future is a big overreach. 35 years ago, in some quarters, it was maintained that digital encoding was a catastrophe for sound-conscious music lovers, that there would be thousands of important performances that would be irretrievable because they were recorded digitally. It really didn't work out that way. When it comes to MQA, the marketplace will settle the issue, one way or another.

 

So, yes, let's bury the hatchet.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Can we bury the hatchet and move on? I'd like nothing better.

 

Can it happen? Or is MQA just the big, fat target of the moment? If its relevance fades, will it be replaced as an object of derision by expensive USB switches, bricks & discs, or pretty much everything that Ted Denny sells? Will the same sort of contempt emerge every time TAS or some other publication has something positive to say about a product that doesn't pass the "smell test" for a certain kind of audiophile, the sort that views himself as a final arbiter of a product's validity because of an engineering background?

 

Chris has recommended for some time that people should enjoy whatever floats their boat, even if the purported theoretical basis doesn't satisfy the strictest objectivists. Even if you believe that MQA is a sham from a scientific standpoint and/or a cynical moneymaking ploy, I really think that the claims that it will ruin the consumer experience for the foreseeable future is a big overreach. 35 years ago, in some quarters, it was maintained that digital encoding was a catastrophe for sound-conscious music lovers, that there would be thousands of important performances that would be irretrievable because they were recorded digitally. It really didn't work out that way. When it comes to MQA, the marketplace will settle the issue, one way or another.

 

So, yes, let's bury the hatchet.

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

[ARQuint]

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:

 

[Shadders]

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 ?

[KeenObserver]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Can we bury the hatchet and move on? I'd like nothing better, and I'm certain there are many AS participants who feel the same.

 

Can it happen? Or is MQA just the big, fat target of the moment? If its relevance fades, will it be replaced as an object of derision by expensive USB switches, bricks & discs, or pretty much everything that Ted Denney sells? Will the same sort of contempt emerge every time TAS or some other publication (or individual) has something positive to say about a product that doesn't pass the "smell test" for a certain kind of audiophile, the sort that views himself as a final arbiter of that product's validity because of an engineering background?

 

Chris has recommended for some time that people should enjoy whatever floats their boat, even if the purported theoretical basis doesn't satisfy the strictest objectivists. Even if you believe that MQA is a sham from a scientific standpoint and/or a cynical moneymaking ploy, I really think that the claims that it will ruin the consumer experience for the foreseeable future is a big overreach. 35 years ago, in some quarters, it was maintained that digital encoding was a catastrophe for sound-conscious music lovers, that there would be thousands of important performances that would be irretrievable because they were recorded digitally. It really didn't work out that way. When it comes to MQA, the marketplace will settle the issue, one way or another.

 

So, yes, let's bury the hatchet.

 

Can't we all just get along?  Can't we all just let the market decide?  Can't we all just take our attention away from MQA? Can't we all just not pay attention to what's behind the curtain?  Can't we all just believe what MQA implies and not look further?  Can't we all just believe what the publishers of trade mags tell us?  Can't we all just stop looking for the truth and have faith in those that tell us that MQA is a new paradigm?  Can't we all just bow down and worship MQA?  Can't we all just let our attention be drawn away from what MQA is attempting to do?  Can't we all just not pay attention to that man that's sneaking up behind us with a knife?

 

The business plan of MQA is to be the business that controls music distribution and playback.  As such it would affect EVERY music consumer and would cost EVERY music consumer!

 

It behooves the music consumer to closely examine MQA.

[MikeyFresh]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Can we bury the hatchet and move on?

 

That would likely be much easier if TAS and Stereophile published retractions, admitting that numerous previous statements made about MQA's supposed technical efficacy were false or misleading at best, now fully debunked, and were never anything more than a parroting of MQA's own marketing-speak.

 

Some semblance of respect for these proud old publications could be salvaged in that scenario, reputation rehabilitation is not impossible, but it starts with honestly admitting mistakes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Can we bury the hatchet and move on? I'd like nothing better, and I'm certain there are many AS participants who feel the same.

 

Can it happen? Or is MQA just the big, fat target of the moment? If its relevance fades, will it be replaced as an object of derision by expensive USB switches, bricks & discs, or pretty much everything that Ted Denney sells? Will the same sort of contempt emerge every time TAS or some other publication (or individual) has something positive to say about a product that doesn't pass the "smell test" for a certain kind of audiophile, the sort that views himself as a final arbiter of that product's validity because of an engineering background?

 

Chris has recommended for some time that people should enjoy whatever floats their boat, even if the purported theoretical basis doesn't satisfy the strictest objectivists. Even if you believe that MQA is a sham from a scientific standpoint and/or a cynical moneymaking ploy, I really think that the claims that it will ruin the consumer experience for the foreseeable future is a big overreach. 35 years ago, in some quarters, it was maintained that digital encoding was a catastrophe for sound-conscious music lovers, that there would be thousands of important performances that would be irretrievable because they were recorded digitally. It really didn't work out that way. When it comes to MQA, the marketplace will settle the issue, one way or another.

 

So, yes, let's bury the hatchet.

I don't believe MQA is just the target of the moment. In the 12 years since this site started, no topic has received as much analysis as MQA. Because MQA ltd's stated goals included a single deliverable for all record labels (Bob said this in the MQA RMAF presentation I moderated several years ago), it has the ability to effect every music listener. This is a big deal for everyone who loves music, good sound, and choice. This is the sole reason in my opinion why MQA continues to draw criticism and analysis. All the other stuff would be meaningless if MQA was strictly a thing for 2L and the like.

 

Enjoying whatever floats your boat and enjoying the audiophile journey as much as the destination is a good thing. But, if what one enjoys, negatively effects many others, then we have a problem that needs a resolution. Joe TubeDac can use all the Synergistic Research fuses he wants and it won't effect me in the slightest way. Thus, live and let listen. 

 

 

[rickca]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Can we bury the hatchet and move on?

Sure.  Right after we bury MQA.

[Rt66indierock]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't believe MQA is just the target of the moment. In the 12 years since this site started, no topic has received as much analysis as MQA. Because MQA ltd's stated goals included a single deliverable for all record labels (Bob said this in the MQA RMAF presentation I moderated several years ago), it has the ability to effect every music listener. This is a big deal for everyone who loves music, good sound, and choice. This is the sole reason in my opinion why MQA continues to draw criticism and analysis. All the other stuff would be meaningless if MQA was strictly a thing for 2L and the like.

 

Enjoying whatever floats your boat and enjoying the audiophile journey as much as the destination is a good thing. But, if what one enjoys, negatively effects many others, then we have a problem that needs a resolution. Joe TubeDac can use all the Synergistic Research fuses he wants and it won't effect me in the slightest way. Thus, live and let listen. 

 

 

 

MQA continues to draw criticism for the one deliverable point you mentioned, but it also continues to draw criticism because it doesn't do what  its supporters claimed it did and it exposed a large portion of the audio press as unable to grasp technical issues.

 

I received a lot of criticism whenever I criticized the high end audio press. And I've enjoyed it ever since I started paying attention to high end audio again in 2916. If this negatively impacts others the solution is simple the audio press needs to get more informed about audio.

[Archimago]

5 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Can we bury the hatchet and move on? I'd like nothing better, and I'm certain there are many AS participants who feel the same.

 

Can it happen? Or is MQA just the big, fat target of the moment? If its relevance fades, will it be replaced as an object of derision by expensive USB switches, bricks & discs, or pretty much everything that Ted Denney sells? Will the same sort of contempt emerge every time TAS or some other publication (or individual) has something positive to say about a product that doesn't pass the "smell test" for a certain kind of audiophile, the sort that views himself as a final arbiter of that product's validity because of an engineering background?

 

So it seems we can't bury the hatchet then?

 

I think I've been quite diplomatic when suggesting that people should look for evidence first. Should use normal techniques to control bias. I accept that there are subjective elements to audiophilia and while I personally would not spend say >$100 on a cable, I've suggested that "non-utilitarian" reasons for owning luxury products are not unreasonable... Regarding MQA, my blind test results do not suggest that it sounds inferior to standard 24/96 - but then again, is 24/96 better than 16/44? (No.) So while I state that MQA is not good for all kinds of "overreach" and unnecessary reasons, I'm also not suggesting that one cannot enjoy the music.

 

There are clear examples of nonsense over the years. You've listed one great example - Ted Denney & Synergistic. I've met the man as recently as RMAF 2019 and attended his demo. I've held his products in my hands, listened, and measured some. I'm not going into this example without personal experience and my opinions are based on direct evidence of what he does, what their products are like such as the power cables and "tuning bullets" (I've also played with the Tranquility Base BTW but not written about it).

 

For all this quackery, where in the history of the audiophile press has anyone pointed concerns out whether it's you guys at TAS or Hi-Fi+ or Stereophile? Even without MQA, this fact should already make one wonder about the ability of the "Old Guard" to have freedom to question claims and work on behalf of the customer...

 

Yes, even if MQA fades, if you post bizarre stuff, of course many will criticize... Why should questionable claims ever receive a free pass if there is evidence to suggest otherwise? The fact that you cannot recognize this is a bit of a concern to me.

 

Quote

Chris has recommended for some time that people should enjoy whatever floats their boat, even if the purported theoretical basis doesn't satisfy the strictest objectivists. Even if you believe that MQA is a sham from a scientific standpoint and/or a cynical moneymaking ploy, I really think that the claims that it will ruin the consumer experience for the foreseeable future is a big overreach. 35 years ago, in some quarters, it was maintained that digital encoding was a catastrophe for sound-conscious music lovers, that there would be thousands of important performances that would be irretrievable because they were recorded digitally. It really didn't work out that way. When it comes to MQA, the marketplace will settle the issue, one way or another.

 

So, yes, let's bury the hatchet.

 

 

"Strictest objectivists"?! We are surely living in a time of gross immaturity and ridiculous polarity if you see what I and many here opine as being "strictest"! Heck, I've been called out as being inconsistent with subjective opinions I've said at times 😂.

 

After reading your response, do you expect many readers here to "let's bury the hatchet"?!

 

Look, all I'm asking for is some reasonable balance which is the transformation I suggest needs to happen. And after years of layering on pure subjective toppings on a cake, let's show just a little bit of insight and recognize that these are engineered, technological products designed to reproduce music in the audio frequencies. The cake is in the objective side of how these devices perform or not (as in the case of Synergistic and MQA). Isn't the press supposed to present these perspectives to the reader if their goal is truly to educate and inform thoroughly? Or am I being "cynical" if I suggest that maybe you're not actually interested in the reader as your primary audience?

 

Your magazine is an example of what one-sided essentially pure/"strictest" of subjectivity looks like... And by your comments it doesn't look like you actually care to recognize that in many ways, your opinions are deficient and incomplete. With that kind of attitude, I think many audiophiles will see that you're actually not interested in "burying the hatchet". At least for me, it's rather unacceptable to forgive and forget at this point. If this is your (and your magazine's) perpetual attitude, good luck in building up and attracting the next generation of audiophiles.

 

I like coming here because it's open to a broad range of opinions and I appreciate Chris' gentle hand in moderation. Within that wide range, I see your attitude as the most extreme and thoughtless. I for one hope the "New Guard" will embrace audiophiles, high fidelity enthusiasts, and music lovers with more thoughtful consideration and sober reality testing than what you've just expressed.

 

[ARQuint]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

So it seems we can't bury the hatchet then?

 

I think I've been quite diplomatic when suggesting that people should look for evidence first. Should use normal techniques to control bias. I accept that there are subjective elements to audiophilia and while I personally would not spend say >$100 on a cable, I've suggested that "non-utilitarian" reasons for owning luxury products are not unreasonable... Regarding MQA, my blind test results do not suggest that it sounds inferior to standard 24/96 - but then again, is 24/96 better than 16/44? (No.) So while I state that MQA is not good for all kinds of "overreach" and unnecessary reasons, I'm also not suggesting that one cannot enjoy the music.

 

There are clear examples of nonsense over the years. You've listed one great example - Ted Denney & Synergistic. I've met the man as recently as RMAF 2019 and attended his demo. I've held his products in my hands, listened, and measured some. I'm not going into this example without personal experience and my opinions are based on direct evidence of what he does, what their products are like such as the power cables and "tuning bullets" (I've also played with the Tranquility Base BTW but not written about it).

 

For all this quackery, where in the history of the audiophile press has anyone pointed concerns out whether it's you guys at TAS or Hi-Fi+ or Stereophile? Even without MQA, this fact should already make one wonder about the ability of the "Old Guard" to have freedom to question claims and work on behalf of the customer...

 

Yes, even if MQA fades, if you post bizarre stuff, of course many will criticize... Why should questionable claims ever receive a free pass if there is evidence to suggest otherwise? The fact that you cannot recognize this is a bit of a concern to me.

 

 

 

"Strictest objectivists"?! We are surely living in a time of gross immaturity and ridiculous polarity if you see what I and many here opine as being "strictest"! Heck, I've been called out as being inconsistent with subjective opinions I've said at times 😂.

 

After reading your response, do you expect many readers here to "let's bury the hatchet"?!

 

Look, all I'm asking for is some reasonable balance which is the transformation I suggest needs to happen. And after years of layering on pure subjective toppings on a cake, let's show just a little bit of insight and recognize that these are engineered, technological products designed to reproduce music in the audio frequencies. The cake is in the objective side of how these devices perform or not (as in the case of Synergistic and MQA). Isn't the press supposed to present these perspectives to the reader if their goal is truly to educate and inform thoroughly? Or am I being "cynical" if I suggest that maybe you're not actually interested in the reader as your primary audience?

 

Your magazine is an example of what one-sided essentially pure/"strictest" of subjectivity looks like... And by your comments it doesn't look like you actually care to recognize that in many ways, your opinions are deficient and incomplete. With that kind of attitude, I think many audiophiles will see that you're actually not interested in "burying the hatchet". At least for me, it's rather unacceptable to forgive and forget at this point. If this is your (and your magazine's) perpetual attitude, good luck in building up and attracting the next generation of audiophiles.

 

I like coming here because it's open to a broad range of opinions and I appreciate Chris' gentle hand in moderation. Within that wide range, I see your attitude as the most extreme and thoughtless. I for one hope the "New Guard" will embrace audiophiles, high fidelity enthusiasts, and music lovers with more thoughtful consideration and sober reality testing than what you've just expressed.

 

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

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

nice ad copy

[StephenJK]

14 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Can we bury the hatchet and move on? I'd like nothing better, and I'm certain there are many AS participants who feel the same.

 

Can it happen? Or is MQA just the big, fat target of the moment? If its relevance fades, will it be replaced as an object of derision by expensive USB switches, bricks & discs, or pretty much everything that Ted Denney sells? Will the same sort of contempt emerge every time TAS or some other publication (or individual) has something positive to say about a product that doesn't pass the "smell test" for a certain kind of audiophile, the sort that views himself as a final arbiter of that product's validity because of an engineering background?

 

Chris has recommended for some time that people should enjoy whatever floats their boat, even if the purported theoretical basis doesn't satisfy the strictest objectivists. Even if you believe that MQA is a sham from a scientific standpoint and/or a cynical moneymaking ploy, I really think that the claims that it will ruin the consumer experience for the foreseeable future is a big overreach. 35 years ago, in some quarters, it was maintained that digital encoding was a catastrophe for sound-conscious music lovers, that there would be thousands of important performances that would be irretrievable because they were recorded digitally. It really didn't work out that way. When it comes to MQA, the marketplace will settle the issue, one way or another.

 

So, yes, let's bury the hatchet.

I don’t see how different opinions on any topic needs to be any more  than that. If people become upset with anyone else’s opinion they have the option, like any conversation of no longer participating. 
 

With MQA, however, there was always that initial, and some say continuing air of mystery without any technical details, and that based on proprietary reasoning. 
 

Fair enough.  But if you claim you can do something nobody else ever thought of - a high resolution track in a small file then you should expect a lot of skepticism and rightfully so.  It’s predicate upon the seller to convince me, the buyer that what is being sold has value that other options do not. 
 

I think a lot of us, if not already concerned did a full ear swivel when hearing about “restoring master track sound”. Hoo Boy, you gotta a long row to hoe with that one.

 

My opinion, and I believe others, is that MQA is a solution for a problem that no longer exists - how to transmit high quality music tracks over networks with limited bandwith. 
 

Remember Netflix?  They started out mailing DVDs to people’s homes, that was their business model.  Now?  Well, you know what happened, networks can transmit full audio and video in 4K without any issues.

 

If MQA had been able to gain market penetration shortly after launch they may have had a chance - but the lack of honest and straightforward information made a lot of people nervous and who remain that way today.

 

We don’t need to bury hatchets, that statement implies that we then agree on something and I don’t know that MQA is anything other than another footnote in musical history - like the Elcaset.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

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. 😂

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, SJK said:

I don’t see how different opinions on any topic needs to be any more  than that. If people become upset with anyone else’s opinion they have the option, like any conversation of no longer participating. 
 

With MQA, however, there was always that initial, and some say continuing air of mystery without any technical details, and that based on proprietary reasoning. 
 

Fair enough.  But if you claim you can do something nobody else ever thought of - a high resolution track in a small file then you should expect a lot of skepticism and rightfully so.  It’s predicate upon the seller to convince me, the buyer that what is being sold has value that other options do not. 
 

I think a lot of us, if not already concerned did a full ear swivel when hearing about “restoring master track sound”. Hoo Boy, you gotta a long row to hoe with that one.

 

My opinion, and I believe others, is that MQA is a solution for a problem that no longer exists - how to transmit high quality music tracks over networks with limited bandwith. 
 

Remember Netflix?  They started out mailing DVDs to people’s homes, that was their business model.  Now?  Well, you know what happened, networks can transmit full audio and video in 4K without any issues.

 

If MQA had been able to gain market penetration shortly after launch they may have had a chance - but the lack of honest and straightforward information made a lot of people nervous and who remain that way today.

 

We don’t need to bury hatchets, that statement implies that we then agree on something and I don’t know that MQA is anything other than another footnote in musical history - like the Elcaset.

Well said. Heck, MQA Ltd even managed to turn off those of us who really wanted to believe from the start. We gave the company the benefit of every doubt and had high hopes this was something real. However, they managed to turn off many of us, including people who believe in magic cups hanging on the wall. That isn’t easy to do. 

[lucretius]

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?

[mansr]

9 hours ago, lucretius said:

Since when is the truth determined in the marketplace?

Since "lobby" became a verb.

[Rt66indierock]

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.  

[christopher3393]

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.