MQA is Vaporware

[Ralf11]

maybe "Bury the Hatchet" was a Michael Lavorgna joke?

[daverich4]

On 1/15/2020 at 11:26 AM, Rt66indierock said:

. And I've enjoyed it ever since I started paying attention to high end audio again in 2916.

As always, you’re hundreds of years ahead of the rest of us. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

maybe "Bury the Hatchet" was a Michael Lavorgna joke?

Bury the hatchet  is a peace gesture.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

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

 

 

Do know what the trail of tears is and where it ended?

[Ralf11]

49 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Bury the hatchet  is a peace gesture.

 

unless you bury it in someone's skoal

[christopher3393]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Do know what the trail of tears is and where it ended?

 

Yes. For decades. Not the point. Would you state precisely what you meant by this analogy and why it is appropriate in this context? my Native American friends would like to know. If you misspoke, that's fine. If the meaning you intended is cryptic, just lay it out plainly and that will be fine. No demands intended. My response does not have to matter to you. It's up to you. But please no PMs.

[christopher3393]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Bury the hatchet  is a peace gesture.

 

 Five Nations. Great story of historical importance.

[Paul R]

8 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.  

Ugh - that is an inappropriate comment that shows I seriously underestimated your overbearing ego, and at the same time overestimated your urbanity and ethics.  MQA and your campaign against it are in no way comparable to the Trail of Tears. Which, as you well know, had effects well into the 20th century, and even has lasting effects today. 
 

MQA will soon be replaced by something else and your brief time in the spotlight will be taken over by someone else.

[Ralf11]

44 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Ugh - that is an inappropriate comment that shows I seriously underestimated your overbearing ego, and at the same time overestimated your urbanity and ethics.  MQA and your campaign against it are in no way comparable to the Trail of Tears. Which, as you well know, had effects well into the 20th century, and even has lasting effects today. 
 

MQA will soon be replaced by something else and your brief time in the spotlight will be taken over by someone else.

 

nice attack post to make everyone want to welcome you back

 

can you make your point in a better way?

[wgscott]

Paul is one of my favorite people here.  

 

Maybe folks could agree to disagree?

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Paul is one of my favorite people here.  

 

Maybe folks could agree to disagree?

 

I liked the old Paul better.

[Ralf11]

44 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Paul is one of my favorite people here.  

 

Maybe folks could agree to disagree?

 

Is Agree to Disagree the same as Bury the Hatchet?

[ARQuint]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Is Agree to Disagree the same as Bury the Hatchet?

 

That's just what it is!

[esldude]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

Paul is one of my favorite people here.  

 

Maybe folks could agree to disagree?

I'd cut Paul some slack myself.  

 

On the other hand, it's a hardball world, and we gotta keep our heads until this peace and civility craze blows over. 

[esldude]

26 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

That's just what it is!

Depends upon where the hatchet gets buried.  

[wgscott]

7 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Do know what the trail of tears is

 

Ethnic cleansing.

 

Quote

and where it ended?

 

Has it?

[Ralf11]

No, it hasn't ended - it is just trapped inside the 3rd unfold of MQA

[Archimago]

On 1/15/2020 at 2:40 PM, 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.

 

Hello @ARQuint.

 

I dunno if most subscribers to TAS would read what I said and not see some relevance in those thoughts. I guess we will need a poll for that one. Certainly if you look at the comments section of many of your articles online, quite a number of respondents seem to have similar sentiments and concerns. Of the ~10% "tweakier" accessories, what's the batting average on TAS being able to suggest to readers that some items may not work / have no scientific basis / feature unreasonable claims?

 

Quote

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.

 

Hmmm. What "objective" information are you referring to here?

 

This AudioQuest Niagara 1000 costs $995 - that number is objective, right? Or do you think maybe audiophiles might be more interested in some objectivity around whether this subjective conclusion: "to some degree all the usual audio review clichés applied: It was like removing a layer of dust from a vinyl record’s surface, wiping a dirty window pane clean, etc." contains verifiable truths.

 

We can look at every single one of these cable, power conditioner, "system clarifiers" reviews and question the subjective claims. And this is the tip of the iceberg because if the writers of those reviews are unable to discern whether those products actually did anything, how do we know if the subjective claims in DAC, amp, and speaker reviews are accurate? What "objective information" are you referring to in reviews that can "assist in making purchasing decisions" when it comes to sound quality?

 

Quote

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.

 

You can see exactly how many messages I have left on AS/CA over the years - <550 since being a member in 2010. I'm a "Freshman Member" here. I have written 1 article for Chris. You'll see that for months at a time I go away to do my own thing... What do you mean that AS is a "significant platform" for me to "expound at length" about my "signature issue"?

 

I would kindly take issue with my "signature issue" being MQA if that's what you're implying. Let's just say I have many issues with traditional audiophile thinking! You'll notice that on my blog, MQA occurred only twice in 2019 as a main topic - once to address inconsistencies in audiophile forums, and another time to address Harley's "Hi-Res Democratization" doubletalk. I don't consider MQA my "signature issue"; it's simply a point of contention du jour among audiophiles in general and I happened to think that it's right to say/write something about it. Before MQA, I spoke about Neil Young's Pono nonsense, and still speak about the various levels of "hi-res audio" nonsense.

 

Even if I were not here on AS, @mansr, @Miska, @FredericV, @Rt66indierock, @Ralf11, @Ishmael Slapowitz, @lucretius, @SJK, @rickca, @MetalNuts, @esldude just to name some recent posters, and many others would still be here saying the same things. Maybe one of them would have written a similar review on MQA instead of me. Heck, maybe @The Computer Audiophile would have just written an article himself seeing that the "Old Guard" has neither the appetite, perhaps ability, and certainly not courage! Looking back, I think I've been rather restrained compared to the "spiciness" of other MQA critics like Charley Hansen 😉 (RIP).

 

Notice that AS does publish reviews that I consider questionable as well. Don't think I've let those articles off either! Here's my criticism of @austinpop's "quick take" of the Linear Solution's DS-1 Network Streamer. The beauty of a forum site though is that it promotes discussion and this includes critical free speech with potentially multiple pages of comments under the articles.

 

Quote

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

 

I can agree with these comments. Improve and evolve for all; hope this is so over time.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Notice that AS does publish reviews that I consider questionable as well. Don't think I've let those articles off either!

The cool thing is that most people like the way you disagree with “questionable” reviews in such a civil way. I will enthusiastically read all your criticism of my work because of who you are as a person (nice, genuine, honest ...) and because of how you deliver your thoughts. 
 

I’d be the happiest guy around if this site was full of disagreements that educated and entertained people, all in a civil way. That’s the optimist in me typing :~)

[ARQuint]

4 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hmmm. What "objective" information are you referring to here?

 

Oh, I meant such mundane parameters as an amplifier's power rating or a loudspeaker's input impedance. Those sorts of specifications can, of course, help a potential buyer decide if a product is worth investigating further for use in an existing system.

 

I think that what some subjectively oriented audiophiles have trouble with is the idea that there's a "scientific" litmus test that a product (or technology) must pass before subjective listening tests should be undertaken. That if a product's posited mechanism of action is "questionable," listening is quite beside to point. I do feel this dynamic was in play during the earlier stages of the MQA discussion: those who objected most strenuously to the technology weren't even willing to listen. Yes, I know how the Canadian comparative listening tests came out, and I respect those results. But if those results had come out the other way, I wonder if skeptics would have accepted them.

 

BTW, I have an editorial on this subject in the March issue of TAS, which mails to subscribers in about a month. I'm sure the "Vaporware" fraternity will be hanging on my every word…😉

[FredericV]

It's obvious the average MQA believer has not been informed MQA only has 17/88.2 of internal resolution + upsampling to 24/352.8 for original DXD content. They are blindly believing the unfold resolution is the same as the original resolution.

[firedog]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

the earlier stages of the MQA discussion: those who objected most strenuously to the technology weren't even willing to listen.

Actually, lots of us here were early adopters who already had Tidal accounts when it first became available, and heard MQA even before this thread started or not long after. One of the repeated objections to it here is that many heard it and were unimpressed or negatively impressed with the SQ.

And that being so, all the other potential negative aspects of it become much more objectionable. If it clearly offered something to audiophiles,  they'd be more likely to accept it. 

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

Actually, lots of us here were early adopters who already had Tidal accounts when it first became available, and heard MQA even before this thread started or not long after. One of the repeated objections to it here is that many heard it and were unimpressed or negatively impressed with the SQ.

And that being so, all the other potential negative aspects of it become much more objectionable. If it clearly offered something to audiophiles,  they'd be more likely to accept it. 

 

Yes - I noted my less than enthusiastic reaction here, and another forum member at the time told me in a message that it gave him a headache.

 

Some of the "objective" folks in this thread like mansr, while objecting strongly on the grounds that MQA was trying to take over the musical world, actually were kinder in terms of the sound, saying the distortions from MQA might not even be audible.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Oh, I meant such mundane parameters as an amplifier's power rating or a loudspeaker's input impedance. Those sorts of specifications can, of course, help a potential buyer decide if a product is worth investigating further for use in an existing system.

 

I think that what some subjectively oriented audiophiles have trouble with is the idea that there's a "scientific" litmus test that a product (or technology) must pass before subjective listening tests should be undertaken. That if a product's posited mechanism of action is "questionable," listening is quite beside to point. I do feel this dynamic was in play during the earlier stages of the MQA discussion: those who objected most strenuously to the technology weren't even willing to listen. Yes, I know how the Canadian comparative listening tests came out, and I respect those results. But if those results had come out the other way, I wonder if skeptics would have accepted them.

 

BTW, I have an editorial on this subject in the March issue of TAS, which mails to subscribers in about a month. I'm sure the "Vaporware" fraternity will be hanging on my every word…😉

 

The BS that is published in the audiophile magazines' product reviews is a matter that is distinct from any disagreements between 'objectivists' and 'subjectivists' -- one doesn't have to take sides to see the BS (but it is often difficult to separate the useful information from the BS).

[Jud]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Oh, I meant such mundane parameters as an amplifier's power rating or a loudspeaker's input impedance. Those sorts of specifications can, of course, help a potential buyer decide if a product is worth investigating further for use in an existing system.

 

I think that what some subjectively oriented audiophiles have trouble with is the idea that there's a "scientific" litmus test that a product (or technology) must pass before subjective listening tests should be undertaken. That if a product's posited mechanism of action is "questionable," listening is quite beside to point. I do feel this dynamic was in play during the earlier stages of the MQA discussion: those who objected most strenuously to the technology weren't even willing to listen. Yes, I know how the Canadian comparative listening tests came out, and I respect those results. But if those results had come out the other way, I wonder if skeptics would have accepted them.

 

BTW, I have an editorial on this subject in the March issue of TAS, which mails to subscribers in about a month. I'm sure the "Vaporware" fraternity will be hanging on my every word…😉

 

The two reasons why I, who enjoy reading subjective reviews, stopped reading the magazines:

 

1. The primary reason is that there were never any negative subjective reviews, and I simply got tired of having to finely parse sentences and phrases to try to get some meaning from them. I hardly if ever recall reading subjective impressions like "I was expecting to like this more than I did," or "I think something else that costs less does the same thing better." There was simply an endless parade of favorable remarks, and I did not find it at all useful in distinguishing between products in order to make purchasing decisions.

 

2. This got a Product of the Year Award from TAS in 2017: https://www.synergisticresearch.com/acoustics/passive/hft/

There's objective, subjective, and there's "WTF?," and I put the HFTs in the latter category. Have there been any subjective reviews in TAS to this day that said "I don't hear a bit of difference, and can anyone give me a reasonable explanation as to how these could possibly work?" Because that was my entirely subjective reaction when a dealer friend installed them in the listening room at his store. Where is the representation in the magazines' content of subjectivists who aren't uncritically credulous of all manufacturer claims?

 

And now some unsolicited and probably bad business advice:

 

When TAS started, it was a revelation. HP was an acid-tongued joy. Why not try some new sections in the magazine that represent more of the full range of what subjectivists actually experience, like "My Least Favorite Audio Equipment," or "How Can This Even Work?" Because subjectivist audiophiles enjoy reading some subjective *opinions* from time to time.