MQA is Vaporware

[christopher3393]

12 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

They would not have even used lubricant.

 

You really do have a way with words. Don't these rhetorical exercises ever grow tiring? Is MQA still an existential threat  given the present situation that we are all in? Hard to believe that for some posting hasn't just become a bad habit.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

You really do have a way with words. Don't these rhetorical exercises ever grow tiring? Is MQA still an existential threat for given the present situation that we are all in? Hard to believe that for some posting hasn't just become a bad habit.

any comment on MQA? Ore just trolling/moderating? 

[MikeyFresh]

10 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

 Or just trolling/moderating? 

 

Clearly it's a lame attempt at both.

[KeenObserver]

Apparently,  someones ox was gored.

[ARQuint]

On 5/5/2020 at 12:15 AM, MikeyFresh said:

 

The latter, I do not like or accept that MQA has any place in this industry. We've been through all of the reasons why that stance is valid, I won't repeat them for you as they are well known and documented.

 

So TAS doesn't discriminate whatsoever with regard to whose press releases are published? 

 

The part in the release about "MQA makes video sound better because of its unique deblurring process" is both comical and bullshit at the very same time, that's the kind of thing TAS is OK with regurgitating ad nauseam? Upsampling with leaky MP filters is not unique, nor is it deblurring anything, no matter how many times TAS repeats it, in press releases, reviews, or otherwise. Yes that's an ethical lapse.

 

 

So publishing a press release from MQA, Ltd. Is an ethical lapse? I think you're on a proverbial slippery slope here. How about these manufacturer announcements regarding other products that some righteous souls characterize as "snake oil"? Also ethical lapses?

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/yg-acoustics-introduces-first-audio-rack-series/

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/wireworld-introduces-second-generation-flat-ethernet-cables/ http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audience-next-generation-powerchord-models-the-new-au24-sx-au24-se-i-and-se-i-ac-power-cords/ http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/melco-launces-new-s100-data-switch/

 

Remember, these are clearly identified as "press releases". TAS has actually reviewed—favorably—expensive USB cables, power cords, equipment footers, and a whole bunch of stuff sold by Ted Denney. More fraudulence? Will selling, reviewing, or even dispassionately announcing the existence of any tweaky accessory that hasn't been thoroughly vetted with measurements and DBT in an Archimago-approved fashion become evidence of moral failing? If you feel that way, there are forums out there that will make you feel right at home.

 

You are, of course, entitled to express your opinions regarding the technical and sonic merits of MQA, and even the (IMO) over-the-top concern that it imperils the future of our recorded legacy. You should, if you truly feel that this technology represents an existential threat to our hobby. But sometimes, it can appear that MQA has been singled out for "special treatment" for reasons that go beyond noble consumer advocacy.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

So publishing a press release from MQA, Ltd. Is an ethical lapse? I think you're on the proverbial slippery slope here. How about these manufacturer announcements regarding other products that some righteous souls characterize as "snake oil"? Also ethical lapses?

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/yg-acoustics-introduces-first-audio-rack-series/

 

 

 

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/wireworld-introduces-second-generation-flat-ethernet-cables/

 

 

 

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audience-next-generation-powerchord-models-the-new-au24-sx-au24-se-i-and-se-i-ac-power-cords/

 

 

 

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/melco-launces-new-s100-data-switch/

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, these are clearly identified as "press releases". TAS has actually reviewed—favorably—expensive USB cables, power cords, equipment footers, and a whole bunch of stuff developed by Ted Denney. More fraudulence? Will selling, reviewing, or even dispassionately announcing the existence of any tweaky accessory that hasn't been thoroughly vetted with measurements and DBT in an Archimago-approved fashion become evidence of moral failing?

 

If you feel that way, there are forums out there that will make you feel right at home.

You are, of course, entitled to express your opinions regarding the technical and sonic merits of MQA, and even the (IMO) over-the-top concern that it imperils the future of our recorded legacy. You should, if you truly feel that this technology represents an existential threat to our hobby. But sometimes, it can appear that MQA has been singled out for "special treatment" for reasons that go beyond noble consumer advocacy.

Andy Quint

 

 

 

Simply no, and that's both a bridge too far, and illustrates yet another blatant deflection attempt, you're now seeking to attach the technical and moral debunking of MQA to that of various other completely unrelated products.

 

What makes you think for one second that I personally disavow any and all product claims not backed by a slew of measurements, or DBT, or in your own words, "Arichimago-approved"?

 

These other forums that you suggest I might be better served by, I have never registered at nor even once posted there under any screen name at all, at the likes of ASR, or Hydrogen Audio, just to name two.

 

There is zero evidence to support your wild conjecture, and for the record, I'm no staunch objectivist whatsoever. DBT or it doesn't exist my ASS.

 

However, if you are deflecting from the reality of pathetic TAS support of all things MQA, and it's clearly debunked marketing-speak bullshit that TAS has so readily supported and regurgitated, then yes, I submit that is evidence of a moral failing, and one that might cause HP to literally turn over in his grave if such a thing were possible, given TAS's origin and pedigree.

 

I've got no axe to grind against makers of equipment footers, power cords, or any other "tweaky accessory", as you put it. Not only do I personally own such products and like them, but they have exactly nothing to do with any blatant cash grab attempt at the end-to-end domination of music distribution, and can very easily be categorized broadly to consumers as caveat emptor. Those using a quality local dealer for trial of such products, or still others buying with a money back guarantee need not worry at all, they can easily draw their own conclussions.

 

On the other hand, if MQA were to achieve the market dominance and "one format for all" that both MQA themselves have admitted is a goal, and that the record labels obviously also covet, complete with stealth DRM and the so-called "Crown Jewels" safely locked away again (assuming they did not actually burn down in more than one mysterious master tape storage facility fire that are the subject of ongoing litigation), then yes Andrew, I vehemently oppose MQA on all grounds, including that of TAS's ongoing shill program evidenced by review comments, "press releases", and your own fake news comments in this thread. Please say hi to Lee for us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[firedog]

I personally have no ethical or other problem if the page is labelled at the top a press release. That tells me that much of what follows, and any quotes, are marketing speak.

Same as I'd demand any sponsored material is clearly labeled as such or is clearly an ad. In the present case, I can assume that anything coming from MQA is at best misleading or even a lie. Ditto for any quote from Mike Jbara. 

 

I agree with Andy in this case that it is no different from them publishing press releases for many products that are widely considered to be "snake oil".

 

Chris also publishes press releases here, and no one objects. Obviously Chris is more selective, but in principle it is no different. 

 

I don't expect audio sites to survive without advertising and sponsors. Caveat emptor....

[KeenObserver]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

 

So publishing a press release from MQA, Ltd. Is an ethical lapse? I think you're on a proverbial slippery slope here. How about these manufacturer announcements regarding other products that some righteous souls characterize as "snake oil"? Also ethical lapses?

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/yg-acoustics-introduces-first-audio-rack-series/

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/wireworld-introduces-second-generation-flat-ethernet-cables/ http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audience-next-generation-powerchord-models-the-new-au24-sx-au24-se-i-and-se-i-ac-power-cords/ http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/melco-launces-new-s100-data-switch/

 

Remember, these are clearly identified as "press releases". TAS has actually reviewed—favorably—expensive USB cables, power cords, equipment footers, and a whole bunch of stuff sold by Ted Denney. More fraudulence? Will selling, reviewing, or even dispassionately announcing the existence of any tweaky accessory that hasn't been thoroughly vetted with measurements and DBT in an Archimago-approved fashion become evidence of moral failing? If you feel that way, there are forums out there that will make you feel right at home.

 

You are, of course, entitled to express your opinions regarding the technical and sonic merits of MQA, and even the (IMO) over-the-top concern that it imperils the future of our recorded legacy. You should, if you truly feel that this technology represents an existential threat to our hobby. But sometimes, it can appear that MQA has been singled out for "special treatment" for reasons that go beyond noble consumer advocacy.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

 

No one is forced to buy those items.

 

The MQA business model would make MQA the controller of music distribution and every music consumer would have to pay for that "privilege".  There is a difference between choosing what product to buy and being forced to pay for a scheme that one does not want.

 

I realize that you are in a tough position, working for TAS.  But this is really a stretch.

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

What makes you think for one second that I personally disavow any and all product claims not backed by a slew of measurements, or DBT, or in your own words, "Arichimago-approved"?

 

That's my point. You're clearly not a Hydrogen Audio kind of guy. There's an inconsistency to the vitriolic response of the most riled-up of anti-MQA posters when compared to their view of other allegedly "debunked" technologies.

 

A year ago in this thread, the most incensed of the anti-MQA folks were calling requests for civility a "deflection". Now pointing out inconsistencies in their attitudes towards different technologies with a disputed science/engineering basis is "deflection." It's perhaps a useful short-term debate strategy but ultimately one that doesn't hold water.

 

A Big Lie, by the way, is that TAS has had all that much to say about MQA for a couple of years—there hasn't been much since Robert's articles of 2016/2017 when the technology was breaking into general audiophile consciousness. Mostly, it's company press releases online. Do you actually read TAS? Most TAS-haters proudly declare they don't and if that's the case, I'm not sure how you would know how MQA is covered these days. I've been a TAS writer for 25 years and still read each issue closely. We mention MQA when it's an available feature in a DAC and mostly, that's it. If you are a subscriber, have a look at some recent issues. If you're not, I'll spring for a digital subscription so you can look for evidence of rampant MQA shilling. But beware, the magazine is pretty thick and you might get distracted by all those equipment and music reviews that fail to mention those reviled initials.

 

Andy Quint

[ARQuint]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

No one is forced to buy those items.

 

The MQA business model would make MQA the controller of music distribution and every music consumer would have to pay for that "privilege".  There is a difference between choosing what product to buy and being forced to pay for a scheme that one does not want.

 

I realize that you are in a tough position, working for TAS.  But this is really a stretch.

 

A valid point, and thanks for expressing it without ire. It assumes, of course, that MQA, Ltd. has a plan for World Domination. I honestly don't know if that's the case.

 

BTW, I have never received any kind of editorial direction vis-a-vis MQA when I get an MQA-enabled component for review which, admittedly, hasn't been very often. I've had no contact at all with Lee Scoggins (once, in this thread, a fierce MQA advocate) and don't see any change in our coverage—or lack thereof—of the technology since he came aboard.

 

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Do you actually read TAS?

 

Does anyone?

[KeenObserver]

Again,  the MQA business model is to control the distribution and playback of music.  And collect royalties on each link of the chain.

 

And, again,  I understand your situation.  The soldier follows the general.  Why else would you be continually posting on this thread?

[mfsoa]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

We mention MQA when it's an available feature in a DAC and mostly, that's it.

So if I understand your point-

 

A company rolls out a technology with the intent of forcing music lovers across the globe to pay them money each time they listen to music, when that company's product is of a lower quality than what the consumer knows to exist and wants to purchase.

 

And the leading audiophile publication in the world feels that this does not require any analysis, any investigation? No, we just simply mention when it is available on a product. If this is the extent of information that TAS is able to provide to a reader then fine, I can anticipate that there will be not much need to open the pages.

 

New top of the line amp!! OMG!!  It takes in a signal and puts out a louder one!!  Has speaker connection terminals!

State of the art turntable -  Record goes around and then stops when you turn it off.

 

You seem to say that it is a good thing that TAS simply lists features without consideration of their merit. I hope for much more. 

 

If Car and Driver ignored the driving performance and societal impact of electric cars and self-driving technology and simply reported if a car contained them or not, I would consider it poor journalism.

 

   

[daverich4]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Does anyone?

Subscriber for more than 40 years....

[MikeyFresh]

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Now pointing out inconsistencies in their attitudes towards different technologies with a disputed science/engineering basis is "deflection." It's perhaps a useful short-term debate strategy but ultimately one that doesn't hold water.

 

Exactly, because it is a deflection, and my point most certainly holds water. I see you sailed right past the part about the product examples you cited as having no actual relevance to MQA or the threat to consumers and artists that it clearly presents. The one bears no resemblance to the other, so the deflection is therefore clear and not at all a short term debate strategy. You cited something that has no bearing or resemblance to MQA, merely to create the illusion they are somehow similar. They are not, and so that's not even then an MQA debate, you attempted to shift focus off of MQA and onto various other unrelated products and brands.

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

A year ago in this thread, the most incensed of the anti-MQA folks were calling requests for civility a "deflection".

 

Thats because it was a deflection, evidently the only response that MQA or its supporters could muster. You have zero response to the very detailed technical debunking presented here and elsewhere, so it became a game of shoot the messenger, incivility claims, and non-acceptance of anonymity. Deflect, shift the topic, dodge the real issue.

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

A Big Lie, by the way, is that TAS has had all that much to say about MQA for a couple of years—there hasn't been much since Robert's articles of 2016/2017 when the technology was breaking into general audiophile consciousness. Mostly, it's company press releases online.

 

On this we agree, but that's no feather in your cap. RH's over the top absurd commentary still needs a full retraction, in print. Nothing short of that can possibly be defended, or help to restore the reputation and credibility of the publication. Just because there has been a quiet retreat to just the occasional MQA mention, and/or the publishing of worthless "press releases" such as the one recently in question here, doesn't mean that TAS isn't still guilty of having aided and abetted in the charade. 

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Do you actually read TAS?

 

No, I canceled my subscription a few years ago, after decades of enjoying the magazine previously, always with a grain of salt, but still enjoyable all the same. So I do not keep a running tally on the MQA coverage by TAS, but I believe I've seen the marked retreat you describe if my cursory look at the content and links is any indication. Again, no feather in your cap there, a full published retraction to RH's hysterical MQA proclamations is in order, something to the effect of "What we now know".

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I'll spring for a digital subscription so you can look for evidence of rampant MQA shilling. But beware, the magazine is pretty thick and you might get distracted by all those equipment and music reviews that fail to mention those reviled initials.

 

I do appreciate that offer, but will kindly pass. I'm largely uninterested in TAS until such time as the above mentioned retraction piece is published. Many times in business all you really have is your reputation and credibility, and once damaged or destroyed, it can be pretty hard to ever get it back.

 

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I've had no contact at all with Lee Scoggins (once, in this thread, a fierce MQA advocate) and don't see any change in our coverage—or lack thereof—of the technology since he came aboard.

 

Congratulations on that, hopefully there will not be steady stream of these harmless MQA "press release" advertorials, It would not be in the best interest of the magazine for LS to become a press conduit for his buddies Forsythe and Jbara. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

11 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

That's my point. You're clearly not a Hydrogen Audio kind of guy. There's an inconsistency to the vitriolic response of the most riled-up of anti-MQA posters when compared to their view of other allegedly "debunked" technologies.

 

A year ago in this thread, the most incensed of the anti-MQA folks were calling requests for civility a "deflection". Now pointing out inconsistencies in their attitudes towards different technologies with a disputed science/engineering basis is "deflection." It's perhaps a useful short-term debate strategy but ultimately one that doesn't hold water.

 

A Big Lie, by the way, is that TAS has had all that much to say about MQA for a couple of years—there hasn't been much since Robert's articles of 2016/2017 when the technology was breaking into general audiophile consciousness. Mostly, it's company press releases online. Do you actually read TAS? Most TAS-haters proudly declare they don't and if that's the case, I'm not sure how you would know how MQA is covered these days. I've been a TAS writer for 25 years and still read each issue closely. We mention MQA when it's an available feature in a DAC and mostly, that's it. If you are a subscriber, have a look at some recent issues. If you're not, I'll spring for a digital subscription so you can look for evidence of rampant MQA shilling. But beware, the magazine is pretty thick and you might get distracted by all those equipment and music reviews that fail to mention those reviled initials.

 

Andy Quint

Dr. Quint:

 

First, I want to thank you for finally addressing your magazine's coverage of MQA, for the first time, after repeated requests.

It is nice to get your perspective, instead of your usual civility crusade.

 

You actually made a valid point with respect to press releases.  

 

As for this statement; "I'll spring for a digital subscription so you can look for evidence of rampant MQA shilling"

 

Aside from mentions of MQA in reviews as a product "feature", this is from Sept of 2019-

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/hi-res-democratization/

 

"To recap, Master Quality Authenticated is an encoding and decoding technology that delivers true high-resolution audio in a file size that can be easily streamed. It is based in part on entirely new research into human hearing as well as on novel digital sampling techniques for natural signals developed for cutting-edge medical imaging and astronomy. MQA’s stated mission is to deliver studio-master sound quality to listeners in a convenient format that anyone can enjoy. Beyond its superior sound quality (even compared with high-bit-rate PCM).."

 

Just above there are three totally untrue statements. 

 

And:

 

"(MQA can) only be described as a miracle of modern digital-audio technology and a boon to music lovers."

 

This is the very definition of shilling, and Mr. Harley presents information that has been shown, without question, via

repeatable analysis, to be bunk. 

 

This is a doubling and tripling down, if anything. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

"To recap, Master Quality Authenticated is an encoding and decoding technology that delivers true high-resolution audio in a file size that can be easily streamed. It is based in part on entirely new research into human hearing as well as on novel digital sampling techniques for natural signals developed for cutting-edge medical imaging and astronomy. MQA’s stated mission is to deliver studio-master sound quality to listeners in a convenient format that anyone can enjoy. Beyond its superior sound quality (even compared with high-bit-rate PCM).."

Wow, that's rich. 

[Allan F]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wow, that's rich. 

 

Actually, Chris, it's incredibly poor - as in grossly misleading and disingenuous.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Allan F said:

 

Actually, Chris, it's incredibly poor - as in grossly misleading and disingenuous.

Well said.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Actually, Chris, it's incredibly poor - as in grossly misleading and disingenuous.

How about this...🤣

 

"Now along comes a technology that delivers better sound quality than their massive PCM files, requires absolutely no expertise, is inexpensive and convenient, has a low bit rate, and to top it off, is readily available to everyone. With a couple of taps on a smartphone, any kid can stream audio that sounds better than the high-bit-rate files the early adopters worked so hard to acquire. In a single stroke, MQA democratized high resolution and obviated the early adopters’ elite status."

[Allan F]

16 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

In a single stroke, MQA democratized high resolution and obviated the early adopters’ elite status."

 

"Democratized"? WTF. Bob Stuart was trying to monopolize the music industry. That's called totalitarianism.

[MikeyFresh]

39 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

This is a doubling and tripling down, if anything. 

 

That it is. I guess my request for a full retraction will fall on deaf ears then. 🤣

[MikeyFresh]

14 hours ago, firedog said:

In the present case, I can assume that anything coming from MQA is at best misleading or even a lie. Ditto for any quote from Mike Jbara. 

 

Thats true, I hadn't thought of it that way. In that sense just more noise from a source of ill repute to completely disregard.

 

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

"(MQA can) only be described as a miracle of modern digital-audio technology and a boon to music lovers."

 

Now I'm worried for RH, has anyone actually seen him in the flesh lately? I'm concerned the above could only come from an AI-armed robot, an area LS's résumé suggests he's well-versed in.

 

Then again LS was a mouthpiece/salesman, not an engineer, so it's possible TAS under-vetted his résumé, opting instead to just splash his stated credentials onto a hiring press release and call it a day.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Thats true, I hadn't thought of it that way. In that sense just more noise from a source of ill repute to completely disregard.

 

 

Now I'm worried for RH, has anyone actually seen him in the flesh lately? I'm concerned the above could only come from an AI-armed robot, an area LS's résumé suggests he's well-versed in.

 

Then again LS was a mouthpiece/salesman, not an engineer, so it's possible TAS under-vetted his résumé, opting instead to just splash his stated credentials onto a hiring press release and call it a day.

Maybe RH will appear as a hologram at the next audio show, if it actually ever takes place.

 

Remember, Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus walked on water, and Bob Stuart created MQA....😜

 

 

[KeenObserver]

" Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war".

 

A quote from Shakespeare.

 

Before battle the Roman Legions would release the war dogs to attack their enemy.

 

This recent activity of writers passive-aggressively attacking the "civility" of those who expose the truth about MQA has me concerned that a new round of BS is starting.

 

I will be glad when MQA is finally dead and no longer poses a threat to the music consumer.