MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

Yes I see it as round the Calvary up and create a wall around MQA  I hope they allow Q and A sessions for registered participants as it’s going to be a pretty one sided affair if not 

Yep. When people have zero credibility left, they frequently try to get as close to it as possible and hope that those listening to the presentation associate the good credibility of others with them. Yes, Vicki is very smart and is a nice person with whom I’ve exchanged emails (agreeing and disagreeing), but when credibility rubs off onto others who need it, it’s hard to get back. I hope she is the voice of reason in that infomercial. She has the chops to call out every claim by MQA, if MQA dares to raise them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Another tactic used by scammers is to bring up topics outside of the industry in which one is speaking. Example, Bob bringing up the “benefits” of MQA to record labels, while talking to the RMAF audience. Who is going to call him out? Nobody in that crowd. It will be interesting to see how much MQA talks about consumer demand and other total consumer-side topics at a professional engineering “conference.” 
 

Ask anyone with integrity, the toughest audiences are those in the same field who are experts. You can’t pull the wool over their eyes. Thus, speaking to experts about a topic that’s outside their wheelhouse ensures smooth sailing. 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, Thuaveta said:

 

your conclusion is that @The Computer Audiophile is unfairly calling the panel an infomercial, because there's one person on it that is clearly extraordinarily competent and likely still has a shred of integrity left.

Please don't  put words in my mough. With all due respect, I think you are arguing with the voices in your head, Thuaveta.

 

John Atkinson

Techncial Editor, Stereophile

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Agree. And one of the participants, Vicki Melchior, is one of the most respected DSP experts around.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Since when do you care about what experts have to say?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

38 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Please don't  put words in my mough. With all due respect, I think you are arguing with the voices in your head, Thuaveta.

 

John Atkinson

Techncial Editor, Stereophile

Puppet Master Bob Stuart beat him to the punch. You are one of the "influencers" Master Quack Audio bamboozled, which they noted was their business plan in their public filings.

[lucretius]

15 hours ago, Hifi Bob said:

The usual BS. But my, how dull can Bob be? I’d be surprised if anyone makes it to the end of the video.

 

I couldn't make it very far.  This is as far as I got and it was torturous (my comments in bold):

• Measurements can’t tell you everything. OTH, neuroscience revealed some good clues for the MQA team [apparently without measurements].
• Conventional digital was adding pollution to the sound. We could have added more clean water to dilute the dirty water but we chose instead to remove the dirty water [one has to appreciate the scientific acumen here].
• Since we can’t put Ella Fitzgerald back in the studio, we developed a set of tools we call deblurring that takes the poison out of the picture. If you have a window that’s dirty, you can see through it.  If you clean it, you see better – more clearly; you took the dirt away.  This is the sort of area in which we were working [window cleaning? Or is this another example of that scientific acumen? Note the interviewer interjected here: “He really delved into the science.”].
• The traditional way with high resolution is just to make the file bigger and bigger and bigger and just put more space into it. But a lot of that is wasted. The real skill and the real trick of what we’ve been doing is to find out where the music is in that file – in the middle – we give it more attention but not the things you could never hear or make no difference.  [This should read that anything above 22K/24K frequency (44.1/48 kHz sample rate) makes no difference, so we effectively crushed it and mangled it, while still maintaining the illusion of high resolution – don’t pay any attention to that noise you see on the spectrogram.]

 

Although I didn't make it very far into this video interview, I suspect it was more of the same -- just like Bob's other interviews. That is to say, there's not even remotely a single hint of anything that resembles a scientific explanation.

 

 

6 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Do you think the interviewer understood the full consequences of MQA?

 

I don't know but you cannot say that B.S. made any meaningful contribution to the understanding of MQA during the interview. Although, he did explain the concept of window cleaning.

 

I have to believe that those who go along with this bs (from B.S.) are willfully ignorant and are thus shills or kooks.

[Thuaveta]

7 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

With all due respect, I think you are arguing with the voices in your head, Thuaveta.

 

 

With all due respect, I had little hope that now that you've taken a step back from the daily grind, you'd use the time to finally learn the difference between an investigation and an informercial, John.

[Thuaveta]

6 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

You are one of the "influencers" Master Quack Audio bamboozled

 

Let's please not reach hasty conclusions and insult @John_Atkinson's intelligence: unless proven otherwise, it's much safer to assume that he has been a willing participant in the swindle.

[Confused]

More from Hans ....

 

 

[firedog]

Let's see: he has proven in the past he doesn't know what he is talking about in technical terms, especially in terms of MQA.

So why believe a word he has to say? When you listen to his speech, it's clear he doesn't actually understand what's going on, but is merely parroting stuff he's heard. And he never subjects himself to an ABX or any kind of non sighted testing, so he can never find out what is expectation bias and what isn't. 

 

He says he has no monetary interest in MQA. Fine. But he has a huge interest in continuing to support it, as he's such a fanboy that he can't now admit he has been wrong, or that he might not understand the technical aspects.

 

His speech about Bob Stuart: meaningless appeal to authority. Just because BS has done some worthy things in the past, means nothing in terms of MQA and whether it is a scam. Same for Craven.

[Confused]

He actually said pretty much nothing that was directly related to the Golden Sound video.  Mostly a history lesson, followed by "trust your ears".

 

I did like the line towards the end (about 9mim30s), to quote: "on how MQA achieves this we can only guess".

 

I think this pretty much sums up he current MQA debate.  Those on the anti side can provide actual technical data, results of testing and information to back up their claims, those on the pro side say Bob is very smart and you should trust your ears.

[FredericV]

Hans did not debunk anything. From watching the video we learned:
 

1. he does not understand the science, he just assumes MQA works in a way he cannot prove, such as the usage of splines
2. he is guessing
3. he is using the argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate)
4. he only reads official publications from MQA, AES, the patents - he does not investigate the research of independent researchers
5. he looks a bit angry

His video can be summarized by this still:



 

 

He admits not going into any talking points from the GoldeSound video. Basically he cannot debunk them, and as in the usual MQA evangelist style, he uses the GO LISTEN argument:

 

Well we did that:

1. MQA changes the raw quality of female voices
2. MQA shortens the post echo's
3. Qobuz versions of certain demo quality tracks sound much better than the MQA version on Tidal
4. Some records totally sound different as if a different master was used
5. MQA's leaky filter make the bass tighter, which may be fun with EDM, but may sound artificial with real music
6. MQA files have less micro detail than even redbook files

We actually bought a full MQA enabled Mytek to do nearfield listening to MQA, just like in the studio, on real studio speakers (Amphion One 18). Those little monitors revealed the shortcomings of MQA easily.

Also undecoded MQA sounds more hash than the redbook versions, so MQA claiming undecoded MQA is already better than redbook does not hold any truth.

[Hiker]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

Hans did not debunk anything. From watching the video we learned:
 

1. he does not understand the science, he just assumes MQA works in a way he cannot prove, such as the usage of splines
2. he is guessing
3. he is using the argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate)
4. he only reads official publications from MQA, AES, the patents - he does not investigate the research of independent researchers
5. he looks a bit angry

His video can be summarized by this still:



 

 

He admits not going into any talking points from the GoldeSound video. Basically he cannot debunk them, and as in the usual MQA evangelist style, he uses the GO LISTEN argument:

 

Well we did that:

1. MQA changes the raw quality of female voices
2. MQA shortens the post echo's
3. Qobuz versions of certain demo quality tracks sound much better than the MQA version on Tidal
4. Some records totally sound different as if a different master was used
5. MQA's leaky filter make the bass tighter, which may be fun with EDM, but may sound artificial with real music
6. MQA files have less micro detail than even redbook files

We actually bought a full MQA enabled Mytek to do nearfield listening to MQA, just like in the studio, on real studio speakers (Amphion One 18). Those little monitors revealed the shortcomings of MQA easily.

Also undecoded MQA sounds more hash than the redbook versions, so MQA claiming undecoded MQA is already better than redbook does not hold any truth.

I don’t stream my music , I’ve never listened to the effects of MQA I just started following this topic just out of curiosity.

 

I’d like to point out I own the 432 Evo Aeon and I absolutely love what it does with well recorded vocals among other attributes this server brings to the table .

 

[Saffuria]

2 hours ago, Hiker said:

I’d like to point out I own the 432 Evo Aeon and I absolutely love what it does

Very good! Are there special finishes available on request?

[Hiker]

29 minutes ago, Saffuria said:

Very good! Are there special finishes available on request?

Ha , I’m thinking on spray painting my server black however I’ll just have four shades of different black finishes from four different manufacturers,.....

[Saffuria]

5 minutes ago, Hiker said:

I’m thinking on spray painting my server black however

Ya, seems to me a sensible choice  🙂

[Hiker]

22 minutes ago, Saffuria said:

Ya, seems to me a sensible choice  🙂

Ha , well me thinks it bothers you more then it does me either way silver or black it’s a Hell of of good server .

[GregWormald]

Actually I though Hans did a pretty good job of saying not much at all.

 

My takeaways were:

B.S. is an expert in some areas. (Hans is not claiming that that applies to MQA.)

Nothing that modifies music is lossless. (Sounds like a tautology to me.)

Decide what you like by listening. (Isn't that what we all do in the end?)

 

What's the problem? (Except the time spent listening to not much of course; but that's hardly unusual in audio.)

[Archimago]

19 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

Please don't  put words in my mough. With all due respect, I think you are arguing with the voices in your head, Thuaveta.

 

John Atkinson

Techncial Editor, Stereophile

 

John,

Since you're here on this thread, let's talk candidly. I appreciate all that you've done for the audiophile community over the decades. You can certainly be proud of many successes you have brought to Stereophile over the years. The measurements and continued focus on objective performance has made the magazine unique certainly in North America and among the magazines I've had access to during my "formative years" as an audiophile.

 

However, I suspect that the the time ahead for you as Technical Editor isn't going to be all that long. Honestly, how many more years are you keen to measure equipment? In fact, the age of most of your "top" writers are certainly up there and human auditory physiology has a universal trajectory. I hope you're well on the way to training the next person you'll be passing this baton on to for the Technical tasks. I'm sure there are many other things one would want to enjoy in retirement...

 

Your legacy however, IMO, is tainted in recent years by MQA. When you wrote the infamous article claiming to have witnessed the "birth of a new world" and comparing MQA with the dawn of consumer digital audio (CD), is this honestly what you expected to happen? Face it. MQA has done a horrendous disservice to the audiophile hobby. It has created a schism between those who feel that "we" care about "fidelity" at a level that can be technically demonstrated and proven (you're the Technical Editor, right?) versus those like Hans B above who offer weak words and admissions of "guessing".

 

I do not expect a reply to this. All I ask is that you think about not what MQA is since evidence is there for all to see, but at a "meta" level what MQA has done to the hobby and what it represents. Yes, I think MQA has opened up a "new world". But it's not the world you wrote about in December 2014. I think it has become a more honest world for audiophiles. MQA unintentionally may have brought audiophiles back into the technical side of the hobby; a side that I trust you are comfortable with.

 

There is an opportunity here to do the right thing IMO. Have a good look at MQA again as the Techical Editor all these years since 2014. Re-evaluate what you think of that "new world" and MQA's place in it. There's no shame in changing opinions. If you think this is necessary/appropriate, certainly many of us here would respect the integrity.

 

[Racerxnet]

7 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

John,

Since you're here on this thread, let's talk candidly. I appreciate all that you've done for the audiophile community over the decades. You can certainly be proud of many successes you have brought to Stereophile over the years. The measurements and continued focus on objective performance has made the magazine unique certainly in North America and among the magazines I've had access to during my "formative years" as an audiophile.

 

However, I suspect that the the time ahead for you as Technical Editor isn't going to be all that long. Honestly, how many more years are you keen to measure equipment? In fact, the age of most of your "top" writers are certainly up there and human auditory physiology has a universal trajectory. I hope you're well on the way to training the next person you'll be passing this baton on to for the Technical tasks. I'm sure there are many other things one would want to enjoy in retirement...

 

Your legacy however, IMO, is tainted in recent years by MQA. When you wrote the infamous article claiming to have witnessed the "birth of a new world" and comparing MQA with the dawn of consumer digital audio (CD), is this honestly what you expected to happen? Face it. MQA has done a horrendous disservice to the audiophile hobby. It has created a schism between those who feel that "we" care about "fidelity" at a level that can be technically demonstrated and proven (you're the Technical Editor, right?) versus those like Hans B above who offer weak words and admissions of "guessing".

 

I do not expect a reply to this. All I ask is that you think about not what MQA is since evidence is there for all to see, but at a "meta" level what MQA has done to the hobby and what it represents. Yes, I think MQA has opened up a "new world". But it's not the world you wrote about in December 2014. I think it has become a more honest world for audiophiles. MQA unintentionally may have brought audiophiles back into the technical side of the hobby; a side that I trust you are comfortable with.

 

There is an opportunity here to do the right thing IMO. Have a good look at MQA again as the Techical Editor all these years since 2014. Re-evaluate what you think of that "new world" and MQA's place in it. There's no shame in changing opinions. If you think this is necessary/appropriate, certainly many of us here would respect the integrity.

 

Can't,  wont, and never going to happen with John. My hunch, based on human psychology is that John couldn't handle the ridicule/distancing  from peers with a vested interest, his own vested interest,  and the backlash from the MQA fanboys. People who put themselves on a platform above truth don't like to admit when they are wrong. It takes tremendous courage to change direction, and I wouldn't hold my breath in this case. Good luck with that Arch. 

[Archimago]

16 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Can't,  wont, and never going to happen with John. My hunch, based on human psychology is that John couldn't handle the ridicule/distancing  from peers with a vested interest, his own vested interest,  and the backlash from the MQA fanboys. People who put themselves on a platform above truth don't like to admit when they are wrong. It takes tremendous courage to change direction, and I wouldn't hold my breath in this case. Good luck with that Arch. 

 

Maybe Racerxnet. As much as I am a critic of human nature found in the audiophile press, in principle, I do believe in an inherent desire for nobility in the heart of men (and women of course). In life, I trust that we all have much to account for in what we have said and done. Mistakes happen and honest journalists will publish updates and correct errors made.

 

Yes, it takes a strong man to admit when we're wrong. That's also what separates the boys from men, leaders from followers. As an elder statesman among audiophiles, I'd like to think that there's more to John than just his vested interests at this point in the career.

 

Re: "backlash from the MQA fanboys" - ohhh... Peter Veth's gonna come after John now... Scary... 😱 🤣

[DuckToller]

7 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Re: "backlash from the MQA fanboys" - ohhh... Peter Veth's gonna come after John now... Scary... 😱 🤣

🤣🤣🤣

[botrytis]

I hope Mr. Atkinson sees that MQA really does not deliver what it says it does. In science, a theory is held as right, until evidence to the contrary is shown. There has certainly many examples of negative evidence that what MQA is selling is not what they are describing. Scientist do change their opinions based on the latest and greatest data out there. I have done it many times in my career.

 

Just remember, "To Err is Human, to Forgive is Divine'.

 

I also think that the audiophile world would react positive to a relook at it by Stereophile and to look that the non-data as shown by MQA versus the ACTUAL MEASURED DATA by Archimago, et al.

 

I guess hope springs eternal, for me, in the hope that MQA will just fade away.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Still holding on to MQA at this point is no different from politicians who never admit they were wrong. They find ways to twist and turn to justify their previous actions and points of view. Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on, uncomfortably, as they squirm to answer questions. 
 

Is it really that hard to look at all the evidence now and change one’s mind? Seems pretty straight forward, plus then one gets to be right (for those who have a hard time being wrong).

[LarryMagoo]

It seems if Mr. Atkinson would reverse course based on his further examination of MQA, he regains huge strides in his credibility!!