MQA is Vaporware

[Confused]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

I suspect that Ken et al anticipated that the seminar would be entirely negative and came prepared to disrupt the presentation.

If they had come prepared with some actual technical information it might have been more convincing than endlessly arguing about internet anonymity.

[ARQuint]

5 minutes ago, Confused said:

If they had come prepared with some actual technical information it might have been more convincing than endlessly arguing about internet anonymity.

Agreed. A waste of time.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I'm pretty sure it's a big mistake to contribute anything to this thread that isn't an earnest and outraged testament to the irredeemably evil essence of MQA. But without commenting on the value of the technology, I feel it's worth pointing out instances— on both sides in this pitched battle—when myths have been created and false narratives propagated.

 

In the case of the 2018 RMAF seminar, the representation of what actually happened there has been increasingly reductive. Even at the time, the context of MQA's disruptive behavior was not fairly addressed. On Oct 7, 2018, the date of Chris's presentation, the "MQA is Vaporware" thread was already 404 pages long and MQA had every expectation to believe that the seminar would be a hatchet job. After all, Computer Audiophile (as it was still officially known in the Fall of 2018) was day-in-and-day-out providing a platform for an increasingly virulent attack on not just their product, but also their intellectual, moral, and ethical character.

 

There couldn't have been more than 50 people present at the seminar and, had it not been for MQA's activist participation (which I do believe was proactively disruptive) I'm not convinced that many more would have watched the YouTube video. These archived seminars aren't exactly "Must-see TV." But now, it's offered as evidence for the shameful corporate conduct of MQA Ltd. Roughly two-and-a-half years after the event, the behavior of those from the company has been reduced to that five seconds of the bald guy, Khrushchev-like, banging on the desk as he loudly makes a point. If you actually watch the video, the MQA attendees say nothing at all for the first 10 minutes of the seminar until it is awfully clear that Chris's presentation will not be an attempt at even-handedness. Having looked at those 404 pages of "Vaporware", the MQA representatives had an idea of what Chris's argument might be like, and they were right. Although they began with a measured tone, the MQA folks definitely came loaded for bear—and it wasn't all in their heads. In this whole conflagration, I'm not sure there has been, from either side, a more disingenuous statement than Chris's just a few minutes into his talk: "I may give an opinion at the end—I can't remember if it's in the slides." Really?

 

For several years, meaningful discussion hasn't occurred here, on the "Vaporware" thread, even when some of the finest minds are involved. Consider Archimago. His methodical, exhaustive and temperate critique of MQA three years ago made him a hero in many audiophile circles, his AS article a useful point of reference for all involved in what was once something resembling a debate. Now, his response to Bob Stuart's response to GoldenOne report on his Tidal experience involves a facile dismissal rather than the point-by-point rebuttal of Stuart's statement I would have loved to read. For sure, something's been lost with anything resembling our sense of a thoughtful community of enthusiasts. Maybe it actually is about "saving babies and killing puppies," at least in the minds of some of the combatants.

 

 

 

Wow, your post is totally removed from reality. Either you didn't watch the whole clip or you are so preudiced your basic perception is effected. Chris was clearly trying to present both sides, and the MQA people weren't willing to let him speak. I've been at plenty of professional presentations - even some with controversial material- and I've never seen anything approaching what happened there. So if YOU watch the video, the behavior, was shameful - and I'm not talking about Chris'.

 

Really, you sound like one of these US Congressmen who now says the video of Jan. 6 looks like normal tourist walking through the Capitol....

[ARQuint]

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hello Q, your attempting to rewrite history. I find it funny that you and @John_Atkinson come out of the woodwork today in support of each other, as mQa inches closer to irrelevance and attempts to smear @GoldenOne for his honest video. It’s as if the old guard is the PR wing of mQa. That’s certainly not the hill I’d die on. 

 

I guess "the best defense is a good offense." My point in bringing this up is that an attempt is indeed being made to rewrite history—by those who want to portray you as the "victim" at RMAF 2018. I'm a fan of yours, Chris, but I believe you miscalculated with that seminar, giving it a misleading title and then being surprised when the MQA people anticipated what you were up to and (after waiting 10 minutes to see if they were wrong) launched an attack that definitely threw you offyour game. It was a fiasco, and the fact is, you were at least partially to blame.

The conspiracy theory stuff is unbecoming—all the winking Q references and implications of secret pacts among audio writers past age 60. You've argued that Stereophile and TAS have been backed into a rhetorical corner by their early enthusiasm for MQA and maybe you're right. But there's a lot more to what these magazines—and all audio publications, including yours—do beyond this one technology and we apply ourselves with every equipment and music review to serve the interests of our readers, as I know you do. You need to be careful that you don't back yourself into a different sort of corner.

 

[StephenJK]

Chris,

 

I hadn't bothered watching that RMAF presentation from start to finish until this morning.  

 

As a Toastmaster with a DTM I’ve done many speeches and presentations, either informally or professionally and like to think I have some small skills in that area.    

 

If I was to evaluate your presentation, I would say that your one big mistake was with engaging your audience in conversation and becoming distracted from your goal – to give an effective presentation.

 

A number of your audience members obviously have a separate agenda, which was to refute your talk point by point – you should not have allowed them to do that.

 

With any presentation, the first statement is “Please hold all questions to the end.”

 

I’ve seen people try to do a more interactive back and forth approach in the belief that this could add value so that points are addressed as they’re raised.  The danger, of course is that it could turn into a sandbagging exercise, much like you were submitted to by a few audience members.  

 

At best, the presentation becomes ineffective as time is lost responding to questions or comments that may or may not be relevant.  At worse, it becomes unfocused as other audience members lose interest. 

 

The audience is there to hear what you have to say – not to challenge or refute it.  Much like any other article or topic, people are free to rebut comments or statements in their own time and with the forum of their choice.

 

I admire your ability to power through despite all the distractions, but wouldn’t have allowed a presentation to turn into a conversation – once you lose control it’s difficult to get it back. 

 

I do think the answer to your own question of “Do we need a lossy commercial algorithm” shouldn’t have been “I don’t know”, but rather “Not now, and maybe not ever.” 

 

Are you planning a follow up to this?  Or does this thread do that for you?

[LarryMagoo]

             

 

[botrytis]

14 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

Chris,

 

I hadn't bothered watching that RMAF presentation from start to finish until this morning.  

 

As a Toastmaster with a DTM I’ve done many speeches and presentations, either informally or professionally and like to think I have some small skills in that area.    

 

If I was to evaluate your presentation, I would say that your one big mistake was with engaging your audience in conversation and becoming distracted from your goal – to give an effective presentation.

 

A number of your audience members obviously have a separate agenda, which was to refute your talk point by point – you should not have allowed them to do that.

 

With any presentation, the first statement is “Please hold all questions to the end.”

 

I’ve seen people try to do a more interactive back and forth approach in the belief that this could add value so that points are addressed as they’re raised.  The danger, of course is that it could turn into a sandbagging exercise, much like you were submitted to by a few audience members.  

 

At best, the presentation becomes ineffective as time is lost responding to questions or comments that may or may not be relevant.  At worse, it becomes unfocused as other audience members lose interest. 

 

The audience is there to hear what you have to say – not to challenge or refute it.  Much like any other article or topic, people are free to rebut comments or statements in their own time and with the forum of their choice.

 

I admire your ability to power through despite all the distractions, but wouldn’t have allowed a presentation to turn into a conversation – once you lose control it’s difficult to get it back. 

 

I do think the answer to your own question of “Do we need a lossy commercial algorithm” shouldn’t have been “I don’t know”, but rather “Not now, and maybe not ever.” 

 

Are you planning a follow up to this?  Or does this thread do that for you?

 

Problem is, I think Chris was hoping to have a conversation on the topic, to allow MQA to explain WHY the conclusion he came up with is wrong. But, they didn't do that.

 

I have have been trained in presentation giving, being that I am a scientist, and it is really on the audience to respect the presenter. The audience didn't. As I said, previously in this thread, I would have thrown their asses out. I have done that at presentations.

 

I give Chris credit for what he tried to do.

 

Remember here, hindsight is 20/20 and now we are giving advice on something that was already done. Nothing good ever comes of that, really.

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

If they had come prepared with some actual technical information it might have been more convincing than endlessly arguing about internet anonymity.

 

If your product is based on smoke and mirrors, that is how you defend it.

If the premise of your product has NO substance, you cannot produce a substantial defense of it.

You send out the carnival barkers and continue with the smoke and mirrors.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

If they had come prepared with some actual technical information it might have been more convincing than endlessly arguing about internet anonymity.

It's called an ad hominem attack. Attack the messenger, so you don't have to confront the message. Deflection. Cancelling.

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

It's called an ad hominem attack. Attack the messenger, so you don't have to confront the message. Deflection. Cancelling.

 

So MQA is part of the 'Cancel' culture wars....

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

ind it funny that you and @John_Atkinson come out of the woodwork today

Doesn't @John_Atkinsonhave a special interest in mQa in that the company was involved in producing his music?

[John_Atkinson]

6 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Doesn't @John_Atkinsonhave a special interest in mQa in that the company was involved in producing his music?

 

No. MQA had no involvement in the production of the recordings I have made. After the original release, what they did was prepare MQA-encoded versions for me to compare with the commercially released recordings. They also sent me the MQA and non-MQA files of other recordings that they had sent for comparison to Chris Connacker and other writers.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[Racerxnet]

29 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

No. MQA had no involvement in the production of the recordings I have made. After the original release, what they did was prepare MQA-encoded versions for me to compare with the commercially released recordings. They also sent me the MQA and non-MQA files of other recordings that they had sent for comparison to Chris Connacker and other writers.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Is this a common practice for others who submit recordings? In Goldenone's case they have been removed. Or is this special treatment for you? Someone has looked behind the curtain and seen the real mQa wizard.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Confused said:

If they had come prepared with some actual technical information it might have been more convincing than endlessly arguing about internet anonymity.

 

I would've loved to hear facts from them. I had no agenda either way. I also wanted to LOVE mQa. If the company could've given me some facts and backed up its claims, I would still be arguing for the implementation of mQa by every company and record label. I love music. I love good sounding music. I love technology than can bring the two together. Heck, I started a website based on this entire concept! mQa would've been great for business if it was real.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Really, you sound like one of these US Congressmen who now says the video of Jan. 6 looks like normal tourist walking through the Capitol....

 

100%

 

Q is trying to rewrite history and @John_Atkinson is upvoting his posts. 

 

 

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

I guess "the best defense is a good offense." My point in bringing this up is that an attempt is indeed being made to rewrite history—by those who want to portray you as the "victim" at RMAF 2018. I'm a fan of yours, Chris, but I believe you miscalculated with that seminar, giving it a misleading title and then being surprised when the MQA people anticipated what you were up to and (after waiting 10 minutes to see if they were wrong) launched an attack that definitely threw you offyour game. It was a fiasco, and the fact is, you were at least partially to blame.

 

 

The conspiracy theory stuff is unbecoming—all the winking Q references and implications of secret pacts among audio writers past age 60. You've argued that Stereophile and TAS have been backed into a rhetorical corner by their early enthusiasm for MQA and maybe you're right. But there's a lot more to what these magazines—and all audio publications, including yours—do beyond this one technology and we apply ourselves with every equipment and music review to serve the interests of our readers, as I know you do. You need to be careful that you don't back yourself into a different sort of corner.

 

 

 

Hi Q, There is no need for a defense. This is all about bringing information to light. 

 

I'm not a victim, and would never claim to be one. Key Forsythe and Mike Jbara acted like children during my presentation. They only fueled the anti-mQa fire by doing so. If those two only knew how many people in the industry thanked me and still come up to me today to talk about how much they despise mQa, they may change their strategies. I've had people tell me they will never do business with JBara because of how he acts. Even if they were on the fence about implementing mQa, it's totally off the table because doing business with certain people only makes one's life harder. 

 

I didn't miscalculate anything. I gave the seminar an accurate title. 

 

So people are supposed to applaud Forsythe and Jbara for waiting ten whole minutes before they turned into petulant children?

 

There really is much more that all audio publications do other than talk about mQa. However, when someone is an anti-vaxxer, I won't take much medical advice from them. Same goes for mQa and audio. A writer that can't talk truthfully about mQa is someone that I can't believe about anything else. And by truthfully, I mean the whole truth. Not cherry picking pieces. 

 

Speaking of Q, look at the tactics that have been used by mQa over the years. If you don't see similarities, you aren't looking hard enough. It isn't just me seeing this. I have communications from people, unsolicited, that can't believe the striking similarities in how mQa acts and how the previous Q-supporting administration acted. 

 

Knowing how mQa operates, I find no coincidence in the recent posts and support by JA of your posts. 

 

The lack of consumer advocacy by the old guard blows my mind. 

[lucretius]

On 5/24/2021 at 1:48 AM, FredericV said:

Something with the time domain  went wrong ...

I like how the loud dude woke up the guy beside him.  The sleepy guy is probably repreaentative of the average music buying public.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I must also add, because the old guard thinks that I hate anything and everything to do with mQa, that I have absolutely zero issues with people liking mQa. A friend in the industry, who everyone knows, is a big proponent of mQa and mentions it every time we talk. We never argue about it and I unequivocally accept his opinion about it. We both think the other is incorrect, but we don't really care. He really likes the way it sounds. Fantastic, he has increased his enjoyment of music. 

 

The HUGE difference between him and mQa Ltd, is that his goal isn't to remove my access to pure PCM music and his goal isn't to badmouth those of us who like choice and truth. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I like how the loud dude woke up the guy beside him.  The sleepy guy is probably repreaentative of the average music buying public.

Careful. That guy is blind and may look a bit different than the others. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The lack of consumer advocacy by the old guard blows my mind. 

 

Wow.  How long before Chris starts posting rants on The Audiophile Confidence Game?  🙂

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, Racerxnet said:

Is this a common practice for others who submit recordings?

 

 I have no idea. In this case, I was going to write an article about the sonic differences I heard that were due to MQA - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa .  I wanted to use some recordings with which I was intimately familiar, having engineered and mastered them. I therefore sent two original hi-rez files to Bob Stuart to be encoded.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Now, his response to Bob Stuart's response to GoldenOne report on his Tidal experience involves a facile dismissal rather than the point-by-point rebuttal of Stuart's statement I would have loved to read.

 

You do realize that Bob Stuart must actually say something before there can be a point-to-point rebuttal?  I cannot blame anyone for not preparing a serious response to BS' last bit of gibberish. Actually, I've been wondering if BS even wrote the response.

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, ARQuint said:

but I believe you miscalculated with that seminar, giving it a misleading title and then being surprised when the MQA people anticipated what you were up to and (after waiting 10 minutes to see if they were wrong) launched an attack that definitely threw you offyour game. It was a fiasco, and the fact is, you were at least partially to blame.

 

So here is the problem with both you and mQa.  You both see this as some sort of flame war, and maybe the one with the biggest dick wins.  Why can't mQa ltd simply supply honest information about mQa? And honestly answer some questions?  Even if I disagreed with the info they presented, I'd nonetheless have a lot more respect for them than I do now. Instead, what we get is gibberish like the last response to GoldenOne as well as the various Bob talks.  These are so vague and watered down they're almost offensive. Surely BS can deliver better information?

 

Even BS realizes that mQa has limitations -- hence the existence of secret white glove procedures/processes -- and yet BS has never explained/admitted mQa's limitations.

[LarryMagoo]

BS initials are perfect for the man and his quest....it's a shame after reading John Atkinson for 3 or 4 decades, that he cannot come clean instead backing all the crap!

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

BS initials are perfect for the man and his quest....it's a shame after reading John Atkinson for 3 or 4 decades, that he cannot come clean instead backing all the crap!

 

It seems @John_Atkinson is trying not to burn his bridges -- he wants to maintain an "in" with mQa ltd (and BS) should that ever prove useful in the future.

[vmartell22]

 

Please correct me if I am wrong - I have been doing net things for a while - I have forgotten whatever little DSP I had in me.

 

I have gotten in my head that the genius of @GoldenOne 's video is that it got all the MQA - sorry mQA :D proponents to publicly  admit that it behaves exactly like a lossy scheme. Including Bob Stuart himself.

 

From there, well, if it looks like a duck... 

 

I maybe inferring to much - but  just wanted to double check I am right - or not! 

 

v

[LarryMagoo]

19 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

It seems @John_Atkinson is trying not to burn his bridges -- he wants to maintain an "in" with mQa ltd (and BS) should that ever prove useful in the future.

So I guess that JA does not mind that he has BURNT ALL HIS BRIDGES WITH HIS READERS?????