MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

One could call this a whistleblower case. When that happens, no name is given, by the government to protect the whistleblower's ID, health and family safety. Those cases are also based on truth and data - I guess no one thought of that.

 

 

[StephenJK]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

Sorry, NO. As I said, that is spurious at best and utter arrogance at the worst. If the data can't stand on it's own merit, it wouldn't have produced the vitriol in response that it did.

 

Let the people who support mQa publish data that actually REFUTES what was put out. Since they haven't or won't, one can assume what was published hit too close to home and shown the charade it really is.

 

Let Mr. Stewart prove them wrong WITH DATA, not attacks.

 

I will give you an example from my own background. When as a post doc, I was working with the foremost scientist in the decay of wood and wood products by fungi. At one time, my advisor, asked me to review a paper as he didn't have the time. Well, I went through the paper and saw the science was lacking, and basically ripped it to shreds. My adviser then came to me and said that it was his friend and that he should have the paper published. I pointed out all the flaws and data lacking to prove the point he was making in the paper. My adviser, then wrote a stellar review for his friend and it got published. This is what happens when the name is known. Data be damned.

Botrytis,

 

You're speaking in absolutes, and from your perspective only.  As a scientist, I don't need to remind you that consideration for another viewpoint is part of critical thinking.  

 

You're speaking of publishing technical data in a technical publication that will be peer reviewed, vetted and then if published you will receive credit.  All well and good.

 

JA, not to speak for him or defend him, is describing a world where the article can be used as a sales or marketing tool, and as such is to be regarded with deep suspicion if the author isn't known.  

 

"Best Amplifier I ever heard in my life!" says the amplifier manufacturer.  

[kumakuma]

Articles in The Economist are also "anonymous"

 

https://medium.economist.com/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous-8f573745631d

[StephenJK]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With respect to mQa, I doubt Archi and Golden would’ve bothered to publish if required to use their real names. My speculation is that they’d rather not deal with nonsense in their personal lives, when their publishing is fact based. Anyone can reproduce what they’ve done or attempt to refute it with facts. 

Agreed, but there's two different conversations here - one for anonymous publishing of accurate technical data and another for the academic world of peer reviewed publishing. 

 

The former is open to market gaming if readers are not astute enough to question and verify - the latter is a different world that has been criticized for being a slow and cumbersome way of publishing any relevant data.

 

Both comments are valid, but in different worlds.  

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

JA, not to speak for him or defend him, is describing a world where the article can be used as a sales or marketing tool, and as such is to be regarded with deep suspicion if the author isn't known.

 

And the world JA describes bears very little resemblance to the modern world where "influencers" often drive marketing campaigns.  The "citizen engineers" posted data from tests that can be easily duplicated by others.  That is why their identity is irrelevant, and it's also why mQa has only attacked them, and not their data.

[StephenJK]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

And the world JA describes bears very little resemblance to the modern world where "influencers" often drive marketing campaigns.  The "citizen engineers" posted data from tests that can be easily duplicated by others.  That is why their identity is irrelevant, and it's also why mQa has only attacked them, and not their data.

No issues there.  My point was that JA, as the editor of a publication needs to have some assurance as to not only the validity of the data but also of the intent.  

 

We exchanged comments the other week on how we both recall Stereo Review and Julian Hirsch.  Lowest THD ever measured on any high powered amplifier!  Yeah, doesn't sound very good but the numbers look great.  

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

My point was that JA, as the editor of a publication needs to have some assurance as to not only the validity of the data but also of the intent.  

 

If the data is valid, the intent and source are irrelevant.

 

 

[Currawong]

 

 

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

If Amir wasn't from MS, his handle could be considered anonymous also. So, that is a useless attack. 

 

The fact is: GoldenOne isn't anonymous. He just doesn't put his name on his Youtube channel. He doesn't actually hide his identity though, unlike nwavguy did, who used an anonymous Swiss proxy when posting on forums to ensure nobody could possibly know who he was.

 

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

For you, maybe. But had GoldenSound/GoldenOne or Archimago offered me their work to publish, as a professional editor I would have insisted they do so using their real names.

 

I'm sure, if either agreed to post anything on Stereophile, they'd also agree to your terms. 

 

However, that has nothing to do with the point and you know it. The game is putting credentials and industry status as having more meaning than actual facts. So when someone with high credentials supports a junk product, that they support it is more important than whether product does what the makers claim it does.

 

It also means that one's status allows one to say things that are false and/or dishonest and get away with it, because of one's status, when really one's credibility, and consequently status, should be damaged or destroyed, especially if one refuses to acknowledge errors and mistakes.

 

How things should work is how they did with a friend of mine, whom, as a university student, was part of a group that proved that NASA's plans for the colonisation of Mars would not work. He got a job offer from NASA, took it, and recently became a US citizen. If NASA had behaved like MQA, they would have put him down as "just a clueless and inexperienced student" or similar and tried to shut him down. Instead, they owned their mistakes, and employed him!

 

As long as significant people in the industry, such as yourself, hold onto your, and other peoples' social status as having more importance than the actual facts and humility when wrong, you're going to make yourselves quickly unimportant and irrelevant as the generational change continues. 

 

16 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Because Bob Stewart has a name and it's providence that is with it. The problem being, like many others, if you don't continually hone your skills, as in science, you lose that ability to think objectively and outside the box.

 

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

― Margaret Thatcher

 

QFT.

[StephenJK]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

The point is Mr Atkinson, the data is REVIEWED WITH NO NAMES, by experts in the field. That is to accept the paper TO THE JOURNAL for publication. Publishing the name on it, for all they know, I could have put my name as 'King Timbuctoo'. The name really doesn't matter, the data does. 

 

As my old advisor used to say, the data is the data. It has to stand on it's own merit or it is useless.

 

Another example, I wrote out project plans and Quality Assurance Project Plan, when I was a contractor for the US EPA in research. No names were given on the QAPP and it was reviewed blindly by people who do statistical analysis to determine if the experiments were useful or not. This was all done w/o names.

 

The name issue is a red herring, sorry to say. To say data is bad because there is no name attached is well, spurious at best.

The data is the data until it isn't. 

 

Tuberculosis is caused by people breathing bad air.  Oh, wait - turns out it's a bacterial infection.  Stomach ulcers are caused from poor diet and stress.  Again, it turns out the cause is bacterial.

 

We should never consider or think that we know everything about everything, because we never will.

 

A big moment for me as a technical type person was with visiting Newfoundland and Signal Hill in the capital of St. John's a couple of years ago.  This is where Marconi, against all odds and fighting a consortium of the telegraph companies using undersea cables proved (in a rudimentary fashion) that you could send signals - data - through the airwaves.

 

The scientific community said it was impossible, the radio waves would travel out in space never to be seen or heard from again.  But somehow, the letter S transmitted in Morse from Wales to Newfoundland made the trip.  

 

The entire scientific community, instead of saying "This can't be true, it must be faked" realized that their understanding of how the world and physics worked had to be incomplete.  Radio waves, bouncing off the stratosphere. 

 

And me, a kid in northern Quebec in the mid-60's falling to sleep at night listening to jazz radio stations in Boston due to the same effect.

[Samuel T Cogley]

21 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

No issues there.  My point was that JA, as the editor of a publication needs to have some assurance as to not only the validity of the data but also of the intent. 

 

And where you lose me is the implication that JA had a valid point about the anonymity of the people who posted that data.  It is a red herring, and nothing more.

 

Put another way, they are not him.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’d prefer this discussion stay on the topic of mQa and not @John_Atkinson personally. His publishing of mQa material is fair game but let’s hold ourselves to a little higher standard than name calling. 

[KeenObserver]

The endless argument about the meaning of lossless. The question of anonymity. The endless repetition of ridiculous claims. The ridiculous questioning of credentials of someone putting forth facts.

These are all misdirection to steer us away from the fact that MQA offers nothing of value to the music consumer.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

I'm beginning to think there are subliminal messages in the MQA ultrasonics!

 

 Beware what's hidden below the noise floor! It's the new version of backmasking.

[KeenObserver]

I'll repeat it.

I'll be glad when this MQA BS is no longer hanging over our heads.

[opus101]

@GoldenOne's thread over on ASR seems at long last to be generating more light than heat. Things are looking up 

[Arg]

11 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Not at all. Having worked in audio magazine publishing for 45 years, I strongly believe that if you are going to publish opinions and test results that may result in financial consequences for those whom you write about, you must do so using your actual name. With one exception - an exception that was agreed to before I joined the magazine - every contributor to Stereophile signs his work with his real name.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

I would expect nothing less. It’s important that the free gear goes to the right person. ONLY KIDDING!!!

 

More seriously, though: I get it that it’s a useful element of assessing opinion to know the source, and know whether to add or subtract weight to the opinion, based on who says so. 

 

For example #1, if Floyd Toole says something about anything audio other than how good his book is, I will view it in a more positive light and be less demanding of evidence. I get it: a little bit of shortcut-thinking is useful and a time saver.

 

For example #2, knowing that Robert Stuart stands to make or lose a lot of money with the fortunes of MQA, gives good rational reason to mark his opinions and proclamations about it DOWN or even to DISMISS them outright. 

 

Being a professional, John, I would be astonished if you haven’t reached the same conclusion about conflict-of-interest. It would be unprofessional to think otherwise.  Mr Stuart could be a certified genius on the topic, in fact probably is, but that only means he could pull the wool over more people’s eyes more convincingly, when self interest and profits are directly at stake, as they are in this case.

 

What is needed in this case is independent verification. What any professional who has any commitment to the interests of the consumer (where the word “professional” is used to indicate knowledgeable, high standards, and truth-seeking, as opposed to opinions-for-sale) should be saying about MQA is “I can’t endorse this until you make it easier, for ANYONE who wishes, to independently verify the claims.” 

 

I would HATE to THINK, John, that decades of exposure to the Commercial Magazine Business Model has worn you down in this area. You can demand real names as a matter of professionalism, but also need to call out conflicts of interest at every turn, for the same reason.

 

cheers

[UkPhil]

Look like Japan is still churning out the prog classics in mQa CD format, why what's the point surely the 24/96 Blu Ray release was more than anyone would need if you wanted to fill your boots with Hi-Res or just the normal CD to be honest seen as we are going back 1969 with this one  

[Fast and Bulbous]

Hmmmm....  think a chat with Fripp is in order about this. 

[botrytis]

25 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Hmmmm....  think a chat with Fripp is in order about this. 

If you can get him to stop doing Black Sabbath covers with his wife on youtube :D

[Fast and Bulbous]

Toyah is a force to be reckoned with. 
 

Fripp spent many years trying, and succeeding as I understand it, to (re)gain control of King Crimson rights. Am not sure of his position on MQA.
 

Given Neil Young’s stance, which itself came from / was informed by dialogue with Charley Hansen, having significant musicians onside could really help. Fripp is a most interesting fellow with deep background in many areas. There’s a reason the King Crimson album was called Discipline. 
 

 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Arg said:

What is needed in this case is independent verification. What any professional who has any commitment to the interests of the consumer (where the word “professional” is used to indicate knowledgeable, high standards, and truth-seeking, as opposed to opinions-for-sale) should be saying about MQA is “I can’t endorse this until you make it easier, for ANYONE who wishes, to independently verify the claims.” 

 

Yes. I am sick and tired of members of the audio press unwittingly repeating BS' fanciful and unsubstantiated conceptual framework. Repeating the drivel and/or comparing it to other unsubstantiated conceptions does not add anything.  They should stop wasting our time and follow @Arg's advice or otherwise remain silent.

 

 

 

[firedog]

14 hours ago, StephenJK said:

No issues there.  My point was that JA, as the editor of a publication needs to have some assurance as to not only the validity of the data but also of the intent.  

 

We exchanged comments the other week on how we both recall Stereo Review and Julian Hirsch.  Lowest THD ever measured on any high powered amplifier!  Yeah, doesn't sound very good but the numbers look great.  

Editors like Chris know Archimago's identity. If you trust Chris, you trust that he isn't hiding an identity of someone with a financial interest for or against MQA. So Archis identity is irrelevant.

As has been stated many times, the MQA camp has never refuted the technical arguments. They've had years. They continue with the ad hominem arguments.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Hmmmm....  think a chat with Fripp is in order about this. 

Nah, probably just means that at least in Japan, he doesn't control how his music is marketed.

[MikeyFresh]

56 minutes ago, firedog said:

Nah, probably just means that at least in Japan, he doesn't control how his music is marketed.

I bet that's right, though I'd also be curious then if King Crimson is available in "Masters" on TIDAL or not. If it is, and UMG had not obtained proper authorization from the artist, Fripp could potentially be another Neil Young in waiting.

[Fast and Bulbous]

Will enquire of Mr Fripp.