MQA is Vaporware

[KeenObserver]

WOW!

Got a late start today and this is how I begin the day.

First off, someone should shut the fan. The old guard's rebuttals are going everywhere.

[KeenObserver]

Second.

This reinforces my belief that the old guard publications are not pro consumer. They are industry promoters and mouthpieces.

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

Jim Austin's July 2021 As We See It will be reprinted on stereophile.com tomorrow morning so you can replace the content in the infringing post with a link to that reprint.

 

Jim Austin's essay on MQA from the July 2021 issue is now posted on Stereophile's website:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-again

 

You can therefore delete the embedded, copyright-infringing image form the original post, Chris, and replace it with this link. Thanks in advance for doing so.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Jim Austin's essay on MQA from the July 2021 issue is now posted on Stereophile's website:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-again

 

You can therefore delete the embedded, copyright-infringing image form the original post, Chris, and replace it with this link. Thanks in advance for doing so.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Nope. 
 

You’re always respectful and if this was about you, I’d do it. However, Austin thinks we’re are all anti-mQa predators posing as impartial jellyfish, so there will be no favors. 
 

I should also remove your link because it’s quite uncouth to visit another business and tell all the people, “Hey, look what I have over here.” I won’t remove your link, out of respect for you. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Second.

This reinforces my belief that the old guard publications are not pro consumer. They are industry promoters and mouthpieces.

I’m OK with this though. They’ve never claimed to be pro consumer or on the consumer’s side. Unlike mQa, they aren’t making claims about being one thing, only to be something else entirely. 
 

We all chose what to publish and many people have looked at all our our articles through different lenses, reaching vastly different conclusions about who the articles are for. It’s just the nature of the beast. 

[KeenObserver]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I should also remove your link because it’s quite uncouth to visit another business and tell all the people, “Hey, look what I have over here.” I won’t remove your link, out of respect for you. 

 

They are in desperate need of the links that JA posts everywhere.

[botrytis]

To Mr. QUint and Mr. Atkinson,

 

Just respond to this post - it basically covers that editorial. If one can't actually talk technical, in a magazine that DOES technical (ie measurements of equipment) reviews, then there is something wrong.

 

I think y'all need a bit of this...

 

 

I apologize for being flip but coming in with guns blazing against Chris does you no favors and makes you look like you are more interested in protecting the fatted calf than actually understanding the technology.

[Jim Austin]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Also interesting is the fact that Jim Austin didn’t refute the factual findings that mQa is lossy. 

 

I addressed this question years ago in Stereophile.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

[KeenObserver]

Chris

The problem arises from the fact that if you removed the item they want removed, it would only perceptually remove the item as it is not actually there. If they had it removed from the site that is actually hosting it, it would be mathematically removed.

 

Stereophile seems to have a problem differentiating mathematical from perceptual.

[KeenObserver]

And I haven't even had my coffee yet!

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I addressed this question years ago in Stereophile.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Then why do others, that write for your magazine, not quote this but rather ignore it? That would be the question I would ask, since you are the editor.

 

I appreciate what you stated but you could have gone further. What you posted is the tip of the iceberg.

 

 

[charlesphoto]

Just now, KeenObserver said:

 

 

Stereophile seems to have a problem differentiating mathematical from perceptual.

Well, they are a magazine that regularly refers to $10k items as being 'inexpensive.' 

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, KeenObserver said:

And I haven't even had my coffee yet!

 

Would this do?

 

[AudioDoctor]

I am the most casual of casual observers, and just by scanning the discussions here I feel I have a pretty good grasp of the fact that mqa is not what it is purported to be, and even why. Along with the proofs.

 

Unless someone from MQA can convincingly explain why a test signal is any different than a musical signal, and I doubt they can because I can undoubtedly guarantee I can find a song, somewhere, with that exact signal someplace in it if I tried hard enough, then any further discussion of the point is moot, and Stereophile trying hard as they are to convince us otherwise is highly "sus", to quote my 9 year old.

[Jim Austin]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

Then why do others, that write for your magazine, not quote this but rather ignore it? That would be the question I would ask, since you are the editor.

 

Have Stereophile writers claimed that MQA is lossless since I performed (and wrote up) that analysis? If so, I'm not aware of it. 

 

On the broader issue of MQA's subjective value, every writer is entitled to their own opinion. You will find many conflicting (but mutually respectful) opinions in our pages, on many topics. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Have Stereophile writers claimed that MQA is lossless since I performed (and wrote up) that analysis? If so, I'm not aware of it. 

 

On the broader issue of MQA's subjective value, every writer is entitled to their own opinion. You will find many conflicting (but mutually respectful) opinions in our pages, on many topics. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

As in science, as I stated many times here, data is data. For a magazine that purports to present data, like equipment tests, and not test thoroughly a new all encompassing tech that would change how we actually get, store, and listen to music, which ultimately IS THE LIFE BLOOD of your business, boggles the mind.

[Mayfair]

In the remake, Ingrid's character figures things out well before the end of the MQA movie...

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I addressed this question years ago in Stereophile.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

But this doesn’t make sense with your editorial. The editorial explains why test signals won’t work with mQa, but that in itself is an admission that mQa is lossy. 
 

GoldenOne wanted to prove mQa was lossy. He did this. If it was lossless, a test signal would’ve given the encoder zero issues. 
 

Why attack people and refute a video that proves what it set out to prove?

[The Computer Audiophile]

35 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I addressed this question years ago in Stereophile.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

One additional point, nobody reading the new editorial will remember your previous article. Not a slight on you, rather it’s the state of current affairs. 
 

If you already admit mQa is lossy, then why not say Golden one set out to prove mQa is lossy and succeeded?

[StephenJK]

17 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Totally unacceptable. 

*.*

[The Computer Audiophile]

If I have my facts straight, this is how it went. 
 

@Jim Austin on January 6, 2018 says, “Is MQA lossy? Yes…”

 

@GoldenOne on April 16, 2021 released a video proving mQa is lossy. 
 

I guess I don’t understand the reason for an editorial calling people anti-mQa predators etc… when the video objectively backed up the first article. Perhaps there’s more to this. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

No argument, Chris and I fully expected you would delete that. 

 

But there's a choice to be made.  Either this thread is a full on anti-MQA rant or a discussion that welcomes more moderate opinion.

 

Cheers.

I hear you, but I think most people have yet to see the moderate opinion be based on facts. I’m all for it if people have facts. 

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If I have my facts straight, this is how it went. 
 

@Jim Austin on January 6, 2018 says, “Is MQA lossy? Yes…”

 

@GoldenOne on April 16, 2021 released a video proving mQa is lossy. 
 

I guess I don’t understand the reason for an editorial calling people anti-mQa predators etc… when the video objectively backed up the first article. Perhaps there’s more to this. 

 

Because they keep asking for Real Names, like that is going to change the message. Also, I am sure BS and MQA would then sue because people who want to hide things do that. I mean the Trump Organization was notorious for that.

[StephenJK]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I hear you, but I think most people have yet to see the moderate opinion be based on facts. I’m all for it if people have facts. 

There is a world, one that now seems to be elusive, where with the acknowledgment and acceptance of the facts we discuss with decorum and probity.  

 

If, it would seem we've made our point then a less antagonistic position might find more general acceptance.  When you win, win graciously.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, StephenJK said:

There is a world, one that now seems to be elusive, where with the acknowledgment and acceptance of the facts we discuss with decorum and probity.  

 

If, it would seem we've made our point then a less antagonistic position might find more general acceptance.  When you win, win graciously.

 

I wish it was that way. I have been a forum mod on another audio website, 15 years ago (WOW - been that long). Even then, battle lines were drawn and people would not listen to reason and data - it was more name calling.

 

On this site, we try. We often succeed, and sometimes not. It happens, we are human.

 

The point is, GS's video was very deferential. He said, hey, if I am doing something wrong, show me what it is, tell me and I will correct it. Instead, we have the ad hominem attacks and character assassinations with no discussions of data really. How can one have a discussion under those conditions?

 

All one need do is look at the RMAF video of Chris discussing MQA. Tell me the outbursts, name calling, and other bad behavior is acceptable? It would never be accepted in a science meeting.