MQA is Vaporware

[svart-hvitt]

23 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

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.

If what you write here is correct, it sounds like Pulitzer material?

[botrytis]

18 minutes ago, svart-hvitt said:

If what you write here is correct, it sounds like Pulitzer material?

 

For me, it is more like a whistleblower. In the US, whistleblowers are protected by law and remain anonymous. There is a history, in the US, of anonymous sources being used for reporting, this is no difference.

 

I mean Deep Throat was only ID'ed after his death from Watergate. He was taken seriously, as should our Deep Throat's. More than one person have shown the straw horse that is MQA.

[skikirkwood]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

 

Every time Audiophile Style publishes a link to another site, the site pointed to has improved SEO. That's part of the basis for Google's search relevancy algorithm. The more "authority" a website has, the more sites it links to will have higher search results. So  you are helping drive traffic to sites like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound by linking to them here. Maybe they could link to this comment thread. :)

[botrytis]

Just now, skikirkwood said:

 

Every time Audiophile Style publishes a link to another site, the site pointed to has improved SEO. That's part of the basis for Google's search relevancy algorithm. The more "authority" a website has, the more sites it links to will have higher search results. So  you are helping drive traffic to sites like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound by linking to them here. Maybe they could link to this comment thread. :)

 

Right, and pigs fly.....

[John Dyson]

About MQA and why?

Some of these people who advocate or accept it are otherwise intelligent people.   What is pushing MQA?   Is there some kind of  background industry communication that encourages accepting MQA?

It is easy to demonstrate that MQA is a kind of technology enabled obfuscation in todays world of mega storage and mega bandwidth.  There is simply ZERO practical technical purpose for MQA as it is currently described.

 

As of now, in todays world, it only disadvantages the consumer.

 

So -- here are the questions:

1)  Are there 'secret plans' to give consumers additional freedom and features when using MQA? Is there a business plan somewhere that goes further?

2)  Is there a background industry push that encourages advocacy?

3)  Is MQA simply group-think?   Is this happening because a bunch of  peers in audio-related fields talk about it often enough to go 'off the rails'?

 

As a purely technical person who wants everyone to have access to the best available recording & audio quality, it is obvious that this MQA iust seems 'strange'.

 

Anyone have ideas as to WHY it seems that so many advocates are acting (sorry to say) 'crazy'?   Is there something deeper going on?

 

 

 

[svart-hvitt]

I think this comment by Tony L, administrator at Pinkfishmedia, is a nice way of putting it all together. MQA was never only about technical stuff, was it? Why all the drama? The following is Tony L’s words:

 

As a somewhat disinterested onlooker who has no actual use for it I find the whole MQA thing fascinating. The reason it is so interesting is how, unlike much of audio, it actually simultaneously spans pretty much all areas of real controversy within this market. I think I'd use the following category headings:

a) Political; corporate behaviour, closed-loop proprietary technology, licensing, Right To Repair, lack of test data etc.

b) Technological; how does it actually work, what is the evidence, does it’s performance meet the marketing claims etc, how ‘lossless’ is it, can it ‘correct’ a full studio to end-user encoding chain etc etc?

c) Subjective/objective; is it ‘transparent’ or is it ‘coloured’, can you spot it on a blind-test etc etc?

It is rare to find something that is top-tier argument fodder in every single category!

From my perspective a) is the area that interests me the most. I guess I’m one of Jim Austin’s ‘internet libertarians’ in this regard. I just don’t see a need for a new proprietary licensed format in a world that already has copious bandwidth, FLAC, Apple Lossless etc. If it is better subjectively and people prefer it then make it open source and more long-term sustainable and environmentally responsible by not enforcing closed-loop proprietary technology on an increasingly open and distributed music industry.

PS Obviously b) and c) are both hindered by a).

Link: https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/mqa-pt-ii.255443/page-44#post-4379517

[KeenObserver]

9 minutes ago, svart-hvitt said:

I think this comment by Tony L, administrator at Pinkfishmedia, is a nice way of putting it all together. MQA was never only about technical stuff, was it? Why all the drama?

 

The drama is what created the initial demand for MQA.  MQA wanted to create an overwhelming demand for MQA that would sweep the music world.  They gave closely controlled demonstrations of MQA, with Bob Stuart pointing to absurd charts.

The only thing is, they did not want anyone looking behind the curtain.  Unfortunately for them, people looked behind the curtain and realized they were being given a line of BS.

MQA is a money grab that offers no benefit to the music consumer.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

The image of the July 2021 As We See It essay is posted at
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/919/?tab=comments#comment-1139011

Are you saying that an image embedded in a post to your site is not hosted by your site, Chris?

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Here is the embeded link:

 

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?attachments/ab51e9e5-cf1b-4f49-b6f8-6b361618a1c3-jpeg.26539/

 

As far as I know, that site is not hosted by Chris.

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

The drama is what created the initial demand for MQA.  MQA wanted to create an overwhelming demand for MQA that would sweep the music world.  They gave closely controlled demonstrations of MQA, with Bob Stuart pointing to absurd charts.

The only thing is, they did not want anyone looking behind the curtain.  Unfortunately for them, people looked behind the curtain and realized they were being given a line of BS.

MQA is a money grab that offers no benefit to the music consumer.

Like this?

 

[KeenObserver]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Apologies to Lewis Carroll.

Humpty Stuart took a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Lossless means what he says it means.

And facts cannot ever be used because what we believe are facts may change.

So we just have to have faith in what BS and his supporters say and ignore facts.

[skikirkwood]

4 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

You certainly have a novel interpretation of the Fair Use doctrine, if that is your claim. But that isn't it, is it? Your claim is that the actual data is stored elsewhere--a weak claim indeed. It's probably not worth our time, but I will check with our attorneys.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Why check with your attorneys when you can look this up on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing

 

It's very clear that linking and iframing content on the web does not violate copyright law in the US and EU. Chris is correct.

 

If you don't want people like Chris to iframe your content you can simply have your web site configured to disallow it - it takes adding one line to your HTTP headers - this is website publishing 101.

 

And speaking of web technology, Stereophile.com is running on Drupal 7 - a very old version that is being End Of Lifed this year. It's going to take a while to move to a new CMS, and it's a huge effort to move from Drupal 7 to version 8 or 9.

[lucretius]

15 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Like this?

 

 

Do we need to worry about MGM suing you over copyright? 🙂

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

I mean Deep Throat was only ID'ed after his death from Watergate. He was taken seriously, as should our Deep Throat's. More than one person have shown the straw horse that is MQA.

 

Any mention of Deep Throat reminds me that we should follow the money.

[svart-hvitt]

Engineers are funny people. They created the turboencabulator long ago to make fun of technobabble:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator

 

Stereophile and ASR are just jokers - Chief Fun Officers - playing their role in this 2020s version of the turboencabulator.

Pictures are from Wikipedia

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I addressed this question years ago in Stereophile.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

You partially addressed it. You note towards the end of the article that MQA needs to cooperate in letting it be properly tested. The article was three and a half years ago, and MQA still hasn't let you or anyone else properly test it.

 

Why do you think that is? I think it's because they have something to hide. 

 

And again, the whole tenor of your article is from the perspective of someone who "talks to Bob" and basically accepts much of what he says and gives him the benefit of the doubt. And assumes he has good intentions, for some reason. 

That alone makes what you say about MQA lack credibility.

 

And just as a final note: all that analysis of MQA, in an article titled "Into the Fold" you never point out that all 4X and 8X rates of MQA are upsampling from 2X rates. Somehow you thought that didn't need to be mentioned? It's just another example of how you are either consciously or unconsciously biased in favor of MQA and have bought into the MQA narrative. 

[KeenObserver]

13 minutes ago, svart-hvitt said:

Engineers are funny people. They created the turboencabulator long ago to make fun of technobabble:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator

 

Stereophile and ASR are just jokers - Chief Fun Officers - playing their role in this 2020s version of the turboencabulator.

Pictures are from Wikipedia

 

If you put that on Peter Veth's forum GE would probably be overwhelmed with people asking where to buy it.

[svart-hvitt]

5 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

If you put that on Peter Veth's forum GE would probably be overwhelmed with people asking where to buy it.

This is the original BS. BS from start to end😂

 

 

 

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, svart-hvitt said:

This is the original BS. BS from start to end😂

 

https://youtu.be/Ac7G7xOG2Ag

 

I've seen that before.  I often wondered if that was the original inspiration for MQA.

[John_Atkinson]

50 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

Why check with your attorneys when you can look this up on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing

 

On the other hand:

https://casetext.com/case/goldman-v-breitbart-news-network-llc-2

 "Having carefully considered the embedding issue, this Court concludes, for the reasons discussed below, that when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff's exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result.

 "Accordingly, defendants' motion for partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the plaintiff."

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[UkPhil]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I've seen that before.  I often wondered if that was the original inspiration for MQA.

 Not seen Bobs AES paper on it was it peer reviewed lol 

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

On the other hand:

https://casetext.com/case/goldman-v-breitbart-news-network-llc-2

 "Having carefully considered the embedding issue, this Court concludes, for the reasons discussed below, that when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff's exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result.

 "Accordingly, defendants' motion for partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the plaintiff."

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

Please, can we stop all the amateur lawyering? If you aren't a lawyer with that area of expertise, then it's all just ignorant BS. 

And John, if you really think something that happens at least thousands of times a day on the Internet is illegal, then I suggest you take it to court instead of playing dueling quotes here.

[UkPhil]

14 minutes ago, svart-hvitt said:

This is the original BS. BS from start to end😂

 

https://youtu.be/Ac7G7xOG2Ag

The late great Stanley Unwin should have reviewed it 

https://youtu.be/0UJZF5iRhNg

 

[svart-hvitt]

10 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I've seen that before.  I often wondered if that was the original inspiration for MQA.

Rumour has it that it was Reuben Garrett Lucius Goldberg that got in all in motion for MQA.

 

Goldberg invented lots of tech in his time, led by his vision of «getting something for nothing» (see video below).

 

Just below is a typical Rube Goldberg machine:

 

 

 

 

 

[skikirkwood]

9 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

On the other hand:

https://casetext.com/case/goldman-v-breitbart-news-network-llc-2

 "Having carefully considered the embedding issue, this Court concludes, for the reasons discussed below, that when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff's exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result.

 "Accordingly, defendants' motion for partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the plaintiff."

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

John, have you ever done an image search on Google? All of those images in the search results are not hosted by Google, and Google is not breaking any copyright law by displaying and linking to them. 

 

Yes, there have been occasional verdicts for plaintiffs in these cases, but the overwhelming majority of legal challenges to linking or embedding web content fail. And again, you can block everyone from iFraming your content with a single line in your HTTP header. Wouldn't that be faster and cheaper than having your parent company's attorneys litigate this at $500/hour/attorney?

[John_Atkinson]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Please, can we stop all the amateur lawyering?

 

As I said Fair Use allows quoting some of a copyrighted work in order to comment or criticize. But if people want to read what is published in Stereophile in its entirety, they should do so on the magazine's site. There is no paywall. This seems like a small ask to me.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile