MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

The old saying is, once it is on the internet, it can never be erased.

[MarkusBarkus]

18 minutes ago, firedog said:

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.

...how many times must this have played out in history? Men, organizations and dogmas in the waning days of relevancy struggling to be...relevant. Sad, actually...audio-gear porn mags in the age of the internet. 

[kumakuma]

28 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

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

 

This isn't a Fair Use issue.

 

Another site is hosting an image of one of the pages of your magazine. This is an obvious copyright violation. 

 

All you need to do is get that site to take that image down. Once that's done, it will no longer appear on this site. 

[KeenObserver]

8 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...how many times must this have played out in history? Men, organizations and dogmas in the waning days of relevancy struggling to be...relevant. Sad, actually...audio-gear porn mags in the age of the internet. 

 

It is truly sad.  Promoting Dolby 2.0 for music in this day and age is like selling buggy whips.

What is truly sad is thinking that you have the influence that you thought you once had.

[John Dyson]

IMO,  this legalese is off topic.   I am interested in the MQA foolishness, not so much the legal issues WRT the web.  I am sure that there are plenty of places off site or in private messaging to deal with these legal thins.   I have actively been on the internet since 1992 or 1987 if you count other forms of the net -- this legal/copyright/etc stuff has been discussed forever and ever.

 

Is the reason for off-topic discussion to  dilute comments about the insidious MQA obfuscation scheme?

 

The recording industry has done other insane/damaging things in the past, but those schemes happened before the 'little people' could get together and push back.

It is time for the public to 'JUST SAY NO' to damage (e.g. MQA and other obfuscation schemes) against the consumer interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Foggie]

 

Someone has predetermined how something should sound, locked it into a proprietary format, requires you to purchase new hardware (to get full "affect") and wants the music biz to sign up so as to be the standard going forward......Hmmm.  If I was the mastering engineer/band/engineer and had my music batch processed to this format (which is has) without my blessing/know how I'd be livid.

 

[skikirkwood]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

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.

 

I actually king of like amateur lawyering. :) That said, 20 years ago AltaVista, the world's first search engine, acquired the first startup I worked at, Zip2, and I became AltaVista's VP of Engineering. So I've dealt with issues like this for two decades in various respects. And along the way, learned about the X-Frame-Options DENY directive to block any site from iFraming a site.

 

The fact that Stereophile has not set this simple setting in all of the years of its online existence, but instead is threatening Chris with legal action over an iFrame embed, pretty much speaks for itself in so many ways.

[Currawong]

7 hours ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

Charley Hansen was adamant about the significance of frequencies well past 20KHz in music and had a table of instruments that produced such frequencies. Will see if I can find the references.

 

One of the implications is the generation of beat frequencies when two or more frequencies interact. The emergent property of the interaction of frequencies outside of our hearing range can be frequencies inside of our hearing range.

 

Some time earlier, someone made the valid point that any audible interaction of those frequencies would be picked up by the microphones. It's also debatable whether even high-quality microphones can pick up ultrasonic frequencies. Just some thoughts. 

 

Even with all that discussion, I think it's more relevant to the topic that MQA doesn't encapsulate useful ultrasonic data, and where it does, it causes significant issues in the audible range even before we consider what DSP processing is applied to the music.

 

7 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Copyright Law is clear on this. It is legally permissible to quote some proportion of a copyrighted work in order to comment or criticize. To publish the complete work, as has been done on your site, Chris, is always an infringement of copyright.

 

Since when is a page of a magazine a "complete work"? It's a red herring anyway, since it only serves as a distraction for avoiding questions such as the one I asked of you before, regarding whether you feel any responsibility for promoting a technology that has proven to not do what it says it does, has been marketed deceptively, and fooled you and others. People have, undoubtedly spent thousands, if not millions of dollars because you were deceived, and consequently hyped the technology, yet you don't seem to have considered this.  You'd rather attack people because they are anonymous, and seem to fear even the slightest possible compromise of copyright of something in your magazine over far greater and more important issues.

 

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

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.  

 

This the crux of it. The reaction to his videos is like the 2nd Terminator thrashing around in a vat of molten metal once thrown in.

 

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

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.

 

Ironically, I believe, the founder of SBAF worked, or works for a company that is related to preventing copyright breaches for major studios and/or music companies. 

 

 

[lucretius]

1 hour 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

 

Should Chris expect a Cease and Desist letter?

[danadam]

34 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

And along the way, learned about the X-Frame-Options DENY directive to block any site from iFraming a site.

 

The fact that Stereophile has not set this simple setting in all of the years of its online existence, but instead is threatening Chris with legal action over an iFrame embed, pretty much speaks for itself in so many ways.

Are you suggesting that Stereophile has control over superbestaudiofriends.org servers? 😉

 

 

(to be clear, I'm not saying that lack of such control is an excuse to threaten for linking)

[GoldenOne]

4 hours 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.

Just want to put it out there that whilst I don't publicly broadcast my face/real name, I do give my real name to manufacturers/industry contacts etc. 

 

I don't want people to think I'm hiding anything, I'm not. MQA knows my real name as do many others. 

 

I just prefer to keep things relatively private.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours 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

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, skikirkwood said:

 

I actually king of like amateur lawyering. :) That said, 20 years ago AltaVista, the world's first search engine, acquired the first startup I worked at, Zip2, and I became AltaVista's VP of Engineering. So I've dealt with issues like this for two decades in various respects. And along the way, learned about the X-Frame-Options DENY directive to block any site from iFraming a site.

 

The fact that Stereophile has not set this simple setting in all of the years of its online existence, but instead is threatening Chris with legal action over an iFrame embed, pretty much speaks for itself in so many ways.

Technically we aren’t iframing it and it isn’t being pulled from Stereophile. A user embedded the image using “img src=“ code and pointed to the third party site that’s hosting it. 

[GoldenOne]

12 hours ago, Currawong said:

You could always transcribe the call.

I won't transcribe the whole thing atm (it's 20 min long :P) but my particular favourite part:

 

Me: "I'm not willing to help participate in censorship" 

Mod: "I'm not censoring, I'm shutting the conversation down" 

[GoldenOne]

Also if we want to talk legal stuff, perhaps MQA should be taking a look at law surrounding GPL licensing.... 

 

It'd certainly be a bit of a roadbump if it turned out their product wasn't entirely legal

 

 

[JoeWhip]

Gee, I guess irony truly is dead, at least in regards to mQa.

 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

The old saying is, once it is on the internet, it can never be erased.

 

Especially, when you make sure it's saved to an internet archive.

[March Audio]

16 hours ago, svart-hvitt said:

The marvelous thing about MQA is that MQA supporters can say anything without people reacting. The other day, Amir described Sean Olive as incompetent in matters related to MQA. Olive says:

 

«Claiming it sounds better than lossless can be validated with controlled listening tests. As far as I know, no such data exists or has been submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Until that exists, it'd nothing more than a marketing claim.. without scientific evidence».

 

How far can MQA proponents go in describing people they disagree with as incompetent? Why are MQA supporters so strong in their belief in their own competencies and so dismissing of others whose experience and credentials are normally regarded as outstanding?

 

The fact that Amir suggests Olive is a gullible person running errands for an «anti-MQA PR campaing» borders on defamation.

 

and some wonder why Amir is being accused of being in MQAs pocket?  Sean Olive is just stating the bleedin obvious - and taking a scientific/objective approach.

[jparvio]

I feel sorry for the common audiophile, who has no part in all of this but tries to figure out who is "right" and who is "wrong" while seeing valued members of the global audio community lose their dignity overnight fighting like street dogs. To my age (46) I've never ever witnessed such a childish wrestle over... Well, anything.   

 

As a journalist I keep coming to the  question the common audiophile need to get answered OBJECTIVELY; who benefits from MQA and how? I know this has been discussed thousand times and over, but... 

 

...Every Magazine, Audio site, journalist and professional (globally) should do their best to excel in getting the truth out. If there are many "truths", then at least try to gather the facts for Consensus ( a common man's white paper). And always representing the weakest side, in this case the Consumer.

 

Right now this is getting out of hands and serves nobody.  

 

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, jparvio said:

I feel sorry for the common audiophile, who has no part in all of this but tries to figure out who is "right" and who is "wrong" while seeing valued members of the global audio community lose their dignity overnight fighting like street dogs. To my age (46) I've never ever witnessed such a childish wrestle over... Well, anything.   

 

As a journalist I keep coming to the  question the common audiophile need to get answered OBJECTIVELY; who benefits from MQA and how? I know this has been discussed thousand times and over, but... 

 

...Every Magazine, Audio site, journalist and professional (globally) should do their best to excel in getting the truth out. If there are many "truths", then at least try to gather the facts for Consensus ( a common man's white paper). And always representing the weakest side, in this case the Consumer.

 

Right now this is getting out of hands and serves nobody.  

 

How do we get to the truth if MQA won't allow technical or proper subjective investigation?

 

That in itself provides a strong indication of where the truth lies.

 

MQA could end all of this in an instant if they allowed 3rd party testing.  It would be in their commercial interest to do so, and yet they won't.  What possible reason could there be for that if it really did what they claim?

 

I'm not sure this is anything childish, it's quite serious and about commercial interests/money.  MQA have a lot to lose.

 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, jparvio said:

I feel sorry for the common audiophile, who has no part in all of this but tries to figure out who is "right" and who is "wrong" while seeing valued members of the global audio community lose their dignity overnight fighting like street dogs. To my age (46) I've never ever witnessed such a childish wrestle over... Well, anything.   

 

As a journalist I keep coming to the  question the common audiophile need to get answered OBJECTIVELY; who benefits from MQA and how? I know this has been discussed thousand times and over, but... 

 

...Every Magazine, Audio site, journalist and professional (globally) should do their best to excel in getting the truth out. If there are many "truths", then at least try to gather the facts for Consensus ( a common man's white paper). And always representing the weakest side, in this case the Consumer.

 

Right now this is getting out of hands and serves nobody.  

 

I have seen a lot of people in the audio industry LIE OUTRIGHT on certain subjects, even to the extent that I have lost an industry friend because of that.   It has become pretty obvious that a LOT of industry associated people are afraid of losing social contacts and business contacts in the audio community.   There is a definite sense to me that some have sold out their responsibility to the truth to maintain social and ongoing business convenience.   I don't believe that there is a background conduit for money or a 'secret society'.

 

After thinking about this for a long time, and some major people in the audio industry telling misinformation in two important cases, looking at all alternatives that I can think of -- it reduces to primarialy simple social pressure, and to a lesser extent some business pressure.

 

One bout of misinformation came to me a long time before I even heard of MQA, but dismissed it as eccentricity.   In that case, I thought the misinformation was more of the individual being uninformed.   Eventually, I found that it seems to be that the industry community has a sense of a common party line or common 'excuse'.   I am seeing MQA starting to develop in the same way.

 

THIS TIME we (the technically  aware) consumer can communicate more easily, and cannot as easily be stonewalled and overwhelmed by 'industry experts' .  We can resist a new, developing industry standard maltruth, mistruth, untruth or whatever you might call it.   I am probably one of the more technically knowledgeable people who dabbles in audio, having made a mistake (unintentionally) early in my career by stating an untruth, with my conscience hurting me to this day.   I can not allow my integrity be compromised because I do have a conscience. My friends and not-so-much friends deserve to hear the best truth from me that I can express.

 

Bottom line -- DO NOT be influenced by industry experts, even if you feel that so many 'experts' can not be wrong.   Fact is, these industry experts have either intentionally or unintentionally (like me in the past) sold out their integrity for one reason or another.   Only those who might rescind this untruth can maintain their sense of honesty and integrity.  Personally, the MQA thing and the previous industry lie makes me sick, and I further loose a sense that people are generally honest.   I thought that it was just government politics that was dirty and many of the players had little integrity, but it really seems like many (not all) in the audio world are like that also.

 

Sadly, most audio experts are no longer 'experts' in my eyes.   Some can earn my respect, and a few at my own level (as advanced technical types) have earned my respect here.  However, my default social trajectory is to protect my integrity by limiting my involvement with those who really should feel ashamed of themselves.   Dismissing knowledgeable MQA advocating experts is the only way that I can maintain my own integrity.   Those advocating MQA who are simply misguided can more easily recover their  sense of right and wrong.

 

John

 

[Teresa]

 

13 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

 

The photocopy of Jim Austin's article MQA Again from Stereophile July 2021 is hosted at Super Best Audio Friends.  To verify this all you have to do is right click on the image and select copy image address. Once you have Super Best Audio Friends delete the image it will no longer appear at other sites such as this one, instead it will say something like "This image is not available" at every site it has been linked. This way you will treat the cause not the effect.

 

11 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

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.

 

Exactly! I don't know much about computers but I understand how images are linked from the host website, in this case: Super Best Audio Friends. It makes more sense to me to have the hosting website remove it instead of trying to get all the websites where it is liked to it to remove it. Just common sense to me anyway.

 

8 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

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

 

I agree. However, to have the actual image of page 3 (MQA Again by Jim Austin) of Stereophile's July 2021 issue removed you need to contact the site that is hosting it Super Best Audio Friends. Then all the links to the image will be removed as well.

[jparvio]

33 minutes ago, March Audio said:

How do we get to the truth if MQA won't allow technical or proper subjective investigation?

 

That in itself provides a strong indication of where the truth lies.

 

MQA could end all of this in an instant if they allowed 3rd party testing.  It would be in their commercial interest to do so, and yet they won't.  What possible reason could there be for that if it really did what they claim?

 

I'm not sure this is anything childish, it's quite serious and about commercial interests/money.  MQA have a lot to lose.

 

 

Yes this is alarming, I admit. Which brings to me to the exact reason why I urge every audio journalist locally and globally to concentrate on the truth. If any of us feel to be between a rock and a hard place then it is time to look in the mirror.  

 

 

19 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have seen a lot of people in the audio industry LIE OUTRIGHT on certain subjects, even to the extent that I have lost an industry friend because of that.   It has become pretty obvious that a LOT of industry associated people are afraid of losing social contacts and business contacts in the audio community.   There is a definite sense to me that some have sold out their responsibility to the truth to maintain social and ongoing business convenience.   I don't believe that there is a background conduit for money or a 'secret society'.

 

After thinking about this for a long time, and some major people in the audio industry telling misinformation in two important cases, looking at all alternatives that I can think of -- it reduces to primarialy simple social pressure, and to a lesser extent some business pressure.

 

One bout of misinformation came to me a long time before I even heard of MQA, but dismissed it as eccentricity.   In that case, I thought the misinformation was more of the individual being uninformed.   Eventually, I found that it seems to be that the industry community has a sense of a common party line or common 'excuse'.   I am seeing MQA starting to develop in the same way.

 

THIS TIME we (the technically  aware) consumer can communicate more easily, and cannot as easily be stonewalled and overwhelmed by 'industry experts' .  We can resist a new, developing industry standard maltruth, mistruth, untruth or whatever you might call it.   I am probably one of the more technically knowledgeable people who dabbles in audio, having made a mistake (unintentionally) early in my career by stating an untruth, with my conscience hurting me to this day.   I can not allow my integrity be compromised because I do have a conscience. My friends and not-so-much friends deserve to hear the best truth from me that I can express.

 

Bottom line -- DO NOT be influenced by industry experts, even if you feel that so many 'experts' can not be wrong.   Fact is, these industry experts have either intentionally or unintentionally (like me in the past) sold out their integrity for one reason or another.   Only those who might rescind this untruth can maintain their sense of honesty and integrity.  Personally, the MQA thing and the previous industry lie makes me sick, and I further loose a sense that people are generally honest.   I thought that it was just government politics that was dirty and many of the players had little integrity, but it really seems like many (not all) in the audio world are like that also.

 

Sadly, most audio experts are no longer 'experts' in my eyes.   Some can earn my respect, and a few at my own level (as advanced technical types) have earned my respect here.  However, my default social trajectory is to protect my integrity by limiting my involvement with those who really should feel ashamed of themselves.   Dismissing knowledgeable MQA advocating experts is the only way that I can maintain my own integrity.   Those advocating MQA who are simply misguided can more easily recover their  sense of right and wrong.

 

John

 

 

If one cannot trust the professionals working for audio press and alike then the harm is already done. There should be a line between journalism and advertorials and personal opinions contra the truth.  

 

[March Audio]

16 minutes ago, jparvio said:

 

Yes this is alarming, I admit. Which brings to me to the exact reason why I urge every audio journalist locally and globally to concentrate on the truth. If any of us feel to be between a rock and a hard place then it is time to look in the mirror.  

 

 

 

If one cannot trust the professionals working for audio press and alike then the harm is already done. There should be a line between journalism and advertorials and personal opinions contra the truth.  

 

I think the fundamental truth is already there and it has nothing to do with the technical arguments.

 

Do we actually need another proprietary file compression system?

 

The answer to that is clearly no.  Flac does the job and its free.  Streaming file size is a non issue.  If you can stream Netflix you can stream hi res audio.

 

So why would anyone want to get locked into a proprietary system that charges for its use?  These costs get passed on to the consumer.

 

The technical questions are somewhat moot after this fundamental point.

[Stereo]

51 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have seen a lot of people in the audio industry LIE OUTRIGHT on certain subjects, even to the extent that I have lost an industry friend because of that.   It has become pretty obvious that a LOT of industry associated people are afraid of losing social contacts and business contacts in the audio community.   There is a definite sense to me that some have sold out their responsibility to the truth to maintain social and ongoing business convenience.   I don't believe that there is a background conduit for money or a 'secret society'.

 

After thinking about this for a long time, and some major people in the audio industry telling misinformation in two important cases, looking at all alternatives that I can think of -- it reduces to primarialy simple social pressure, and to a lesser extent some business pressure.

 

One bout of misinformation came to me a long time before I even heard of MQA, but dismissed it as eccentricity.   In that case, I thought the misinformation was more of the individual being uninformed.   Eventually, I found that it seems to be that the industry community has a sense of a common party line or common 'excuse'.   I am seeing MQA starting to develop in the same way.

 

THIS TIME we (the technically  aware) consumer can communicate more easily, and cannot as easily be stonewalled and overwhelmed by 'industry experts' .  We can resist a new, developing industry standard maltruth, mistruth, untruth or whatever you might call it.   I am probably one of the more technically knowledgeable people who dabbles in audio, having made a mistake (unintentionally) early in my career by stating an untruth, with my conscience hurting me to this day.   I can not allow my integrity be compromised because I do have a conscience. My friends and not-so-much friends deserve to hear the best truth from me that I can express.

 

Bottom line -- DO NOT be influenced by industry experts, even if you feel that so many 'experts' can not be wrong.   Fact is, these industry experts have either intentionally or unintentionally (like me in the past) sold out their integrity for one reason or another.   Only those who might rescind this untruth can maintain their sense of honesty and integrity.  Personally, the MQA thing and the previous industry lie makes me sick, and I further loose a sense that people are generally honest.   I thought that it was just government politics that was dirty and many of the players had little integrity, but it really seems like many (not all) in the audio world are like that also.

 

Sadly, most audio experts are no longer 'experts' in my eyes.   Some can earn my respect, and a few at my own level (as advanced technical types) have earned my respect here.  However, my default social trajectory is to protect my integrity by limiting my involvement with those who really should feel ashamed of themselves.   Dismissing knowledgeable MQA advocating experts is the only way that I can maintain my own integrity.   Those advocating MQA who are simply misguided can more easily recover their  sense of right and wrong.

 

John

 

Very well put but don’t rule out their potentially massively overinflated egos that have been deflated and their tiny brains not knowing how to accept it and grow up. Unlike yourself. Rather sad of them really. Perhaps they need counseling.

[jparvio]

24 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I think the fundamental truth is already there and it has nothing to do with the technical arguments.

 

Do we actually need another proprietary file compression system?

 

The answer to that is clearly no.  Flac does the job and its free.  Streaming file size is a non issue.  If you can stream Netflix you can stream hi res audio.

 

So why would anyone want to get locked into a proprietary system that charges for its use?  These costs get passed on to the consumer.

 

The technical questions are somewhat moot after this fundamental point.

 

I Agree but this is not about me or my opinion alone. It would help enormously if the Audiophile Press was pushing for the truth as one, don't You think? From time to time it looks like MQA is not even fighting it's own battle and that hurts.