Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[Rt66indierock]

I will be offering a prize for the person who does the best job debunking each part of Jim Austin’s series on MQA technology. The first part is scheduled to hit the newsstands later this week with the January issue of Stereophile. The prize will be a $10.00 gift card of your choice that I can acquire in The Valley of the Sun (greater Phoenix Arizona metro area).

 

There is a lot of information to get you started on this site. Have fun.

[mansr]

The phrase shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.

[beetlemania]

Over on Audioasylum, John Atkinson wrote:

Quote

I wanted to point out that as different as the PS Audio and Benchmark DACs are, in almost every way, there is one significant factor where they actually behave virtually identically. That is in the behavior of their digital reconstruction filters. Could it be possible that with two modern DACs, the sonic signature of this filter outweighs everything else?

 

So, now that MQA has developed the "perfect filter", any POS DAC will sound like a million bucks as long as it can decode MQA files! I look forward to seeing the Audioquest Dragonfly being equally ranked with a $100K dCS stack in the pages of Stereophile.

 

Ugh, I'm not sure if I can bring myself to read Jim Austin's thesis . . .

[GUTB]

Running damage control already? Life is hard for MQA haters.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

Running damage control already? Life is hard for MQA haters.

Hi,

I do not know why people call those in opposition to MQA, as haters.

The MQA technical claims have been shown to be false.

If MQA Ltd is using engineering to create MQA, and this engineering is shown to be false, then either MQA have their maths completely wrong, or MQA are not the experts that they claim to be, or MQA have lied.

Exposing this does not make anyone a hater, they are just exposing the truth for others.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Rt66indierock]

57 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Over on Audioasylum, John Atkinson wrote:

 

So, now that MQA has developed the "perfect filter", any POS DAC will sound like a million bucks as long as it can decode MQA files! I look forward to seeing the Audioquest Dragonfly being equally ranked with a $100K dCS stack in the pages of Stereophile.

 

Ugh, I'm not sure if I can bring myself to read Jim Austin's thesis . . .

 

Problem is MQA Ltd. hasn't developed the perfect filter. Charles Hansen was a friend and we recently had phone conversations about digital filtering. The last one seemed to be a brain dump on his filtering ideas shortly before he passed away. 

 

There does seem to be a hope in the industry that a single solution like MQA could be sold to younger people and that solutions like Audiolense Mitch wrote about are too complicated. 

 

I'm going to hold Jim Austin to the same professional standards I'm held to. In other words I'm going to hold him accountable. I encourage everyone to do the same. 

[beetlemania]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Problem is MQA Ltd. hasn't developed the perfect filter.

 

Sorry, I failed to use the sarcasm font

[darkmass]

15 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I will be offering a prize for the person who does the best job debunking each part of Jim Austin’s series on MQA technology. The first part is scheduled to hit the newsstands later this week with the January issue of Stereophile. The prize will be a $10.00 gift card of your choice that I can acquire in The Valley of the Sun (greater Phoenix Arizona metro area).

 

There is a lot of information to get you started on this site. Have fun.

 

This contest would be a lot more fun if you made the prize a Mytek Manhattan II.

[Rt66indierock]

38 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I do not know why people call those in opposition to MQA, as haters.

The MQA technical claims have been shown to be false.

If MQA Ltd is using engineering to create MQA, and this engineering is shown to be false, then either MQA have their maths completely wrong, or MQA are not the experts that they claim to be, or MQA have lied.

Exposing this does not make anyone a hater, they are just exposing the truth for others.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

The math of digital audio is fascinating. And I am deeply indebted to those who have spent many hours this year especially Charles Hansen and Rob Watts explaining parts of it to me.

 

Those who oppose MQA are called haters because it is a way to try and present a majority position as a minority position.

[realhifi]

15 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I will be offering a prize for the person who does the best job debunking each part of Jim Austin’s series on MQA technology. The first part is scheduled to hit the newsstands later this week with the January issue of Stereophile. The prize will be a $10.00 gift card of your choice that I can acquire in The Valley of the Sun (greater Phoenix Arizona metro area).

 

There is a lot of information to get you started on this site. Have fun.

 

Ten bucks?  Lol!  High dollar campaign you folks have going eh?  ?

[james45974]

33 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Running damage control already? Life is hard for MQA haters.

Sorry, it goes the other direction, MQA has had to do damage control from Day 1

[Rt66indierock]

10 minutes ago, darkmass said:

 

This contest would be a lot more fun if you made the prize a Mytek Manhattan II.

 

Remember The Absolute Sound MQA articles a couple months back. I got a lot of criticism from Andrew Quint at RMAF 2017 about the responses to his and Robert Harley's articles. 

 

I think a small prize will help people focus their displeasure on what Jim Austin writes so I can use it later. I understand it is a lot of fun to attack Jim Austin personally but this a perfect opportunity to attack the technology of MQA since MQA Ltd is going to need more money in the near future.

[Rt66indierock]

30 minutes ago, darkmass said:

 

This contest would be a lot more fun if you made the prize a Mytek Manhattan II.

 

Why would I give a prize with MQA? I didn't call MQA vaporware and make it stick without good reasons.

[Rt66indierock]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

The phrase shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.

 

True but they still need to shot.

[Indydan]

13 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Remember The Absolute Sound MQA articles a couple months back. I got a lot of criticism from Andrew Quint at RMAF 2017 about the responses to his and Robert Harley's articles. 

 

I think a small prize will help people focus their displeasure on what Jim Austin writes so I can use it later. I understand it is a lot of fun to attack Jim Austin personally but this a perfect opportunity to attack the technology of MQA since MQA Ltd is going to need more money in the near future.

 

It's almost impossible for Jim Austin to write articles that praise and hype MQA, more than the ones from The Absolute sound from a few months ago. Especially the article written by Robert Harley. That article was so over the top, it almost made me vomit... 

[Miska]

14 hours ago, GUTB said:

Running damage control already? Life is hard for MQA haters.

 

At least codec should be widely available so we can encode and decode test signals to independently inspect how it really performs in various situations.

 

Now it's all up to believing paid marketing material and the amount we've been able to inspect with a lot of effort...

 

[Indydan]

On 12/6/2017 at 8:32 PM, Rt66indierock said:

I will be offering a prize for the person who does the best job debunking each part of Jim Austin’s series on MQA technology. The first part is scheduled to hit the newsstands later this week with the January issue of Stereophile. The prize will be a $10.00 gift card of your choice that I can acquire in The Valley of the Sun (greater Phoenix Arizona metro area).

 

There is a lot of information to get you started on this site. Have fun.

 

RT66indierock, Stereophile is calling you a troll! 

 

They speak about you in promoting their January issue:

 

"JA also kicks off the issue with a look at the controversy raised by MQA. Controversy? Also in the January Stereophile, Jim Austin examines the time-domain performance of MQA-equipped DACs and one Internet troll is already offering a $10 bounty for anyone who debunks one of Jim's findings!"

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/january-already

 

So, it seems that if you have issues with MQA, the people of Stereophile consider you a troll. How nice... 

 

 

 

[#Yoda#]

33 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

RT66indierock, Stereophile is calling you a troll! 

 

They speak about you in promoting their January issue:

 

"JA also kicks off the issue with a look at the controversy raised by MQA. Controversy? Also in the January Stereophile, Jim Austin examines the time-domain performance of MQA-equipped DACs and one Internet troll is already offering a $10 bounty for anyone who debunks one of Jim's findings!"

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/january-already

 

So, it seems that if you have issues with MQA, the people of Stereophile consider you a troll. How nice... 

 

 

 

It seems to me that Stereophile is considering RT66indierock as a moneymaker by increasing their possibly weaken revenue with published paper issues. Clever strategy! 

[GUTB]

The article is going to explore time domain factors — something the usual compliment of non-audiophiles aren’t equipped to deal with.

[#Yoda#]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The article is going to explore time domain factors — something the usual compliment of non-audiophiles aren’t equipped to deal with.

compliment or complement? 

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The article is going to explore time domain factors

Is that supposed to sound impressive?

[#Yoda#]

@GUTB I cannot understand why you still insist on your once stated opinion about MQA, regarding the evidentiary facts from many independent and professional specialists (not only the view, who are posting here). Some of them are presumably better equipped with analyzing tools than your reviewer or your editorial department. On the long term, this persist on "alternative facts" spread by Bob Stuart and MQA will not support the credibility of your magazine, IMO.

[GUTB]

11 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

@GUTB I cannot understand why you still insist on your once stated opinion about MQA, regarding the evidentiary facts from many independent and professional specialists (not only the view, who are posting here). Some of them are presumably better equipped with analyzing tools than your reviewer or your editorial department. On the long term, this persist on "alternative facts" spread by Bob Stuart and MQA will not support the credibility of your magazine, IMO.

 

Why don’t you post your system?

[rickca]

Deleted

[#Yoda#]

Why should I do? Most members here are doing not as well and it doesn't matter concerning the MQA topic and my posts. But I can assure you, most of my equipment has been reviewed by Stereophile, Audiostream or InnerFidelity very positve and some "Product of the Year".