Jump to content
IGNORED

Stereophile Series on MQA Technology


Recommended Posts

On 12/12/2017 at 11:10 AM, GUTB said:

 

Let's be real for half a second -- the real reason why the forums are generally against MQA is because of the cultural death of high-end audio. The interest in and pursuit of high-performance audio is in the pits -- culturally. Every show I've been to has been nothing but graying old and middle aged men. Millenials and gen Z seem to have little or no interest in it. There's older people on this thread but they are more or less just going along with the cultural norms online.

 

So it's "in" to pretend MQA is the enemy. Part in parcel with that is to dismiss quality gains. Anything but actually listen to it because we don't do that anymore in audio apparently.

 

 

GUTB, are you really Steve Guttenberg?

 

I have to say that this analysis of MQA reveals more about the culture of "high-end" than the consumer based rejection of it.  I would call it adolescent, but I don't think it rises to that level sadly (i.e. "it's "in" to pretend MQA is the enemy")

 

You did get it right however to recognize the line in the demographics...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Thank you for this clarification.  I wish you well in your MQA rehabilitation project.  You've got a steep climb ahead of you.

 

 

I actually agree with you here - MQA, at least for a significant portion of its target consumer base, is not a "sales" or "information" project but a "rehabilitation" project.  

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The contest relating to Jim Austin's series in Stereophile has a simple purpose. I prefer to write in a style that includes other voices. The contest is my attempt to clean up and focus on what Jim writes about MQA and debunk it. Attacking people nobody has heard of doesn't carry much weight if you are writing for and audience wider than audiophiles and I am. And if you want to attack him or any other person at Stereophile do it in another post. In other words, Jim I disagree with .... in one post. And in the next one Jim it is clear you don't understand the technology involved in MQA ....

 

 

There is very little in the two The Absolute Sound articles on MQA in the  comments section that are easily used. 

 

I think I see better now the point of your contest.  Still, that's the thing about forums - a thread flows this way or that ;)

 

Not sure what you mean by "attack".  If you mean personally, I don't believe I did that.  I of course think that Stereophile, its editors and writers are "trapped" (to pick a term) in their position vis-a-vis the industry in general and MQA in particular and are simply not going to objectively look at MQA.  It is not that they are not capable, it's just not how they make a living.  Consumers should never expect them to.

 

In a sense, picking apart/debunking the writing of trade publications such as Stereophile is a political exercise - we already know they are anti-consumer so it becomes a contest (or "war" as Jason says) to try to control the narrative.  The thing is, as Samuel says upstream with MQA they have already lost control of the narrative and their voice now has the air of desperation in it (all the attack the messenger stuff which Jim A starts in right away with).  However, the current "high end" industry still has no where else to turn for exposure so JA/Stereophile are losing this war but they keep trudging on doing what the do.  What excites me is the demographic trend in Audiophiledom of the younger, more "objectivist" and value based High Fidelity-ist who increasingly finds Stereophile/TAS as perplexing and irrelevant as art and wine magazines...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

This quote makes it sound like you are writing for an audience wider than audiophiles.    What audience would that be?   Forgive me if I don't understand.....

 

He writes from the current Audiophile culture, the personal testimonial.  He treats MQA as if it is just a SQ tweak and not all the other things it is.  It is this kind of over-emphasized subjectivism that leads directly to art and wine "high end".  What consumers have realized about MQA is not the convenient truth that it is a small SQ tweak for some (but not others), rather the much larger and important inconvenient truth that it is a DRM/IP end to end format of dubious value.  In other words it has real cons (in the pro and con matrix) that Audiophile culture as represented by Stereophile, radical subjectivists, and so much of the rest of Audiophiledom simply do not even address...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

I'm aware of the general use of the term, but wondered what you mean by a "shill"  in this context? Are the quotation marks significant?

 

Sorry Norton, I am just putting it in quotes to signal that I realize it is a loaded term and that one person's shill is just another persons reasonable supporter...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

I want to give a shout out to @John_Atkinson for the "More on MQA" article.  As I said on your site, I could quibble (as some do above) but your recognition that MQA (or anything like it) is not just another audio product - that it has Net Neutrality like impact on consumers and their digital ecosystems is refreshing.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?  Copyright is THE dispositive detail here. Moreover, ownership is a legal concept, not a technological one. A consumer no more “owns” any copyrighted PCM file than a MQA file. The distinction is a practical one related to control of playback, copying and the ease of violating the (normally) identical limited license that applies to any format applicable to the underlying intellectual property encoded into the files.

 

Replace the crossed out sentence with something like:

 

"Copyright is NOT the detail that accounts for consumer rejection of DRM" and your mostly right.  The "limited license" of the music is simply does not rise very high on the problem with DRM  - rather it is all the other legal aspects that comes with DRM (i.e. the "Digital" and the "Management") aspects.

 

Indeed, the wrong focus on copyright is one of the prevailing tactics used to obfuscate the reality and debate around DRM...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

I can hardly get through the evangelical tent personal testimonial angle of stuff like this, but I did.  

 

It made me think of the "Hi Res" claim of MQA and how that is all part of this Big Fat Lie.  Think of it, the future (where MQA or something like is IS the standard) where a lossy, 13-17 bit software is the only "Hi Res" available...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

I am starting to think that unfortunately MQA is here to stay.  It allows streaming delivery of higher quality than would ordinarily be available from a 24/48 stream, and streaming is now the main way music is delivered.  Whether it replaces non MQA high res downloads is yet to be seen.  I hope that doesn't happen.

 

I am starting to believe the opposite Ron.  A 24/48 stream that is actually 13-17 bits of lossy, upsampled, poorly filtered mashing of real Hi Res is not "higher quality", and since only audiophiles are interested in sound quality/Hi Res they can't sell it to us.  FLAC is actually more efficient Hi Res container bit for bit.  

 

True, the labels have an interest to foil DRM on an unsuspecting consumer, but even they have to see value and I don't think MQA offers it.  They can just as easily DRM their streams without MQA.  

 

In any rational market, MQA dies rather quickly. Not that irrational forces could prevail but I suspect (this is all crystal ball stuff) MQA time to stick against the audio wall has come and gone...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, knickerhawk said:

But what you are referring to as “legal aspects” are actually technology aspects..... Sorry, but those rights were never absolute, just as your “right” to perfect, painless fair use copying of IP you’ve licensed is not absolute...

 

Um, no.  You make several errors, including confusing lisensor with licensee (or your sentence is off).  Besides, you said it yourself - "copying" or cracking, or  in any way technically "getting around" IP "is not absolute".  Why?  Not because it can't be technically done, rather because I am legally prevented from doing so. DRM, IP, etc. etc. - these are first and foremost legal realities that are then "managed" through technical ways.  It is not all about copyright - rather, it is about the legal (and technical) burdens placed on the consumer over and above copyright...

 

 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, knickerhawk said:

It’s usually a good idea when pretending to know what you’re talking about to at least spell the terms correctly. It’s “licensor” not “lisensor.”

 

Ah, you see there, you get an F in internet comment box community standards.  

 

Look if you like MQA that is fine

 but I will not be buying it, nor can you obscure the legal reality of D......R.....M.  ?

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...