Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @seldomheard, do you care to reveal your real name and credentials? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

34 minutes ago, seldomheard said:

My boss would fire me. We have to sell product in this whore of a market

This looks like an admission that you’re in the industry. If that’s the case you must identify your self in order to continue posting. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, seldomheard said:

I'll answer that question with a better question. How many people who have accounts here on a percentage basis have listed their employer's id?

 

15 minutes ago, seldomheard said:

My comments stand on their own. They have no bearing whatsoever on any "competitor" - simply pointing out falsehoods in a "technical presentation" that only a technical person would know.

 

False equivalency. 

 

Our rule stands. Identify yourself, if you’re in the industry, or you’re gone. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, seldomheard said:

I'm retired and if I revealed who I worked for in the past or who I might consult for in the future, I would not be hired again. I have had several "bosses" in the industry and do not speak for them or their companies.

Ok. Your account is now banned. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, seldomheard said:

There's a reason why the account name chosen is "seldomheard". You probably aren't smart enough to see the irony here but that certainly makes sense given this is an "audiophile " forum. (joke is on you)

 

Um, ok. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, mansr said:

Why? He says he has no current industry affiliations. Do you have proof otherwise?

 

Its like saying you can comment anonymously on the weekend because you aren’t working for anyone. His language and some searching lead me to believe he has violated the rules of CA. This has zero to do with the subject matter. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, rwdvis said:

 

 

Did @TheComputerAudiophile get another call from Bob Stuart? He's suddenly pushing back quite hard against MQA critics using the usual guises of faux neutrality and "friendly" advice (to stop saying bad things about MQA).

 

Most recent:

 

 

 

 

Record breaking response time, Chris.  Within mere minutes?  It usually takes at least a few months before you come to realize and act against the pro-MQA shills.  The MQA critics, on the other hand, within minutes.  Also, seems the more effective and knowledgeable the critic, the quicker you respond.  Interesting to witness.

 

 

My response time is directly related to what I'm doing and whether or not posts are reported by members of the CA Community. In this case, I received several reports to check out the abusive language of this person, which lead to additional scrutinization based on his own comments about working the industry.

 

Do you really think I'm biased toward MQA and against members of the CA Community, yet I host the largest anti-MQA area on the internet?

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

At times, the dishonesty of some here is astounding.  Did you miss the point(s) on purpose?  Did I say anything about banning, industry worker, or forum rules?  Read again.

 

"Record breaking response time, Chris.  Within mere minutes?  It usually takes at least a few months before you come to realize and act against the pro-MQA shills.  The MQA critics, on the other hand, within minutes.  Also, seems the more effective and knowledgeable the critic, the quicker you respond.  Interesting to witness."

 

The critique was regarding response time and swiftness of action.  With shills who’s positions seem to benefit the site and/or owner, response time from Chris is slow, and decisions labored over (for seemingly ever) before actions taken.  Every possible benefit of doubt is given and common Chris replies include:

 

“Well, I can't read all posts.”
“I can’t be sure that X is a shill/industry affiliate/etc.”
“I like to take a soft approach to moderating.”
“Never received report by members.”

 

In the most recent example, response time was instant and without benefit of doubt.  These actions have become more common and more obvious in the MQA threads.

 

How quickly does he respond to others who are suspected of shilling and/or of being industry affiliates?

 

And by the way, as some have mentioned, there is some doubt as to whether the banning was justified, but Chris has zero interested in entertaining those thoughts at all.  The member did not refuse to acknowledge any industry affiliation, it’s not known whether he is currently affiliated or not.

Now you're stating things that are 100% false about me. 

 

My response time has to do with what I'm currently doing and if posts get reported by the community. Facts are facts, you can't have your own. People reported this guy because of his language. I read his posts and the big "tell" was the following statement:

 

22 hours ago, seldomheard said:

My boss would fire me. We have to sell product in this whore of a market.

 

His own words indicate he's currently working. You said, "it’s not known whether he is currently affiliated or not." You're twisting the facts to fit your narrative. He admitted to working with his own words.

 

I know who he is because I did some searching. 

 

I encourage you to read this and all the MQA threads. Count the number of posts for and against MQA. If your logic holds true, there should be many more pro MQA posts and a host of banned people that are against MQA. The reality is, you aren't using facts. You're going on a feeling you have. Again, find a larger area on the internet than CA where anti-MQA voices can be heard. You won't. 

 

 

You also said, "With shills who’s positions seem to benefit the site and/or owner, response time from Chris is slow." You are in a 100% fact-free world if you believe what you wrote. You have no idea what benefits the site and are showing a complete lack of knowledge  with respect to how to run a business. I don't blame you for not understanding this, but I do blame you for proving it without a doubt. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

Could you at least tell us who he works for?

No. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@GUTB Are you affiliated with the industry in any way?

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

So you basically banned him because you said so. Thanks for clarifying the rules.

I don't doxx people.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

“People” sure seem quick to report behavior of MQA critics.  I’ve seen plenty of bad language occur all over the site, but lightning-fast reports only seem to be made against certain critics at certain times.  Did it ever occur to you that it’s possible this trend might have something to do with a group of pro-MQA affiliates and shills within the site?  Something to think about the next time these selective rapid reports come flying in.

Did it ever occur to me? Come on, give me a little credit. 

 

Are you suggesting this specific person's language was OK, or that you just have a feeling about plenty of other bad language?

17 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

You’ve also stated elsewhere (in the MQA is Vaporware thread, I believe) that only a small percentage of consumers actually read the MQA threads on this site, so it's not surprising that you allow some critique.

 

Conclusion:

 

Additional site traffic
Average consumers won’t see or understand MQA critiques anyway ("doesn't move the needle")
Present a faux-neutral position rather than a healthy dose of skepticism and investigative reporting
Step in with frequent “friendly” advice (and banning) for critics on how to proceed in a more gentle manner (ie., don't say too many bad things about MQA).

Twist whatever you want in your seemingly post-factual world.

 

This latest person to be banned would have driven more traffic because of his posting style and the content of his posts. However, rules are rules. Facts are facts. 

 

Please stop leading the post-factual charge. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

And finally Aurrender may be in software licensing jam. If true I would insist they brick all the products (make them inoperable) if it was my software.

Got any more info on this one?

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

And yet, very outspoken opponents of MQA won't post their systems...

With all due respect, this sounds like a big XXXX contest. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

The thing about being beholden to MQA puzzles me. Not the idea that some people or publications are beholden to MQA, but the reasons why anyone would be beholden to MQA. 

 

Even the user seldomheard was scared to reveal his identity for fear of not being hired in the future because of his anti-MQA comments. 

 

If people like and support MQA that’s fine. If people dislike MQA that’s fine. 

 

People in the industry are looking at MQA as the MOB for some reason. Strange. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ha!

[The Computer Audiophile]

I emailed Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon. Awaiting a response.

 

Only kidding. I think contacting some of those cited is a great idea. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey Guys - No personally attacks allowed here. You can question someone and his/her motives etc... but be careful about speculating about one's person, mental state, etc...

 

Also, I see quite a bit of speculation under the guise of concluded fact. Be careful here as well. It can work in the opposite way you'd like. If your argument is that someone is in the pocket of MQA and is getting paid for it, you better show some evidence. If all you have is circumstantial evidence, you best not state your opinion as fact. Doing so will only hurt your credibility on this topic and potentially others. 

 

Carry on :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Chris,

 

It's not Hans affiliated with the industry? His YouTube channel is a for-profit business, just like a Blog is.

He is definitely in the industry.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

You gave several lectures, not only for the AES. There's a commercial company behind your activities, you don't work for free.
 

Frederic - Your speculation without any proof is a bit over the top. We can all draw our own conclusions based on the evidence. I'm willing to bet nobody was paid for any of the talks given at those events. It's about branding yourself and getting in front of people as someone who knows this stuff. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Have fun all:

Quote of the month :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's all true, but it doesn't contradict what I said.

In signal processing, a filter is a complex multiplication in the frequency domain. This is equivalent, through the Fourier transform, to a convolution in the time domain. This is true for both continuous-time and discrete-time systems. Conversely, any convolution can be regarded as a filter operation.

 

A sampled signal is a sequence of (regularly spaced) impulses. Interpolation fills in the gaps with additional impulses or a continuous function. The simplest interpolation is a zero-order hold, meaning the value of each impulse is simply repeated (held) until the next impulse arrives. This is equivalent to convolution with a rectangle function. Linear interpolation, where the impulses are joined by straight lines, is convolution with a triangle function. Any interpolation scheme you care to define can be expressed as a convolution. Since a convolution is a filter, it follows that interpolation is also a filter.

 

If you don't like this, so be it. Mathematics doesn't care.

Just as my wife and I discussed at the breakfast table this morning ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

I did, and I didn't. Far from any explanation, all you offer is a recital of trivial facts intermixed with confused, if not meaningless, interpretations thereof. You may have studied, but I question how much you learned.

 

Your response helps nobody. If something incorrect is posted please point it out. 

 

Its often not what you say but how you say it. Please be respectful of the community decorum. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Galileo365 said:

 

Wow, you got that all from a few words in marketing speak, so your basis that the Mytek ADC as a way to test MQA in practice is invalid comes without any formal analysis. Are you really so scared that you might be wrong that you need to poison the idea of a controlled experiment before it starts?

 

1 hour ago, Galileo365 said:

 

I assume you are referring to yourself here?

 

1 hour ago, Galileo365 said:

 

Ecactly what slack did I get when? Are you saying that just because my first response was not, “Thank you proving to me that MQA sucks”, means that I get kicked out of the club? This is supposed to be Computer Audiophile, not We Hate MQA, or so I thought.

 

Hi @Galileo365 - Let's hit the reset button here. 

 

It appears that things started off on the wrong foot. That's Ok. It isn't the first time this has happened. 

 

No matter what one believes, insults and personal attacks are never allowed here on CA. I always encourage everyone to use the Report Post feature when such behavior appears. 

 

I'm sure you have something of value to offer the community. Please keep in mind that you may need to start with a little thicker skin that usual until you're known by the people who've followed and participated in this thread since its inception. The reason I say that is because many people have popped in here to question the findings of others (that's OK in and of itself) but refused to believe the work they've already done and even worse they refused to do the same homework that's already been posted here. 

 

For the most part people here love facts and data when it comes to MQA. So far 99% of this information seems to make MQA look bad. If you have any info on either side of the issue, it's very welcome here. Just remember, until you have a little history with everyone, you will be subject to a bit more skepticism. If you're subject to personal attacks that's unacceptable and action will be taken to resolve the issue. 

 

So, let's get on with the discussion in a professional manner. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Wait a minute. Who is Andy Schaub?