Jump to content
IGNORED

The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, HalSF said:

I’m Stone Turntable over at the Hoffman forum. The thing that’s comically misleading about this post is the implication that I support MQA (I don’t, and stated my belief that it’s probably bunk several times in your SHF thread) and that I must be in cahoots with some MQA cabal. Anyone who has a problem with your extremely hostile, aggressive online persona is part of the MQA conspiracy, I guess.

 

You’re also leaving out the fact that I repeatedly *praised* your MQA listening test and was criticizing you for one thing: making personal attacks, accusing people by name of committing fraud and of being liars — in short, of stuff that the Hoffman forum, at least, defines as troll behavior. That’s it. 

 

I realize the culture and the rules here at CA tolerate ankle-biting, eye-gouging, and framing one's debate opponent as History’s Greatest Monster to a much greater degree than over at the Hoffman forum, so I’’m not going to criticize or engage with you for any of that in your thread here,  beyond responding this once to what you’ve said about me and my imaginary iniquity. I had nothing to do with the deletion of the your Hoffman thread beyond publicly pleading with you not to undermine your valuable MQA critique by being such a relentlessly mean bastard.

 

I’m pretty sure you’re probably going the respond to this with maximum suspicious contempt. Good luck with that. I’m out.

 

 

..maybe you left out the part that you accused me of lying, fabricating, and more with an insane tirade?

 

..perhaps you left out that you came to this conclusion via innuendo from posters here?

 

Bye.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Confused said:

Indeed it would.  I have been thinking about this myself, whenever I read about comparisons there always appears to be some doubt as to if the files are from identical masters.  

 

Can anyone offer any any examples of known equivalents to MQA files?

 

I'm pretty sure the Staatskapelle Elgar Symphonies 1&2 via Tidal/MQA are the same as the DECCA 24/96 downloads.

 

But you could  ask Brinkman Ship.  He knows 50 of them.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

While I agree, let's drop it. It's not going to be resolved either way.

 

Agree. Dropped... in this thread at least...

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, HalSF said:

I’m Stone Turntable over at the Hoffman forum. The thing that’s comically misleading about this post is the implication that I support MQA (I don’t, and stated my belief that it’s probably bunk several times in your SHF thread) and that I must be in cahoots with some MQA cabal. Anyone who has a problem with your extremely hostile, aggressive online persona is part of the MQA conspiracy, I guess.

 

You’re also leaving out the fact that I repeatedly *praised* your MQA listening test and was criticizing you for one thing: making personal attacks, accusing people by name of committing fraud and of being liars — in short, of stuff that the Hoffman forum, at least, defines as troll behavior. That’s it. 

 

I realize the culture and the rules here at CA tolerate ankle-biting, eye-gouging, and framing one's debate opponent as History’s Greatest Monster to a much greater degree than over at the Hoffman forum, so I’’m not going to criticize or engage with you for any of that in your thread here,  beyond responding this once to what you’ve said about me and my imaginary iniquity. I had nothing to do with the deletion of the your Hoffman thread beyond publicly pleading with you not to undermine your valuable MQA critique by being such a relentlessly mean bastard.

 

I’m pretty sure you’re probably going the respond to this with maximum suspicious contempt. Good luck with that. I’m out.

 

 

 

 

I sort of feel for you.  On the one hand, you do have your rules that sound "noble".  On the other hand, MQA is not a product like other products.  It is an attempt to change (or more accurately, to own) the very ground of our musical digital lives.  Thus it is a very innoble venture and this needs to be said.  Yet by accurately describing this would necessarily break your rules which are truly designed for a gentler, kinder Audiophiledom that never really existed.

 

THEN, you come here and characterize the culture here in the most derisive and personal terms - something you are rather proud of being above and censoring on your site.

 

Hypocrite.

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

Link to comment
1 hour ago, manisandher said:

Over the years I've learnt there's so much more to digital audio than meets the eye (ear). I miss the old-timers like @ar-t and @JR_Audiowho had some really interesting things to say...

 

Mani.

 

Indeed there is ... ^_^. No-one has full understanding of what the subtle interactions are, including myself ... It's the System, Stupid!

 

Pulling out one parameter, like MQA, and pointing the finger at that as the sole culprit for making the presentation better, or worse, is futile ... it always going to be a balance of all the parameters present for a particular playback situation; meaning, it will be a toss of a coin result, unless one knows the status of everything "in the room" ...

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, eclectic said:

 

In that case I apologize.

 

Is he a wannabe Gort? How has he been dragged into this?

Simple. When I posted the listening thread at Hoffman he posted a long lecture about my thread content, which I basically ignored.

 

Then one of his little informant buddies at CA told him I fabricated the whole thing, and they put him up to torching the thread. He posted an absolutely crazy tirade that I reported, then boom..the thread was gone.

 

His same little buddies told him I posted about this here and he came scurrying over to spin it.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HalSF said:

 

Thanks for the empathy, and thanks for confirming my observation that members are allowed to play rough here, by calling me a low-down sniveling CA-bashing hypocrite.

 

In reality I don’t condemn the culture here at all. “Ankle-biting and eye-gouging” come with the territory — you just did it to me! How is it a libel to accurately mention that there’s a lot of folks whaling on one another here? 

 

Anyway it’s why I mostly lurk at CA and focus on all of the useful positive information and knowledge here, rather than participate in any of the digital acting out..

 

 

Your not a "low-down sniveling CA-bashing hypocrite", your just a plain every day hypocrite.  You honestly think of yourself (and your site) as "standing above" what you morally condemn, but you are not above using the same "low down" language and tactics, and even a bit of internet psychologizing (i.e. "digital acting out").  

 

However, what you are not bringing to the table is how your noble rules are regularly used to enable the worse of Audiophiledom.  Legitimate questioning and characterization becomes "ankle-biting" and "acting out" when it suits your interests.

 

 

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

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Your not a "low-down sniveling CA-bashing hypocrite", your just a plain every day hypocrite.  You honestly think of yourself (and your site) as "standing above" what you morally condemn, but you are not above using the same "low down" language and tactics, and even a bit of internet psychologizing (i.e. "digital acting out").  

 

However, what you are not bringing to the table is how your noble rules are regularly used to enable the worse of Audiophiledom.  Legitimate questioning and characterization becomes "ankle-biting" and "acting out" when it suits your interests.

 

 

Is "a plain every day hypocrite" better or worse than a low-down sniveling CA-bashing hypocrite? 

 

I’m guessing worse....    x-D

 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, HalSF said:

Thank you.

 

I do understand that a lot of MQA critics really do believe it’s a willfully dishonest initiative and that if MQA attains some kind of monopoly status, it potentially could pose a kind of existential threat to open audio standards and non-DRM musical playback. (I’m not sure myself but I do know it’s been one of the most botched marketing roll-outs I’ve ever seem, and the failure to engage with critics in good faith looks very hinky.) And to some degree a growing wave of outrage about years of previous dubious audiophile claims and pseudoscience are contributing to the extraordinary hostility and paranoia directed at MQA. But as an excuse to abandon all civility and just fight dirty, MQA doesn’t cut it in my opinion. 

 

In the post you refer to, I responded to Brinkman Ship calling MQA proponents liars (as opposed to just wrong) by proposing the idea that he had fabricated his listening test. And then in the next sentence I said, of course I don’t think he made it all up. The point being that it’s cheap and easy to attack honesty and motives, and better to just crush with factual argument. If anyone read that as a serious accusation that Brinkman Ship was lying they just weren’t paying attention. 

 

(Kids, don’t try and be subtle on the Internet.)

 

 

 

Let's cut to the chase.


The originators of MQA ARE liars. This has been demsontrated over and over and over.

 

They lied about "authentication", they lied about being "true to the master/lossless", they lied

about correcting for "deblurring" in the "original" ADC"..hmmm..what did I leave out...

 

NICE TRY but..you are revising history. Your tirade post was filled with ALL CAPS and venom. Nice try.

 

I might even be able to get a screen shot of a cached page.

 

You now destroyed your credibility.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I can say with utter confidence that CA is not the den of deplorables that people like . . . Atkinson . . . make it out to be.

 Could you please provide a link to something I have written where I refer to Computer Audiophile as a "den of deplorables."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment

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...