JVS Cheerleads an MQA CD..Sis Boom Bah!

[crenca]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

The split between baseband PCM and MQA data isn't fixed.

 

Unless I have missed it - there is no known method for measuring this at this time is there?

 

Also, want to take a wild questiment as to how much real bit depth there might be on an "MQA CD"?

 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, eclectic said:

 

I've found your posts here interesting. You've woken the place up a bit.  The whistling guy is not worth getting banned for. Why not back off as requested. Just my 2 cents worth..

 

Wait a minute, is that what was removed  - that video of JVS (apparently, a number of years ago) trying his hand at...I don't know what, some kind of campy one-man-show theatre?  Was it more than that (I only watched maybe 20 seconds)?  Why was it removed?

[crenca]

Just now, realhifi said:

What about the posters?

 

@The Computer Audiophile, how many PM's do you get from this guy a week?

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Removed because it was like a high school clique talking about a guy they don't like. 

 

Sure JVS posted it on the internet for all to see, but I'm not into hosting a party for guys to ridicule other people about things totally unrelated to audio. 

 

Hum...I don't know, the subject of this thread is this guys audio review and these various writers for these Audiophile trade publications are, in a word, eccentric.  Truly, they are eccentric with a capital E.  Perhaps that is just one small part of the larger problem?  Then again, perhaps not...nah, it is related and any warm blooded "normal" person intuits this.

 

I have thought about posting a link here at CA in the past to a piece published by a UK web zine that is mostly about Michael Lavgorgna's "art", but also a little bit about his audio beliefs.  Would that be off limits as well in a thread about a review of his?  

 

In any case, no sweat as it's not worth that much discussion of course.  Then again, the fact that these guys play a Confidence Game means that there "reputation" and their public persona is a very large part of the whole "review" process...

 

edit:  I also noticed that Christopher3393 is playing the role of civility police again.  Snitch is the technical descriptor...

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Give it up.

 

I don't think I will.  Ban me if you wish.  I have not seen Christopher3393 contribute anything since the majority of regulars disagreed with his ideas in the "civility thread" (can't recall - did he not start that thread as well?).  I have only seen him pop up here and there to complain about "tone" that he does not agree with.

 

Since I don't send PM's bitching and complaining take this as my first:

 

Just who died and made Christopher3393 boss?  Why is his "snowflake" understanding holding sway?  Why does his snitching get a response more often than not?  Who is this guy (or gal)??

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Rules are rules. Way more people use the "report post" function than him. What's wrong with someone reporting violations?

 

Because, people are people.  People make mistakes, get in foul moods, and sometimes they don't agree.  I don't agree with Christopher3393 hyper vigilant patrolling of "tone" that he does not agree with and I suspect he is for whatever reason getting his understanding of "civility" privileged.  Is he you, or do you in the main agree with his civility understanding?  Is he here merely to impose himself, or does he actually have something to say about the subject of this thread or any of the others he has snitched on?

 

 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

He's made a handful of posts in the Album of the Evening and Song of the Day threads, but in a quick scan of his recent posting history I see something like 90% complaining about other people.

 

That confirms my experience as well...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

I was wondering how long it would take for this to come up. Seems to have no bearing on the topic. Ad hominem. Another episode of Mean Girls here at CA?

 

 

Tell us @christopher3393 , just how long were you waiting?  Why were you waiting?  Are you the mother hen of CA, and if so who appointed you that role?  Obviously you not approve of the "tone" here in general (too "mean girls" for you in general, "another episode" as you say), and if so what does that have to do with audio in general or this thread in particular??

[crenca]

2 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

For the record, I did not report these posts to the moderator but simply posted my own response.

 

I can find zero evidence that "snitch" is a technical descriptor. Informant is, but I don't see how this fits, particularly since the only informing I did was by public posting.

 

"Playing the role of civility police"  is quite loaded, clearly negative.

 

I would prefer to address this by PM, but you've made it quite public, so here is, in part, your reply:

Crenca, you did not show me the minimal respect of questioning the contents of my post that you are responding to.

 

I think you are fully capable of examining your own conscience and discerning the intent in your heart when you, for example, post about ML. You have never, to my knowledge, expressed that your history of interaction with ML would lead you to ask what role your own posts to him had in the near inevitable events that followed. That the sole responsibility is MLs is, imo,  simply not a viable response. So I'd like to suggest to you that some of your posts, and some of your overall tactics here, strike me as irresponsible.

 

I also find some of your remarks uncharitable toward the person you are criticizing while finding excuses to justify this behavior that I don't think would stand up to any real, careful, scrutiny.

 

Synonyms for uncharitable that, imo, may apply at times to some of your posts and to select posts of a few others here: mean, mean-spirited, unkind, selfish, self-centered, inconsiderate, thoughtless, insensitive, unfriendly, unsympathetic, hard-hearted, uncaring, unfeeling, ungenerous, ungracious, unfair.

 

Rather than being an overly aggressive pc "snowflake" misportrayal, I think I have been very patient and moderate in my exchanges with you generally, and have tried to reason with you numerous times. My patience is being tried at this point.

 

I would hope we could get past this. But I don't think it will be easy.

 

Nope, it won't be easy - but as the bumper sticker says, nothing worth doing ever is.

 

If I recall correctly, I was (and I remain) critical of ML's position about audio in general, blog moderation in particular, and toward many here who were banned by him for disagreeing with him (on his blog).  I make no apology or defense of those facts - if you don't like it then I submit it is your problem.  In my defense however, I thought a very broad moderation needed to be taken toward ML as it quickly became evident that he has some real issue(s) (I called it a "tick", others used similar language) around his impulsive insulting, NSFW language, etc.  I was often the target of those attacks, but I never reported him (that I recall - no doubt I scolded him) - others did however and he as banned.  Indeed I kept engaging the substance of his arguments (when possible).  Did you forget this?  What more could have I done "responsibly"?  As far as I can tell you have a false recollection/understanding of that exchange.  Of course, nobody is innocent, pure, etc.  Mistakes were made no doubt.  So what?  Time to move on.

 

As far as this thread, if you did not report (i.e. snitch) then I stand corrected and I sincerely apologize.  Mine was a reasonable assumption based on a correlation of your non-contribution to the substance of several threads except to complain of the "tone" of others.  Yes, you and I (and others) have reasoned extensively on this.  Now, we are at an impasse.  You don't agree with me, I don't agree with you - indeed so much so that I put it this way:    We are from different cities, with different customs and different understandings as to what it means to be "civil".  Mine has a far greater tolerance to a kind of bar room honesty - unlike you, I have no problem calling someone a "wanker" in a certain context.  Yours (as I see it) is much more rationalistic, dogmatic, and impersonal approach - you think there is something inherently evil in "wanker".   I comes to this:  all those descriptors you used (e.g. "mean", "insensitive", especially "unsympathetic",  "hard hearted" & "ungenerous") IMO apply to your philosophy of "civility", not mine!  You are the inflexible, dogmatic, moralistic finger wagger in the room who professes his own innocent when he is judging.  You are, despite your own belief and self description, most intolerant.

 

However perhaps I am mistaken.  I don't believe I am, not in essence (we no doubt are from different cities) but perhaps I have overestimated your dogmatism, or perhaps I am not picking up signals of toleration and generosity and humaneness from you that you in fact are putting out.  In that, I am willing to step back and have a digital beer with you.  We don't agree, but let us find a way to toleration and perhaps even respect.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm wondering how well-founded you believe this opinion is and specifically why? How high is your confidence in the accuracy of this opinion?

 

I'm also wondering how other members would evaluate the degree of credibility this opinion has and why? That is, if anyone would care to respond.

 

Ooo,oooo pick me pick me!! 

 

Seriously,  Bob Ludwig has been an early "supporter", is featured in MQA adds, videos, social media site promotions, etc.

 

I have no way of knowing if he is directly compensated.  I do know that the culture of this industry very very often "cross pollinates" as it were - so and so "respected" individual says this about this piece of gear, this technique, this recording.

 

All this adds up to me of a reasonable assumption of some kind of quid pro quo.  Even if it is not direct monetary exchange, it is at the very least exposure for both parties and gives the trade publications and web sites (including this one) something to talk about.  This sort of $free$ exposure is often accounted to be very worthwhile.  Also, in the relatively small market/community of Audiophiledom this sort of stuff seems to be part of many successful ventures and individuals.

 

I rate my confidence in the "accuracy of this opinion" high.  I believe it in essence to be not only correct, but all rather obvious to all but the most casual observers.  If a detail here or there is incorrect, it does not change the larger picture significantly.

 

"MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles.  And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press. "  Brian Lucey, Fair Hedon interview 11/17

 

 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

 

 

This sort of thing can get you reported around here you know, you freakin w#$@er!

[crenca]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

LOL. Just for the record, if this is reported, it won't be by me.

 

I I might have to report it then...

 

I mean to do such a thing, it's not very nice...

 

??

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

...even in a cyber barroom?  

 

 

Ssshhhh.... I had one going over on him ?

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

"Persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander." If not that, then at the very least, malicious gossip?

 

 

Wait a minute, wait a minute  - how is pointing out Bob L's explicit, public relationship with MQA - that is his explicit affirmation of their goals  - "slander"???

[crenca]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

"he is a compensated liar."

 

As I explained, his relationship to the industry, the exposure he gets for his own business, even the compensation his ego gets from being a "respected" and significant industry voice is compensation enough.  Does it matter if he is directly compensated with money?  Again, those other things are MORE valuable than the going market rate to bribe him directly.

 

Besides, it's a reasonable assumption based on his behavior, what we know about this Audiophiledom culture and industry, etc.

 

What is "slanderous" about all this???

[crenca]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Maybe there's more in the earlier part of the exchange not posted here (not interested enough in Lavorgna's views to find out). I find it fascinating in that exchange that having the contact information or some kind of link to BS implies anything at all! I don't even see why to "believe a word you say" is contingent at all on knowledge of BS's particulars.

 

The problem is that I assume Lavorgna believes the only truth must be that which comes from BS's mouth or some official word from MQA. This is rather disturbing. Highly "faith based" in nature as if appealing to a "higher authority"  and orthodoxy of the Pope himself; anyone else not of that faith or dares question the papal decrees should be literally "excommunicated" and ignored.

 

Archimago, I am surprised at your surprise!  (not really - just riffing off your post  )

 

In Audiophiledom, the ground of all knowledge and experience is high subjectivised.  Thus, the subject is the source of truth, not any kind of measured objective reality (known physics and engineering reality & principles, etc.).  ML and the like do not have confidence in just anyone (RT66, etc.) - the hierarchy of expertise is a relatively small group of subjects within their world, most of whom are industry insiders upstream from themselves in the industry.  This is their criteria of truth of everything related to Audiophiledom (and if the truth were ever told, their whole lives are probably lived this way).

 

One of the interesting consequences (there are many) of the above is that these folks can not imagine a Bernie Madoff like conspiracy where someone comes in with expert knowledge of the culture and invents a product that seeming gives a little something to everyone like MQA (i.e. DRM to labels, SQ boost to audiophiles, convenience/bandwidth savings to average consumers, end to end, etc. etc.).  They can not imagine it because they do not have a criteria from which to judge except the larger paradigm of subjectivism that leads to the con in the first place.  It's like asking me beat Michael Jordan in a game of one on one, or a child to reason like a man - it is not in their nature.

 

Circling back around to our conversation about Audiophiledom and the rehabilitation of the term "audiophile" (from a week or so ago), I don't think it can be done, or would be worthwhile even if it could.  Sometimes terms/symbols become too "loaded" to be useful anymore.  Imagine trying to rehabilitate the swastika!!  Extreme example I know, but I think we have to be realistic about the culture of modern Audiophiledom (say, since 1980).  IMO, the shift that the personal audio crowd is bringing into this hobby (objective truth criteria, an expectation of value, etc.) is going to eventually roll audiophiledom into the grave...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

 

Hey Crenca... Well, I'm surprised at your surprise of my surprise :-).

 

Yeah. Maybe some things are just irremediable... Will have to see. What is clear is that MQA has overstepped the "balance in the force" and stretched the disagreements between polarities:

 

- objectivism <--> subjectivism as ways of assessing truth, quality, fidelity, and goals in the hobby

- audiophile magazines <--> forums as sources of reliable information

- industry <--> consumer interests represented in viewpoints

 

IMO, magazines, certain web sites and individuals like Lavorgna are in an identity crisis of sorts brought on by their loyal to the Industry....

 

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

There is something like an identity crisis going on I see it in the press reaction to me at shows. There is confusion in the industry because of our reaction to MQA but many see the pendulum swinging back towards more objectivity as a good thing. 

 

I agree Archimago, MQA has proved to a bridge too far even for this industry, this culture of Audiophiledom.  In the terms I have used, Bob Stuart broke the rules of the confidence game with what is nothing other than an old fashioned overreach.  This has attracted unwanted attention to certain details that the culture of confidence relies on not being unexamined.  A Ted Denney is but one room in a large mansion and lends a bit of fun to the whole enterprise (or as Stereophile describes, his "excellent adventure").  MQA on the other hand reached into every room. This is the "identity crisis" to which you both refer.

 

However (and lending support to my argument that this culture is irremediable, at least in the short/medium term) the two big trade publications have essentially doubled down on MQA.  Why?  I think they have seen this movie before and have confidence in the resiliency of the Audiophile culture in general and the confidence game in particular.  I think they are largely correct - the only thing that can and will change Audiophiledom is mortality/demographics 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

delete

[crenca]

One detail that has me not quite as optimistic as you @Archimago is the taste for MQA on the Roon forum.  Roon strikes me as a product that would attract a good number of the traditional subjectivised audiophile, but I would expect at least half (if not an outright majority) of the customers would be a more modern, "digitally aware" customer.  Yet, my reading of the temp in the room is that at least 2/3 rds are quite positive on MQA.  Roon blames their users for having to accommodate MQA in their code, and I believe them.  I suppose it is time for that Brian Lucey quote again:

 

"MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles.  And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press."  

[crenca]

56 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

....

Regarding the "ban hammer," please note that the entire history of the Stereophile website, IIRC, we have only banned 5 posters, all but one because they refused to include their professional affiliation in their postings. Crenca, Spacehound, Indydan, Archimago, and other members of the "we oppose MQA" fraternity are all still active on Stereophile.com and although RT66indirock hasn't posted on our site for a while, his account isn't blocked.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Mr. Atkinson is right about this.  In a smaller truncated manner I have posted essentially the same position I have here.  Also very often on under these pro MQA stories there is an outright majority of posters who see through MQA.  This of course does not mean that Stereophile is learning any lessons.

 

By he way, it's the Audiophile Consumers Union, not "we oppose MQA fraternity"...  

[crenca]

2 hours ago, testikoff said:

Universal Music Japan is preparing 100 MQA-encoded CD titles for June 20, 2018 release.

 

100?  Vaporware.  Even as a niche player they will have to do much much more.  How many titles released every year in SACD?

[crenca]

37 minutes ago, testikoff said:

How about these passages from Bob's post:

 

 

The Green signal is completely removed by MQA decoders; but it is there so that we can hear more of the music when playback is limited to a 16-bit stream.	The coder for B uses an approximation (prediction) + a touch-up signal to make it lossless. The estimates of B1’ and B2’ can be buried within or below the green line (at the choice of the mastering engineer).
...............

 

All this has been debunked in this thread and others.  Unfortunately there has not been a specific summery written for MQA "CD" as there has been for MQA in general I do not believe (like this):