Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[mcgillroy]

“The technical assertions made in this article have been thoroughly checked by independent engineers, both in and out of the audio industry”

 

This is little note is the most important and telling aspect of this article. It’s a testament to the failure of both MQAs marketing and of the audiophile press. They are utterly stripped of any reputation that one might attribute to them: technical assertions, independently checked by engineers in and outside industry...

 

Read that again once more. 

 

MQA choose to lie and divert from day one, that’s ok, that’s marketing. 

 

The audiophile press choose to collude. Even that is ok initially - but once people start to ask questions you probably should call in independent experts. Just to be safe in case there is actually fire where people smell smoke.

 

Didn’t happen in the four years of MQAs existence.

 

It took Mansr and an anonymous blogger (+ RTIndierock, Hansen and Lucey) to do some basic research in their spare time to get a clearer picture of what MQA is.

 

Atkinson, Austin and co - the ball is in your court - show that you actually got some balls and tell your readers you have failed them. 

 

Congrats and kudos to Archimago for this great piece, to Chris for putting it out and thanks to Mansr for his invaluable work.

 

Extra thanks to Bob for three+ years of great audiophile entertainment and enlightenment. Learned a ton and had great fun along the way. Send me your address I make sure the CA community sends you the promised flowers

[mcgillroy]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

It is interesting is it not that 6moons, which has 1 and 3/4 feet firmly in subjectivised Audiophiledom (has anyone ever accused them of being "objectivist"?) even found their way to ask what is the substance, technically, of MQA?  It turns out that and "end to end" payment scheme is not good for the small "boutique" manufactures that 6moons almost exclusively promotes deals with.  Nothing like a bit of old fashioned self interest...

 

 

6Moons business model relies on audiophile hardware having become a cottage industry. Thousands of small firms and investors trying to make a buck with devices either build for cheap in China or in small, expensive runs domestically. These companies need sites like 6Moons or Computer Audiophile for exposure via reviews. They also buy adds on these very sites as they can’t afford TAS, Stereophile etc.

 

MQAs licensing regime would have threatened these small audio companies. 6Moons editor Strahan Ebean probably early on heard rumblings from such vendors behind the scene and figured that MQA would be a threat for him too. 

 

 

[mcgillroy]

MQA Trolls are getting better. Nice to see. Bring it on.

[mcgillroy]

Add Naim & AKDesigns to the list of MQA sceptics.

 

Benchmark, Schiit, Linn, Naim, Ayre, MBL, Playback, PS Audio etc - if your little format manages that some of the most reputable names in consumer audio publicly question your integrity you got a problem.

 

Not to speak of professional audio: apart from Mytek there is not a single studio ADC/DAC manufacturer that supports MQA.

 

 

 

 

[mcgillroy]

The difference between the stuff Stereophile put up on MQA and @Archimago‘s article is the difference between a Popular Mechanics and a peer-reviewed science article. Archimagos measurements have been checked by third parties and are open to replication. Stereophile is invited to do so or stay on their PM-track while the rest of the audiophile train rolls on.

 

Instead Mr. Atkinson argues about anonymity. Well that is how science works John, without blind peer-review none of the funny gadgets on your measuring-bench would exist.

 

Man up and have a go at @mansr‘s and Archimagos numbers. If you prove them wrong progress has been made. If you prove them right  progress has been made. You really cannot loose but the friendship of a British pal who put you in an increasingly tight spot.

[mcgillroy]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

 

Okay, I think we get it. You disagree with other editors' decisions about allowing "secret identity" writers whether it's in the pages of The Economist or Chris Connaker's website.

 

 

Thus the solution to this dilemma offered by @John_Atkinson is to get the Economist to write an article about MQA. 

 

Let‘s all write friendly letters to Mr. Atkinson’s favorite British magazine and kindly ask to investigate the MQA-affair. With some luck it‘ll be out in July, right in sync with Mr. Atkinson’s deblurring article.

 

Gentleman, pls wet your quilts...