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

[james45974]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

While the group is closed, the member list is public.

 

So, an MQA Echo Chamber

 

[james45974]

39 minutes ago, doctorrazz said:

The industry should give not give MQA the end game in content provided. Hopefully you insights will become mainstream. 

Given their history, should we as consumers trust anything the big record companies (industry) are doing in regards to MQA?  I think we should be very cautious.

[james45974]

21 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I am disheartened by the reaction on Stereophile, particularly Mr. Atkinson, as to Archimago and his pseudonym. I feel his reaction here, is one thing and then on Stereophile's site, it is another. 

 

I understand Archimago's reasoning about using the pseudonym. This is also a passion/hobby for him not his sole means of support. It seems since they cannot deflect, damage, or deny the science and thought behind the article, they deflect and go after the author. This is telling.

 

Dalethorn is also there throwing shade.

I like to think of the paper rags as the compact disc of audio journalism, dying a slow death.  Digital content is eating physical content's breakfast, lunch, and dinner, including magazines.

 

They are really looking desperate for their (BS) viewpoint to carry the day.

[james45974]

38 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I still find them, somewhat valuable. I mean testing of equipment is valuable and a way to narrow to products of interest. But, the MQA fiasco really has cased me to pause and that is due to the idea that if they push an obvious nonsense here, what else are they doing it with?

I would imagine that the print versions appeal to a increasingly limited demographic.  I myself gave up my subscriptions to Stereophile and TAS about 5 years ago, I found I really didn't need them anymore, they have become superfluous.

 

I know investigative journalism isn't their forte but on MQA I feel that they are doing a disservice to consumers.  I guess their true colors are showing. 

[james45974]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

New fallback argument on the secret MQA group: person X does not understand MQA.

Archimago does not understand MQA
AIX records does not understand MQA
and so on ....

I think the situation is that Archimago and AIX do understand MQA!

[james45974]

37 minutes ago, botrytis said:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06890.pdf

 

A rebuttal to the 'Psycho-Acoustic' argument that is used in the MQA arguments. Pretty interesting, if you are a math geek

can you translate for non math geeks?  

[james45974]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

Thanks for translating for us non-math geeks. Even better, you made it understandable. 

 

cheers!

Yes, thanks!  

 

Does this relate to deblurring as claimed by MQA?

[james45974]

11 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Manufacturers, except a few, are very agnostic. If they see something that a buyer wants, they will add it. I don't think it is anything more than that.

Yes, it is just a tick box.  I don't think you can see it as an implicit endorsement of MQA in any way.

 

I would be interested in the cancellation process, although I am sure it is behind the NDA.  If company X decides not to include MQA capability anymore what are the possible penalties.

[james45974]

32 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

I am concerned that we may just run John A. outta town if we continually post strong negatives about him and his magazine.  Consider that he is posting here and we should welcome his participation whereas R. Harley or any of his group of writers would never dare show up to debate any of these issues.  

Harley is a hack and I give some credit to John for his interaction but please, John is inviting the negatives on himself!  He is beginning to look a bit desperate!

[james45974]

4 hours ago, realhifi said:

Difference is that everyone and their brother knew who Sam Tellig really was. Not what I’d call a well kept secret. As far as I know it appears Mr. Archimago’s identity is a mystery. 

I never knew Sam Tellig was not his real name!

[james45974]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One other note about not engaging or not refuting data from an "anonymous" person, this is one of the first things Bob mentioned to me when he called. I'm not saying that Bob is setting JA's agenda or giving him talking points, but I just don't see why JA is sticking to that argument so hard. 

Chris, I personally believe that John is reacting as such because that is the way it has always been in the print media world.  The last few years we have had this thing called the World Wide Web where there is more and faster interaction than you ever had in the print world.  I think some of John's behavior is that it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks!

[james45974]

57 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I think this is very common. People who oversee or are part of an enterprise, whether it be MQA or Stereophile or whatever, have to stay focused on their main goal and not get distracted or drawn into situations where there is no upside for them.

Yes, but a no upside calculation for MQA or Stereophile is not necessarily neutral, there could be a downside, like to your reputation!

[james45974]

4 hours ago, astromo said:

It's very disappointing that Archimago's identity has been used to detract from the effort he has made.

I don't think JA has a clue about how to respond, thus the try at misdirection.

 

JA, eyes forward, FOCUS!  The subject is MQA!

 

Unfortunately for JA the patriarchal world of the print magazine is fast becoming a thing of the past.  Consumers don't have to be satisfied with the magazines product selection and editorial opinion, there are many more options.  Take a look at the number of information outlets on Daily Audiophile.  With the traditional limitations inherit in print media they are in a no win situation compared to the speed and flexibility of the internet.  We are now in a world where interested consumers and hobbyists such as Archimago and Mansr have access to platforms that rival and surpass that of traditional print media.  And I find their work good for the industry, whether they use a pseudonym or not!  Hearing from those that have been personally testing MQA, such as Miguelito, is also of good value.  Keep it up!  You are doing much more in regards to MQA than the old pint boys!  JA, please try to get with the program!

 

Thanks Chris also for providing the forum for this discussion!

[james45974]

14 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

When I wrote my first article about MQA on www.SoundStageHiFi.com, back in April 2016, I brought this up. It was obvious to me looking at their compression and supposed "deblurring" that they were independent things. Obviously, you can have one and not the other. As with Chris Connaker, Bob Stuart wanted to talk to me on the phone before the article went public, with the obvious intention that I would back off publishing it (which I didn't). I brought this part up to Bob during that call and he told me that they weren't interested in selling software tools (i.e., their supposed deblurring as plug-in or something).

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

IMO, I had not really heard or paid attention to Bob Stuart before MQA, but hearing about the guy over the last few years of the MQA debate doesn't make me want to trust my musical enjoyment to him at all!

[james45974]

6 minutes ago, sullis02 said:

Did you ever buy any DVD-As?  Or a BluRay disc with Dolby TruHD? Or a Meridian DAC?   Then you've bought one of his products.  (Those first two feature Meridian's lossless compression method for audio data , MLP) 

I never got onto the DVD-A train.  I am not a movie or TV person so I don't have any BluRay videos.  I do have game systems so if Bob's technology is included there I guess I may have some.

[james45974]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

In my interviews with Bob Stuart, he has told me that the intention is that the analog signal output by the consumer's D/A converter is identical to that output by the mike preamps (in a purist recording) or the mixing console (in a conventional recording).  That the A/D conversion, transmission, storage and D/A conversion be transparent, other than there being an ultrasonic rolloff equivalent to a signal path of a few feet in air. This has been written about in the magazine.

Why when I read things like this does the word smug always come to mind?

 

It seems that those investigating this claim have shown that what reaches the consumer is an adulterated facsimile of the original!