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

[Doug Schneider]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

I obviously meant to say that few have the knowledge or that most lack it. 

 

I was wondering about that. But your point about them not needed it or caring about the distribution is what mattered most.

Doug

[Archimago]

37 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

...

The problem in this instance is that the audio writers and pros who "fell" for that simple marketing tactic did so without questioning it, when they really should've had the chops to at least question it. They're not general consumers -- they are supposed to be above that.

 

...

 

Exactly why this chapter involving the romance between MQA and the audiophile press is so problematic. It is reflective of the immaturity and the naïveté IMO of many of those running the show as "journalists".

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

When personalities become so important, we naturally also see the converse. This is demonstrated by the argument Stereophile (Atkinson) raises about this article being written by someone using a pseudonym.

 

With respect, yes, this is a core belief of mine, and has been since I worked in a research lab at the end of the 1960s. You have something relevant o say, hang it on the peg of your actual name. Just as I have done all my life - and even Doug Schneider has done! Until then, while I have read your article, and certainly have opinions on what you have written, I shall keep my thoughts to myself.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[Ralf11]

YES, like Sam Tellig did

[Doug Schneider]

10 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Just as I have done all my life - and even Doug Schneider has done! Until then, while I have read your article, and certainly have opinions on what you have written, I shall keep my thoughts to myself.

Personally, I wish Archiamago would use his real name -- I do. But for me, that didn't take anything away from the message in it. In the same way, I read through Stereophile for years and had no idea that Sam Tellig wasn't his real name. When I learned that his name was Tom Gillett or something, I still didn't understand. However, I heard he was involved in advertising or subscription sales or something -- that surprised me. But that still didn't take away from the content of his column, at least for me. What he wrote seemed credible. On the other hand, I'd still like to know the rationale for that one. Is there one?

 

That said, if Archiamago wrote up a load of B.S., it would be problematic. But in this column, and in other things he's written, I haven't found anyone who's been able to poke holes. Plus, he has his archimago.blogspot.com, which lends credibility that he's a real person.

 

Doug

[crenca]

7 hours ago, adamdea said:

I agree with all of this, but in the hope that this sad affair has opened a chink of rationality into commercially oriented personality disorder that is audiophilia:-

once one has grasped that MQA is not based on any solid new science, idoes not have solutions to concrete problems,  then  one really ought to ask why it is that one can basically say what one likes about the sound of these files- they sound great, it's a whole new world, -they sound terrible, my ears are bleeding, they have silky highs but at the expense of thematic solidity.... whatever.

The uncomfortable truth is that the industry needs new products more than the ear needs higher resolution. 

 

a chink of rationality into commercially oriented personality disorder that is audiophilia:-

 

Nicely stated.

[crenca]

46 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

With respect, yes, this is a core belief of mine, and has been since I worked in a research lab at the end of the 1960s. You have something relevant o say, hang it on the peg of your actual name. Just as I have done all my life - and even Doug Schneider has done! Until then, while I have read your article, and certainly have opinions on what you have written, I shall keep my thoughts to myself.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I wonder if the thing that it really comes down to is that a pseudonym is so counterintuitive in the confidence game you are a part of.  You can't wrap your head around that, and no matter what you will leverage it in your efforts to recover credibility.  If I were you, I would be explicitly asking/implying that whoever Archimago is, he is the one who is gaming your pyramid...

[wdw]

57 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Snippet..........Until then, while I have read your article, and certainly have opinions on what you have written, I shall keep my thoughts to myself.....snippet

 

Hello John,

As someone who has followed your career, sought out and enjoyed your many reviews and articles, subscribing to the beautifully produced HiFi News and Record Review when it required International Post to send out here to Vancouver, BC, (seems like another universe ago!!!) then into your term with  Sterephile , I am baffled why you want to diminish some of this well earned stature by refusing to engage in discussion of this article by making ad hominem reference to his anominity.  

It is the issue that bears discussion not his identity.  Your career is by its nature purely public but many may wish for some boundary between the local and global.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

With respect, yes, this is a core belief of mine, and has been since I worked in a research lab at the end of the 1960s. You have something relevant o say, hang it on the peg of your actual name. Just as I have done all my life - and even Doug Schneider has done! Until then, while I have read your article, and certainly have opinions on what you have written, I shall keep my thoughts to myself.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

This is not the late 1960s nor a research lab. Almost 4 billion people are online these days - that is the "sandbox" in which we're having this discussion. Even if these were the old days and I sent in a Letter to the Editor at Stereophile, would it matter if I signed "Tom Jones of Vancouver", "Tom Jones of Kansas City", or "Tom Jones of Mexico City"?

 

People know from my blog that I live in Vancouver, have some gear in my basement, post about what I use, have a wife and kids, and are aware of my philosophical leanings as it pertains to audio (probably in greater detail than most of your staff). Many have PM'ed me here, know I don't work in the audio industry, and for 5 years, I've had discussions openly on the blog. Isn't that as "real" as it gets online?

 

What we "exchange" here in forums isn't "relationship" as in getting to know the "real person". Of course that can happen over time privately. This article is about MQA, how it was engineered and what it does. If you have opinions and ideas, why not freely share them in the forum as everyone else here does? What else do you "need" to know about me that somehow allows you to interpret the article any differently?

 

52 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I wonder if the thing that it really comes down to is that a pseudonym is so counterintuitive in the confidence game you are a part of.  You can't wrap your head around that, and no matter what you will leverage it in your efforts to recover credibility.  If I were you, I would be explicitly asking/implying that whoever Archimago is, he is the one who is gaming your pyramid...

 

 

Yes. That is in fact the point. Just like the previous comments about the "cult of personalities" and why I think Bob Stuart should not have become such an entrenched spokesperson for MQA. Whether MQA as a technology is any good does not lie in the personhood of Bob Stuart (which is why I said I don't care whether he is "nefarious" or not).

 

It's certainly not lost on anyone that likely one of the reasons why much of the audiophile press has been so blind to the deficits of MQA is precisely because of their relationship to Bob Stuart, "the man".

 

Can the press as a whole now gracefully "play ball" and keep their eyes on the objective as independent journalists and evaluate the technology called MQA?

[rickca]

8 minutes ago, Archimago said:

why not freely share them in the forum

Because it doesn't generate clicks for Stereophile.  

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Archimago said:

This is not the late 1960s nor a research lab. Almost 4 billion people are online these days - that is the "sandbox" in which we're having this discussion...

 

Yes. That is in fact the point. Just like the previous comments about the "cult of personalities" and why I think Bob Stuart should not have become such an entrenched spokesperson for MQA. Whether MQA as a technology is any good does not lie in the personhood of Bob Stuart (which is why I said I don't care whether he is "nefarious" or not).

 

It's certainly not lost on anyone that likely one of the reasons why much of the audiophile press has been so blind to the deficits of MQA is precisely because of their relationship to Bob Stuart, "the man".

 

Can the press as a whole now gracefully "play ball" and keep their eyes on the objective as independent journalists and evaluate the technology called MQA?

 

No, because they don't have it in them.  "playing the ball" is not in any way what they do, they always (always always always) play the man.  It is how "audiophiledom" was built - "We built this city on rock and roll sub-ject-ivi-sm"  (the subject, the man)

 

The sandbox is just a world they dabble in from the perspective of maintaining confidence, they have no idea what else to do with it.  

 

Do they matter?  For me, and the ever increasing numbers of "The Audiophile Consumer and Technical Union" no.  However, they still sell a significant amount of transducers and electronics and copper and silver strands at 5 figure prices so they have a market to protect. It does not matter if this market is shrinking, as prices are keeping up so it is stable for now.  They even tell themselves that they are making significant inroads with the Union members who mostly pack the Headphone tent....

 

So, like Arsene Wenger they are a dead man walking - but like Arsene Wenger they are surrounded by a club culture that reinforces them...

[crenca]

@Archimago, remember also the business side:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?page=317&tab=comments#comment-794264

 

Readers (i.e. "audiophiles") are the product sold to advertisers and that is how JA makes his living.  If you see a real response from JA and these trade publications, it will not be because of "the forums" or consumer pushback, at least not directly.  It will be beacause JA's customers (i.e. the advertising manufacturers) demand that the subjectivist ship be righted.  They will have to realize that they allowed Bob S to come into the confidence game and reveal a little too much - he overplayed and the product (i.e. the readers) caught on.  That is bad for business.

 

[Archimago]

 

Love the writing and humor @crenca.

[Pete-FIN]

Well, Mr Atkinson, 'Mr. I have worked in a research lab', what is stopping you from repeating the experiments and trying to find out if you get the same findings? 

 

This is what scientists do! Scientists see if other peoples findings are real. Are you a real scientist, or are you a coward?

 

It is clear as a day, that only scientific findings are the ones to be debated. If a team of Chinese physicists make a new finding by some practical experiment, then I'm sure other physicists try to make the same finding regardless if they know the actual names of the Chinese scientists.

 

@John_Atkinsonare you a real scientist, or are you a coward?

[asdf1000]

11 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

Plus, he has his archimago.blogspot.com, which lends credibility that he's a real person.

 

Hi Doug - just my humble opinion, but to be honest it doesn't matter if he's not a real person and his article (and blogs) was written by a computer.

 

The technical points raised in Archi's article, regardless if it were written by a human or a computer or a centipede, should be treated as technical points. If there's a response / rebuttal, then a response should be to the technical points, not to whoever/whatever wrote the article.

 

 

[botrytis]

We have NEVER seen ANY data pertaining to MQA from the company itself.  When I mean data, I mean data like Archimago has shown or the testing of speakers in Stereophile. What MQA  shows are these stock presentations where the slides mean absolutely nothing because they were put together by marketing people. Listening to an MQA spiel, is like watching the Monty Python sketch where Graham Chapman stands in front of a poster that has numbers on pie chart but nothing about what it identifies.

 

 

[John_Atkinson]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

YES, like Sam Tellig did

 

You are correct in that Stereophile writer Tom Gillett wrote for the magazine using a pseudonym. This was agreed to in 1984 and was grandfathered in when I took over from J. Gordon Holt 2 years later. While I honored the agreement with Tom, it never sat well with me.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

[Pete-FIN]

Mr. Atkinson, I don't think keeping your thoughts to yourself is a good idea. Please do some proper science and journalism on MQA and let people know about your findings. Otherwise the integrity of your magazine is seriously questionable.

[adamdea]

9 hours ago, crenca said:

 

So, like Arsene Wenger they are a dead man walking - but like Arsene Wenger they are surrounded by a club culture that reinforces them...

I agree with everything you say, but I have to point out that Arsenal played well yesterday. 

[botrytis]

Mr. Aktinson,

 

    You seem to be under the delusion that people don't lie when using their own name, when that is not true. I mean all you need do is look at the Cold Fusion paper fiasco, etc. and those gentlemen used their names and still lied. You have to look at the data and can it be reproduced. 

      From my personal background as a scientist, I had one advisor that rested on his laurels for 20 years, while producing nonsense science. People threw money at him and nothing he produced, when I was with him, was quality or good data. In fact, I myself, debunked several of his papers. He didn't like being shown wrong, This seems to be the norm, rather than the rule, now a days and that is sad.

     It seems to me that MQA, is doing the same. None of the presentations, I have seen, show ANY data that shows what they say is a problem and how they are fixing it. The presentations are full of platitudes and fluff but nothing else. Also, the listening presentations, as you well know, can be rigged. The classic part is playing the same music piece twice, as that is a psychoacoustic affect, because the 2nd time you listen, your brain fills in the details missing. It seems, MQA is using that Psychoacoustic data and nothing else. 

     So, Mr. Atkinson, look at the data, not the name.

[adamdea]

12 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

With respect, yes, this is a core belief of mine, and has been since I worked in a research lab at the end of the 1960s. You have something relevant o say, hang it on the peg of your actual name. Just as I have done all my life - and even Doug Schneider has done! Until then, while I have read your article, and certainly have opinions on what you have written, I shall keep my thoughts to myself.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Which poses the the inevitable question: if or to the extent that you agree with his findings, why not say so? If or to the extent that you do not agree with his findings, why not say so?

Since the subject matter of Archimago's article is one which many people consider of cardinal importance, it could hardly be a service to your readers to keep you cards close to your chest, even if that means reporting findings on the same subject as someone with a pseudonym.

 

[realhifi]

13 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

I'm reminded about the "weapons of mass destruction" argument that the Bush government put forward in the early 2000s to justify the incursion into Iraq. At that time, there were many naysayers, but the mainstream media at the time fell in line, didn't question, and for the most part went along with it and fooled the public because of that. Years later, when this was all looked at, it was obvious the media of the time was as complicit as those telling the lies. I feel the same thing happened here -- those who should've known better should've asked more questions at the beginning.

 

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

Please tell me you’re not equating a run up to a war to an advertising campaign for a music format. A war in which millions of lives were affected, countries were torn apart and our own military forces lost not only members but squandered billions of dollars in the pursuit of those “weapons” which were never found. 

 

Shame on you. 

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, realhifi said:

 

Please tell me you’re not equating a run up to a war to an advertising campaign for a music format. A war in which millions of lives were affected, countries were torn apart and our own military forces lost not only members but squandered billions of dollars in the pursuit of those “weapons” which were never found. 

 

Shame on you. 

It might have been an unfortunate example but it is an example, none the less.

[realhifi]

50 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You are correct in that Stereophile writer Tom Gillett wrote for the magazine using a pseudonym. This was agreed to in 1984 and was grandfathered in when I took over from J. Gordon Holt 2 years later. While I honored the agreement with Tom, it never sat well with me.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

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. 

[realhifi]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

It might have been an unfortunate example but it is an example, none the less.

I believe I was directing that comment to Doug.