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

[ChrisG]

On 3/4/2018 at 4:10 AM, FredericV said:

 

Yes it is:

 

and Bob's a member:

 

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

 

Not that I'm an MQA fan myself, but closed doesn't mean "secret". It just means that you have to apply to gain access as a member and answer a couple of questions before applying...that said, I suspect if we were to answer #2 honestly, we wouldn't be allowed to join! Still, feel free to apply - just type MQA in the search bar.

 

[ChrisG]

On 3/4/2018 at 5:29 AM, james45974 said:

So, an MQA Echo Chamber

 

Yep, absolutely.

I was added immediately after answering the two questions, so I don't know if true screening occurs or not.

From the looks of things, no one is questioning MQA at all or, if they have, the comments have been deleted. From the little bit I've read, it is one big happy kool-aid drinking party and the common thread is "it sounds great!". Nothing new to learn here which isn't surprising.

 

[crenca]

3 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

Hi,

 

Sometimes my comments can be off-the-wall, too! But in the case of MQA, the problem was that they stepped on some familiar turf to me -- just like they probably did with you. I worked in various aspects of IT from 1985 to 1998, before SoundStage! became full-time. Your must work  in a technical capacity, too.

 

As you know, you can't just put out blanket b.s. to technical people without something to back it up. If you claim something does something, then it better do it or your claim means nothing.  The folks at MQA haven't done a damn thing to prove any of their claims -- except put on ridiculous listening sessions that bamboozles certain type of people. They were also trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with their own definition of "lossless," for example, which a number in the press bought into. I believe the word lossless is exclusively an IT term and we all know what it means. Them trying to hijack the word and tack on their own definition was simply b.s. and cost them credibility -- among other things they claims.

 

Insofar as this whole thing goes, however, you and Mansr have done the best technical work on it. Your findings, coupled with what Bruno Putzeys wrote on Facebook in November, not only had everyone suddenly stand up and take notice -- it's left their supporters on shaky ground and right now doubting themselves. Charles Hansen must also be credited for being so damn persistent on this and taking people to task, even if it cost some friendships. He, too, knew what was right. So keep up the good work and keep even more stuff coming!

 

Doug

SoundStage!

 

This is something we have discussed here at CA.  Even in a highly subjectivised Audiophiledom, MQA was a bridge too far.  It is a hobby/industry after all that is just about consumer electronics, and as such based on known engineering principles, "physics", etc.  MQA is even something else, in that at the end of the day it (as well as PCM, DSD, etc.) is mere software, which is just math.

 

Audiophiledom, at least as promoted by much of "the industry" and certainly the majority of the trade publications (Stereophile and TAS being the big two, at least here in America) is a subjectivised confidence game.  They don't exist to sell the consumer their technical competence (they don't have any of that - JA measurements and the like being the exception that proves the rule) but rather their authority.  This confidence game, as any other, relies on a healthy measure of truth being mixed in with the con.  MQA simply does not have the substance to sustain this even in Audiophiledom.

 

I have a friend who just retired from the military, who was an officer and I will just say he worked in IT/communications.  I have discussed things audiophile with him for the last few years, but he has no interest and never paid that much attention.  Last night I mentioned Nyquist–Shannon and his ears perked up.  "What do you know about that?" he asked.  I summarized MQA's claims and the debate around it for him.  He chuckled (literally "out loud" as the kids say) at the notion that Stuart had discovered something essential about it.  I said "yea, would that not be worth millions in to the military industrial complex alone?"  He replied "billions", that billions had already been spent and that this area, it is nothing less than critical and that any real development would be classified, etc.

 

 

[crenca]

5 hours ago, Oystein said:

After reading this great article and much in dept technical details I found a similar conclusion on 6moons which also describes a way how to do without the MQA encoding and avoid their filter

 

It is published in the Keep it Honest chapter in cooperation with John Darko.

 

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...

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

Hi,

 

Sometimes my comments can be off-the-wall, too! But in the case of MQA, the problem was that they stepped on some familiar turf to me -- just like they probably did with you. I worked in various aspects of IT from 1985 to 1998, before SoundStage! became full-time. Your must work  in a technical capacity, too.

 

And it's important that we can all see that of ourselves sometimes! As passionate and obsessive audiophiles, we might say things that in other contexts could be seen as irrelevant or worse even off-the-wall. However, speaking for myself at least, I hope never to lose insight and be so "out in left field" as to be seen as insane .

 

Indeed, technically minded folks who have experience in IT and have at least a sense of how computer technology works would instinctively scratch their heads with these claims.

 

4 hours ago, Doug Schneider said:

...

Insofar as this whole thing goes, however, you and Mansr have done the best technical work on it. Your findings, coupled with what Bruno Putzeys wrote on Facebook in November, not only had everyone suddenly stand up and take notice -- it's left their supporters on shaky ground and right now doubting themselves. Charles Hansen must also be credited for being so damn persistent on this and taking people to task, even if it cost some friendships. He, too, knew what was right. So keep up the good work and keep even more stuff coming!

 

Doug

SoundStage!

 

I certainly thought of Charles Hansen (RIP) and his outspoken dislike of MQA when writing the article and in discussions with the collaborators. I'm sure if I ran this article by him before publication, he would have had a thing or two to add...

 

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, FredericV said:

This screenshot shows the average technical knowledge level inside the secret MQA group:

"Archimago is quite good, but he really does not understand how MQA works."

 

-> please buy a mirror

This guy does not even understand the basics of sampling.

 

The same clueless members continue to claim the MQA train cannot be stopped. This is a very recent screenshot.

Our CA frontpage article was also deleted from the group.

I don't have a membership in the group, so they now must find their mole ....

 

and yes this internationalTV format was invented by our Belgian national television

 

"The mole" LOL .

 

I think it's interesting that they prefer to see the "name recognition" as a good thing. Any news is good news? Not sure I agree that it works like that in the public eye.

 

We'll have to see what the "mainstream" audiophile magazines and blogs have to say about this - if anything. What would be most interesting to me is if they can mount a relevant debate about *why* technically they feel MQA is still worth defending... Beyond name calling, appealing to authority, attacks on anonymity, "just listen", "your equipment isn't good enough", "you don't have golden ears", "I don't care, I just enjoy" statements.

[Doug Schneider]

29 minutes ago, Archimago said:

I certainly thought of Charles Hansen (RIP) and his outspoken dislike of MQA when writing the article and in discussions with the collaborators. I'm sure if I ran this article by him before publication, he would have had a thing or two to add...

 

 

I talked a lot on the phone to Charles last year and knew all his thinking on this (at least what he gave to me -- which was hours and hours of it). He felt that there was really nothing new about any of it, that it was a mix of questionable ideas, that it was being completely misrepresented by its creators, that certain people promoting it were corrupt and flat-out bought off, while others were simply naive and uninformed and in no position to make the judgments that they were making. You left all the latter of your article, so he might've wanted you to add all that. As for the technical side, I'm sure he would've been happy with all the points you made.

 

BTW, Charles was an interesting guy. Some of his ideas were, in his own words, "way out there." As in way out there. But when you look at the engineering behind his products, it was often different, but there was never anything ridiculous or ill-informed happening. He made certain choices in his designs -- whether others believed them to be correct or not -- and followed through with those ideas.

Doug

[Archimago]

22 minutes ago, Doug Schneider said:

 

I talked a lot on the phone to Charles last year and knew all his thinking on this (at least what he gave to me -- which was hours and hours of it). He felt that there was really nothing new about any of it, that it was a mix of questionable ideas, that it was being completely misrepresented by its creators, that certain people promoting it were corrupt and flat-out bought off, while others were simply naive and uninformed and in no position to make the judgments that they were making. You left all the latter of your article, so he might've wanted you to add all that. As for the technical side, I'm sure he would've been happy with all the points you made.

...

 

Yeah, I'm sure Charles would not have minced his words... 

[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. 

 

 

[SeeHear]

22 hours ago, miguelito said:

Possibly... But I have listened to a lot of MQA (see my signature for my system, and it is very carefully set up) and I can tell you some is good, some the same. It is not a panacea or anything of the sort espoused by the audiophile press. Come listen if you like, I live in Chelsea, NYC.

Hey, Miguelito! I'm in Chelsea nearly every weekend.  I'd like to come by and do some MQA comparisons on your system with you.

[Pete-FIN]

On 4.3.2018 at 3:53 PM, Pete-FIN said:

Are there any MQA enabled devices that can change DAC-filter while listening MQA ?

 

Has anyone seen or heard of a device that can do this ?

 

If there is at least a single device that can do this, then we know for sure that it is not forbidden by Meridian (like I pondered earlier).

 

Because of Meridians "hear it the way the artist intended" nonsense, I think it might be forbidden. Or, like firedog said, maybe it is just so difficult, that it hasn't been implemented as a feature in any device.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Pete-FIN said:

 

If there is at least a single device that can do this, then we know for sure that it is not forbidden by Meridian (like I pondered earlier).

 

 

I would not go that far.  Indeed, if there is such a device my first guess that it is an accident - an implementation mistake...

[Doug Schneider]

1 hour ago, Pete-FIN said:

 

Has anyone seen or heard of a device that can do this ?

 

I thought the Mytek ones could...

 

Doug
SoundStage!

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Doug Schneider said:

I thought the Mytek ones could...

Mytek can disable MQA decoding entirely, which unlocks the usual set of filters. With MQA decoding enabled, even non-MQA content is processed with an MQA filter.

[Kal Rubinson]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

Mytek can disable MQA decoding entirely, which unlocks the usual set of filters. With MQA decoding enabled, even non-MQA content is processed with an MQA filter.

Yes and making that change is simple but involves 2-3 steps and does not allow direct A/B comparison.  OTOH, those of us with multiple Myteks can make such a comparison. 

[realhifi]

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

"The mole" LOL .

 

I think it's interesting that they prefer to see the "name recognition" as a good thing. Any news is good news? Not sure I agree that it works like that in the public eye.

 

We'll have to see what the "mainstream" audiophile magazines and blogs have to say about this - if anything. What would be most interesting to me is if they can mount a relevant debate about *why* technically they feel MQA is still worth defending... Beyond name calling, appealing to authority, attacks on anonymity, "just listen", "your equipment isn't good enough", "you don't have golden ears", "I don't care, I just enjoy" statements.

I can’t imagine they would respond to an anonymous “article” on the web. 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, realhifi said:

I can’t imagine they would respond to an anonymous “article” on the web. 

 

Well let’s see Kal Rubinson and John Atkinson have posted on this thread. And John has posted in the discussion about this article on Audio Asylum. Jason Victor Serinus, Herb Reichert and Jim Austin aren’t technically knowledgeable enough to comment. That about covers the Stereophile part of the mainstream press. As for The Absolute Sound who is knowledgeable enough to comment? Using a slightly louder different master is called “How to Fool John Darko”. Michael Lavorgna can’t respond because he was banned. 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Pete-FIN said:

 

Has anyone seen or heard of a device that can do this ?

 

If there is at least a single device that can do this, then we know for sure that it is not forbidden by Meridian (like I pondered earlier).

 

Because of Meridians "hear it the way the artist intended" nonsense, I think it might be forbidden. Or, like firedog said, maybe it is just so difficult, that it hasn't been implemented as a feature in any device.

Didn't I read that dCS units can?

[Ralf11]

[realhifi]

8 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Well let’s see Kal Rubinson and John Atkinson have posted on this thread. And John has posted in the discussion about this article on Audio Asylum. Jason Victor Serinus, Herb Reichert and Jim Austin aren’t technically knowledgeable enough to comment. That about covers the Stereophile part of the mainstream press. As for The Absolute Sound who is knowledgeable enough to comment? Using a slightly louder different master is called “How to Fool John Darko”. Michael Lavorgna can’t respond because he was banned. 

I’m sorry, I thought they meant writing a response somewhere that would be read by a bigger audience. 

[miguelito]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

Mytek can disable MQA decoding entirely, which unlocks the usual set of filters. With MQA decoding enabled, even non-MQA content is processed with an MQA filter.

Ok that's pretty lame.

[botrytis]

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.

[mansr]

14 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 def left and go after the author. This is telling.

It's also a well-known logical fallacy.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's also a well-known logical fallacy.

 

This is what is going on now. Has Mark Waldrep seen or reacted to this article.? I think he would have some very salient points to contribute.

[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.