MQA Shill Steve Stone Provides a Good Laugh For a Friday...

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Ajax said:

The MQA process is a business that hopes to dominate streaming music by promising the removal of "time smearing" and other digital artifacts for a very limited catalog (maybe 2500 high-resolution titles) for individuals sitting in the "sweet spot" for those with great hearing who happen to own state-of-the-art systems. How is that a real business proposition?"

 

It's not, and was never the real business proposition.  The real business proposition always began and ended with DRM...

[crenca]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

This thread provides an opportunity to comment further on an aspect of the vexed relationship between audio publications and their constituents in online communities...

 

Andrew Quint

 

Senior Writer

 

The Absolute Sound

 

 

 

Mr. Quint,

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective.  I won't rehash what @firedogand others have mentioned.  I want to address your belief that we here in the online forums or any other kind of readers of your magazine are your constituents, the place you have in a culture and an industry of consumer Audiophiledom, and how this lead you to believe in a conspiracy of ad hominem.  

 

What MQA has revealed like perhaps nothing before it is that the culture and relationships you as a writer and reviewer have is anti-consumer.  Your readers (whether they are CA members or not) are not your "constituents", we are the product that you sell.  You do a good job of describing a "well establish protocol", and you do so without the slightest realization that it is this very protocol and relationship that is the result of culture - a  system of relationships -  that is not in the best interests of consumers.  Consumer Reports for example famously does not accept "loaners" or anything else that establishes a problematic relationship with the manufacturer or "an industry".  MQA has shown us that the "established magazines" relationship with their actual readers is irreparably broken.  You are incapable of seeing something like MQA (which, granted, is not just an audio product among audio products) from our perspective.  Instead of attempting to do so, you complain that there is something wrong with our perspective as revealed by your willingness to label it "unthoughtful" and "noxious".  And your right!  We do not have the same relationship with the industry as you do - our interests do not automatically align with its, as our interests can sometimes be opposed to what the industry wants (e.g. MQA, DRM, streaming, etc.).

 

Let us get one thing clear:  

 

You, Mr. Quint, are an industry shill.

 

This might not be your fault!  You might have personally always been an actual audio "enthusiast" and because of your skills and training you were hired into "the industry".  You might personally not see your position as in any way in conflict with your personal enthusiasm or other hobbyists.  You might honestly just think your just one of the boys, you just happen to work and write at TAS.  All this does not matter, because at the end of the day systems are more important and influential than individuals.   I own a medical practice.  I expect those to whom we provide health services to to pay for the privilege of the service. There is a certain demographic of the population who think healthcare is a "right" and should be "free" or at least wholly state funded.  To these folks I am shill and "an insider" of the status quo.  They are right!  My question to you is why are you not aware of your actual position vis-a-vis the industry and audiophiles?  Why do you suffer from the delusion that you are just another audiophile and that your publications interests align with ours?

 

Finally, I am confident that your attempt to bait Chris Connaker will fail.  You are correct in that he has feet in both camps, as it were.  On the one hand he does play by the "protocol" you describe and has to because it is the rules by which the culture currently operates.  However, Chris is wiser than you in that he sees the lay of the land as it currently is and direction the culture is moving towards.  He sees the real "cons" as well as the "pros" to this protocol.  He sees the shifting demographics within Audiophiledom, and understands that the internet is a disruptive force in that consumers now have a kind of "consumer reports" - an alternative source of information that is not an automatic mouthpiece for the status quo of the industry.  He has decided to be part of the future and if that means pissing a few of the "old guard" off than so be it.

 

IF you are really interested in changing the "vexed" relationship between the establishment publications and readers, well you have much work to do my friend.  The first step is taking a hard look at your own limited and short-sighted understanding of your own role and the system that informs you how to think about this relationship...

[crenca]

29 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

 

You dug yourself into a hole and now you are throwing dirt at the competition that was a bit more cautious.

 

Classy.

 

 

 

This is what his post is really about.  He is publicly scolding Chris Connaker for not towing the industry line.

 

Is there anyone who STILL thinks that TAS, Stereophile, etc. have any understanding of their actual readers at all?!?

[crenca]

47 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Given the sort of threat MQA poses, how it sounds is of little importance.

 

This aside from the fact that it can't sound better than the original master. And even if its trickery did make it sound consistently better to a significant population, the same sort of trickery could be applied to any other format, obviating the need for a closed format like MQA.

 

 

This is something I have noticed from a certain kind of Audiophile such as @Norton, they can not separate the technique from the package.  @Nortonand those like him think they are listening to something called "MQA" that is a kind of "greater than the sum of its parts" and of course MQA marketing encourages this impression.  What they actually listening to is a master (which is sometimes differently sourced than the "equivalent" 16/44 or Hi Res) and and a lossy algorithmic folding/filtering package.  

 

The fact that all this is a collection of known art and tom fooler escapes them - they can't see past the glitter on the package...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Norton said:

 But the explanation is much simpler - I enjoy MQA simply because, to my ears, it provides a satisfyingly  accurate reproduction of live orchestral music.    As an audiophile, that's my #1 consideration.  

 

Simplistically, MQA is not the reason for your enjoyment - not the package.  You like certain masters played with certain filtering and flat (not DSP, etc.).  MQA the package is not needed.  Not only that, the package contains elements such as DRM, "end to end", etc. that is either directly harmful or fraudulent.

 

When a consumer oriented Audiophile points this out, you say it is all over done, going as far as to accuse us of "soviet" level propaganda.  Such a thing is ridiculous and points to something strange about Audiophiledom and the "thinking" it engenders...

[crenca]

53 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

My comment was addressed to you alone.  AFAIK, only the Queen and Gollum use "us" as the first person singular.  I'll be kind and disregard the latter, which must mean you consider yourself audiophile royalty.

 

Look, you can single me out and kick and scream all you want, I'm a big boy 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

I wonder if CA now comes up in organic google searches on the first page when the search criteria is 'mqa'.

 

First hit for me was #14, Archimago's review.  Linn's take was number 4 however...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Repulsive? Save it. What IS repulsive is fake journalism, shameless shilling, allowing charlatans to rise

to prominence, allowing fake technologies to grab the spot light

 

Don't like these threads? Simple solution..you know where the door is, and don't let it smack you

in the behind.

 

 

I think what he meant is that we are "not a good look".  I have always known that I am not the prettiest bearded lady around, but jeez, does he have to be so judgemental?  You know @emcdade, fat and ugly shaming is not really "in" right now...

 

[crenca]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 In my view, Chris Connaker has a problem on his hands— if MQA, the business, has some significantly positive commercial news to reveal shortly, as Chris implies, it's only going to get worse.

 

 

You got it exactly backwards, to the extent that mqa has any success in marketing is to the extent that the consumer rejection of mqa drives traffic to this site.

 

The rest of your finger wagging post is not even worth addressing...

[crenca]

3 hours ago, wdw said:

 

As always, ROON is completely cool for this new update.

 

Best

 

I give this update a thumbs down.  MQA is the "default" version behind which the real 16/44 is a drill down.  This means a minimum of two extra clicks.  It's easier to select the lossless version in the Tidal desktop app now 

[crenca]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

...Not sure why it is a big deal other than that you are very annoyed by anything MQA. Don't add MQA versions to your library and you won't have them appearing as the default.

 

It's extra clicks, a step back in UI elegance and usefulness.  I was wrong, it's a minimum of 3 extra clicks.  If the "AAC" version or any other besides what I pay Tidal to deliver was automagically the default in Roon's eyes it would be the same, but your correct in the MQA is a special annoyance .  I never added MQA versions to my library but there they are, because of the default "sorting" decision of Roon to privilege a lossy voodoo codec like MQA over REAL PCM.  Sure, I can fix all this but how many clicks is that???   I did not pay Roon for JRiver complexity!!

 

Heck, the Tidal desktop app is now the rival of Roon as far as browsing goes now....

 

edit:  I will have to give it a bit more time and thought, but I think I will be probably be downgrading Roon from an almost unreserved recommend to a neutral.  Roon's strength is it's strong UI experience.  I like the ease of it's DSP, but the fact is it's functionality is nothing I don't already do with JRiver and plugins.  Factor in the cost of Roon, and it is a bit less compelling than it was the day before yesterday...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, ChrisG said:

Nope, MQA still shows up as default when you view titles on Tidal. I've asked for them to give us the option of Redbook or MQA as default on the Roon forum, so if you'd like the same, please like my post

 

Done

[crenca]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

I still don’t understand the big gripe. I just added 24\192 MQA files to my library. The non-MQA 24\192 version still shows up as the primary when I group the versions. In another case, I looked for a CSN album that I have in high res and CD. I have the CD defined as primary. In a search for that album, Roon now shows the CD as the primary, both before and after grouping. To me, Roon is behaving exactly as it did before, except that it now it recognizes MQA versions.

 

In both of those cases you have a local file, and you are right the local file is sorted "primary" by default.  

 

I am talking about how Roon handles Tidal versions.  This is a primary use case for me, Roon+Tidal+artist/album browsing.  When I play my local files I am as likely to use JRiver as Roon, but yes Roon appears to sort your local file first (i.e. primary).  With my many (many many) Tidal bookmarks, it is sorting the MQA version first (if there is one) - I have to drill down to get to the PCM version.  Also, if I hear of an new artist, or an album from a familiar artist and I want to here it through Tidal, if there is a MQA version that is the version that comes up and you have to drill down to get to PCM version...

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

 

BTW, you can create focus groups based on “format” and exclude MQA files if that helps. Then bookmark the focus group that doesn’t include them. 

 

Can I create a focus group that includes ALL of Tidal so that no matter how I browse Tidal in Roon, say I type in an artist search, or perhaps I click "Tidal", then "genres", then "Jazz", such that MQA is excluded?

 

You would think Brian and the other's currently vigorously answering questions on the Roon forum (you have to give them credit for that) would have mentioned something like that already.

[crenca]

To change the direction of the conversation, check this post out from Roon's Chief Tech Officer:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/how-to-enable-passthrough-without-mqa-decoding/42335/9

 

To me, this is evidence that MQA is entirely too complicated for even geek/audiophiles to likely get "right" (an end user has to work hard to get the right "mental model"  ), and reveals to us how MQA does not really have a future.

[crenca]

Here is another from the "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." file:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/roon-1-5-feedback-thread/42326/145

[crenca]

1 minute ago, JoeWhip said:

Gee, how do you turn MQA entirely off so MQA can’t fuss with the data steam? Not a roon user but find the roon labs explanations very confusing.

 

Well, that is because you don't have the correct "mental model"...LOL! 

 

To turn of decode entirely (so that Roon won't make a decision itself as to how to handle MQA based on its sensing of your equipment) you go to Settings, Audio, choose your current DAC/device in list, click on gear icon to bring up device setup, click on the small print "SHOW ADVANCED" at the bottom of the dialog, scroll down, and change "Enable MQA Core Decoder" from default "yes" to "no".

 

Oh, and work your mental model while your at it...

[crenca]

Firedog,

 

According to many MQA is "just a choice" and no threat to PCM/DSD, non lossy real "HiRes", but here we have Roon privileging MQA, all supposedly (they say - you repeat) that it is what "most" users want.  "Most" users want to replace 16/44 with MQA?  Are you sure?  Perhaps so, by default in that "most" don't know better.

 

How long before it is no longer a complicated choice for "special" users - the PCM is just gone?

 

Turns out consumer choice is just lip, the idea is to herd us into a certain direction.

 

 

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

BTW, does Tidal even have hi-res content that is *not* MQA?

 

Yes, 16/44 PCM....

 

No, MQA is *not* "HiRes" in the first place (HiRes is yet another term they re-redefine)

 

No, Tidal does not contain any real "HiRes" content of any kind (defined as 24/88.2 or >)

 

 

[crenca]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

 

 

 

Roon, unlike others, gives you the ability to totally turn off MQA. Maybe it’s hard for you to understand, but most users simply want their software to play back whatever formats are there, including MQA. That’s all Roon is doing. 

 Turn MQA off - I assume you mean to turn off decoder and not "hide" MQA albums.

 

Look, I have no reason to defend Roon.  You appear to be grasping for an argument with statements like "Before this it was actually “discriminating” against MQA as it were by not letting us see or use the MQA files from within Roon."  I think they are "privileging" MQA by making it the default version of the album you see in Tidal (if the album has a MQA version).  No, I don't agree with you that it is a mere default, innocent, non-controversial decision.  MQA is controversial, so of course their decision to make MQA the default album in Tidal is controversial.  I don't subscribe to Tidal (or Roon) for MQA, rather 16/44.  

 

I like Roon obviously, and they do many things right.  This is not one of them.  

[crenca]

49 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Roon support has said several times on their forum that highest resolution is the default, not MQA. Including SPECFICALLY to you. To the best of my knowledge Tidal doesn’t have any music other than MQA that is higher resolution than 16/44 so MQA is the default. However, if you had in your own collection of music an MQA album that was 24/96 and a non MQA version of the same album that was 24/192, the non MQA version would be the default. Highest resolution as the default has been that way ever since I started using Roon. 

 

I'm talking about Tidal - when an end user does not have a local file that is high resolution and/or primary.

 

The highest resolution available on Tidal is 16/44, not the lossy mess that claims to be 38/974 (i.e. the "blue light").  See how Roon rather intentionally or unintentionally (does not matter) is privileging MQA?

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

If Qubuz gets established in the US with 24 bit PCM and Roon doesn't make us pay MQA licensing fees, it will hardly matter if iPhone users are happy with their blue lights.

 

As I understand it (could be wrong) Roon has no partnership with Qubuz or any other streamer though they have tried - these companies have proven uninterested in working with them. 

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, mav52 said:

I guess it makes one wonder, if Tidal one day fails,   does Roon fail as well if Tidal is Roons only streaming music file provider.

 

I guess not.  My sense is that they have a core group of users for whom Tidal is a "bonus" - they are more interested in their local collection and its management.

[crenca]

47 minutes ago, mav52 said:

You mean like non tidal users using Roon for their management of their music files on a NAS or a hard drive.

 

Yep, just like beetlemania says:

 

"I would use Roon regardless of streaming. It's an awesome interface with unmatched ability to your explore your collection and learn just about everything there is to know about your favorite artists"

 

After the initial "wow" factor wore off (took about 6 months for me), I realized Roon's metadata is hit or miss.  Sometimes, it says much about "our favorite artists", sometimes only a little or nothing at all.  Granted there is nothing else even doing this besides the streaming services interfaces.  It's DSP is really nicely organized, but again with just a little effort you can do everything in JRiver just as well.  Even without Roon's missteps with Tidal+MQA I would not give it an unreserved recommend like I used to.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

From what I understand, and anyone who wants to correct me, feel free, they wanted BS to invest in the development of Roon, and in his infinite wisdom he declined, seeing no future in software. This is in keeping with his record of disastrous business decisions.

 

Look what he did next, come out with a major software play!  

 

It is very likely he was well into MQA by they time of their asking...